James Dean

It would be cool to have a FDR facebook group, we could all be friends on facebook and have sleepovers and eat popcorn and talk about boys!!!

I'm having trouble with this concept. I don't think that molestation or sexual abuse is "too much affection" the same way rape is not "too much sex." Sexual abuse of children does not arise from parents wanting to show affection to their kids but doing it too much/in a non-approved way. If a parent kisses a child on the lips, and the child expresses a negative preference for that action, just don't do it. Like if I hugged a friend and they said, "listen, I don't mean to be rude, but hugging makes me really uncomfortable." I wouldn't have "temporarily crossed into the realm of rape" because I gave unwanted affection, or touched them in a way that could be sexual, I just apologize and remember not to hug them; problem solved. Sexually molesting a child is not some excess of intimacy or affection, it does not arise from a misguided desire to be close with your child, it is a violent urge to dominate and humiliate a helpless and dependant human being. This is the way I see it. I was raised by a very affectionate father. He would always cuddle me and kiss me and make me feel safe and loved. It was one of the only things he got right as a parent. (well that and not circumcising me, woot woot for foreskin. ) I loved my dad so much I slept in the same bed with him until I was at least 11 or 12 because sleeping alone was, well, lonely! I had slept with him and my mother as a baby and toddler and it was just a nice way to be close and intimate. Is this the norm? no, I know it's not, but I needed a lot of affection as a kid because of my parent's divorce. I had a lot of anxiety around not being close with my parents and needed a lot of reassuring. Stef just recently made this point about Eliot Roger, and I think it's really important; you parent the child that you have, not the child you wish you had. Children are not some homogenous tabula rasa that are all the same and all have the same needs or emotional dispositions. Children are, like the adults they will become, individual people with individual personalities and while there are simple rules (don't kick the snot out of them is a good start) you need to adjust your behavior to the kind of child you have, of course, right? One kid might want hugs and kisses on the lips and all the fun cuddles and intimate moments you have as a parent until they are 12 and some might want to stop at 8 some at 6, you get the picture. I have also heard the premastocating argument for kissing, and I know, at least outside of Rome (those naughty Romans) in early cultures kissing was primarily a mother/child interaction; lovers showed affection by nuzzling or necking, something more biologically associated with sexuality. It is important to note that kissing, hugging, sitting on a lap, bathing, nudity etc are not ​inherently sexual. People use physical actions in many ways, and a kiss, like words, can have many meanings. I kiss my partner on the cheek to express romantic love, I kiss my grandmother on the cheek as well, but to express platonic love. The meaning behnd these actions is largely arbitrary. Imagine if we lived in a culture where the primary show of platonic affection was a tongue kiss. I don't think that would be necessarily or inherently sexual as long as the person giving the action has no sexual intention, and the person receiving it is comfortable with it. You shower with a lover, and you shower with 68 year old dudes at the Y, it doesn't mean anything in and of itself. As long as the child is happy with it, I don't see the problem. Obviously there are trends and kids will want to stop at similar times. (if your kid is 16 and still wants to bathe with you, you might want to explore that with them a little more, there might be something else going on.) But I don't think you can make a case for too much affection or intimacy, especially with your child, the person who will know you better than even you know yourself, who will grow up with you, who will learn everything about life from you. If you can't be maximally intimate with that person, who can you be intimate with?

I know just off the top of my head, the AVFM website has a whole bunch of info all neatly laid out in one place, (http://www.avoiceformen.com/activism/about/) which would be a good place to start. This always tickles me. Elliot Roger was a deranged sociopath. He projected his dysfunctional family onto society assuming everyone acted like his horrible parents and had a murderous rage against natural sexuality, and the desire to "even the playing field" with violence.... sounds like a feminist to me. I wonder where the motivation to do this comes from? Because the culture even looks down on men hanging out together in smaller scale... you'll always notice how, in media, tv shows, books, etc, when a group of adult men get together, it's always portrayed as childish and pedantic You'll often see a bunch of drunk assholes watching the game or playing poker, but never emotionally connecting with each other, never talking about anything important. Women on the other hand are allowed to gather to do dignified things like book clubs or garden parties and to talk about the finer things in life. It might be a resource thing... If men are spending time together they will not be making money or spending money on their wives so it is looked down on at best and prohibited by law at the worst.

Turns out, the psychologist, Bruce Willis, was dead the whole time!

Yeah I remember the groundings, the fear... it's strange how it seemed so matter of fact at the time... now i'm just repulsed by it. Sometimes I think I would have rather my father just beat the shit out of me... but he only hit me once and I don't really remember so I couldn't possibly make that comparison. That sounds horrible, jill. Why did you take care of her when she was so distant towards you?

I was watching the truth on Elliot Roger video last night, and I found some of the details of Roger's past striking me. Early in the presentation, while reading parts from Roger's 'manifesto,' we hear that when Elliot expressed his dislike for a soup, he was forced to eat it. Stef comments how, for Elliot, expressing a preference equals sadistic abuse, and how that was very harmful to a him. This called to mind something traumatizing, that I don't really like to think about. When I was young, perhaps from the age of 4 until well into adolescence, my parents would take things that they had given me, for christmas or birthdays or whatever, as punishment. They made sure to take the things I really liked to play with and hold then hostage until I 'behaved.' They often justified their right to do this by saying "we bought it, we can take it away." This was so frustrating as a kid, I remember my face being flushed, eyes welling up, sitting in my room just boiling over with pain and disgust. Even as a small child I thought this was incredibly unjust, and I lived with this sort of feeling that I 'had' nothing, everything was my parents and I was simply tolerated to live there. As I got older, I was rewarded with gifts of higher value, (instead of legos and lincoln logs it was electric guitars, video games, cellphone etc) but I felt I was only given these things so they would have leverage with me when I did something they didn't like. I've had a hard time connecting with myself as a child as I seemed to have spent my whole childhood trying to dissociate from the world, but for some reason these memories stick out to me more, and I have been really upset in general recently... Have you guys experienced similar things as kids? how did you handle it?

I don't want to weigh in too much on personal interactions between other members of the forums, and of course what I'm saying could be utter nonsense. In my opinion, it would be productive to acknowledge and attempt to address the emotional experience of the other people in the exchange. Dsayers feels uncomfortable, feels as if he's being put into an impossible situation, yet no one said, "tell me more" or really explored that with him, at least publicly. James, Kevin and others (it seems, corrections if I'm wrong) honestly feel angry with Dsayers for being passive aggressive and assuming what they are thinking, yet Dsayers doesn't really address this either and is now, rightly or wrongly, getting defensive. Again, this is just opinions of mine but wouldn't it be better to address this more openly? Maybe it's not appropriate here, but it seems like both parties are not being listened to. I still think the question on the title is important, so if we get back on track discussing that, I'll make another argument. Dsayers, corrections welcome of course, is the principal you are putting forward is, 'If a title contains specifics that are reasonably subsumed within other titular concepts, this constitutes a non-philosophical title." ? Then the title of this topic would not be the only violator of that principal. There is a subtopic called "Libertarianism, Anarchism, and Economics." By that principal should we also rename this topic "economics" or "politics" because Libertarianism and Anarchism are, at least in part, economic systems? Using your (persuasive!) example of the 'math textbook about 2, 18, and all other numbers," why wouldn't this also constitute a non-philosophical title? Furthermore, is it unphilosophical that all threads are not posted in the "philosophy" subtopic because all pursuits are reasonably subsumed under the concept of philosophy? That's why we often refer to this show as a philosophy show, because it's all inclusive. It comes down to a system of competing values. There is value in the convenience of using a large concept that covers all possible sub topics. For instance, referring to FDR as "a philosophy show", as opposed to "a politics, self-knowledge, gender issues, metaphysics, epistemology and philosophy show."There is also a great value in specificity, especially in this instance. Using your example again, the oddly named math textbook seems redundant to us because the number 2 isn't an important enough concept to warrant a specification in the title. It might not even warrant a chapter heading. However, the reverse is true in that all textbooks shouldn't therefor be called 'math' we often subdivide it into "algebra" and "calculous" and so on, because these concepts are of important to the author, he/she felt it needed to be specified. While it would be technically correct to name a calculous book "math" we can see how that would be so general as to cause inefficiency. You could take it even further and say math is too specific and all textbooks of all subjects should be titled "knowledge" for maximum accuracy. And in fact, the chapter headings should all be simply "knowledge" and all sub chapters titled, "knowledge" as well. It may just be a weakness in my argument, and I'm happy to hear all about that, but it seems to me that there's just a value judgement made by the author of an work about what concepts deserve specifications based on the competing values of the author. I think in this case, you can make a reasonable assertion that both Men's issues and Feminism are salient enough topics in the real world, have a large enough personal effect across swathes of the population, carry enough name recognition, and (more referring to men's issues) are discouraged from public discourse enough to warrant a specification in the title. This is why I defer to Mike and other staff when making this call, at the end of the day it's a value judgement. I made one when I proposed a title in the original post, mike made one when he renamed it to include feminism and gender issues, you're making one when you suggest a different title, that's how the show grows out of the richness of diverse ideas. I think the best we can do is make the best case for whatever title we think would work for whatever reasons and defer to the (I think well earned) authority of Mike and other people who's job it is to worry about stuff like "are titles too specific or general." (I'm not sure, but I think this is what Kevin was hinting at with the "pick your battles" sentiment.) P.S. I'm running late for work so this was a little rushed, I'm sure I might have missed something obvious, be kind with me for any fallacious logic I might have used.

Yes, that is a great definition. I might need to mull it over more before trying to communicate about it, I'm sure it's not 100% their fault that the conversations aren't going well. If you could elaborate more on the logical step from the capacity to reason to self ownership, that would also be immensely helpful.

I've been recently having a long string of often exiting but rather frustrating debates about the objectivity of morality with a few friends of mine. One friend said that by defining morality as objective, i.e. defining it as universally preferable behaviors which, of course, are objective, it begs the question since objectivity is the claim being contested and it is included in the definition. I pointed out that by defining morality as subjective he is also begging the question if that is the standard but that didn't seem to go anywhere, and in fact it totally derailed the conversation (which is what I assume he meant to do). I guess this boils down to definitions, and since definitions are so crucial, how do you move forward when someone disagrees with a definition? It would be like trying to prove the earth is round, but the opposite party defines earth as a cardboard box that packages come in; how frustrating! How do I move forward in this argument since definitions cannot be proven as the meaning of words are subjective? For a bonus, what do you think the best way to approach objective morality is as nothing I have been trying seems to be landing emotionally with the people I debate with.

Well, there is feminism in the title. I think it would be a fine objection if it only had men's issues in the title, but it includes men's issues, women's issues, and all misc gender issues... I'm sorry, dsayers, I guess I just don't understand how it could be more inclusive than that...?

Haha I just listened to the Jenyism podcasts, and I was thinking... If anyone has seen that new music video "turn down for what?" ( ) I really want just a superimposed picture of Stef's face on the guy, and instead say, "COMPARED TO WHAT?!" you would only need a 10 second clip for maximum hilarity. (all the credit for this goes to my girlfriend, who has a profile here but she hasn't posted with it yet..... soon. ;D )

Maybe Stef will rebut it. Although there's not much there to rebut.

No, I think that's a fine criticism. But then it comes down to any which way we cut it, we lose someone. Gender neutral titles will alienate those who want to focus on men's issues because they see them as more prevalent in the process of "societal triage." And I'll say again, a real push for libertarian principals in the MRM will help both libertarianism and the MRM respectively; as individualist as I am, the reality is that there is strength in numbers. I guess i'll just say I trust those people who have more quality information on the forum and the ability to make such changes. If they and/or the community in general think a gender neutral title is better, than that's what should happen. Personally, I think someone with the philosophical rigor to journey this far will understand the context in which the sub-topic is so titled and understand the reasons behind it. Another option would be to make a sticky with a brief disclaimer or description of the issues appropriate for this sub-topic stressing that a philosophical approach excludes no topic on the basis of gender. Again, I really don't know what is best for the show, these are just my opinions.

I think "men's issues" as opposed to "men's rights" is more apt, and that is reflected in the title. I agree with Dsayers in that swinging the pendulum the other way will just lead to more opposite momentum. It's partly for this reason that I think the FDR community should really speak out about men's and women's issues because offering anarchic and peaceful solutions to these issues is paramount. From what I have seen there is a kind of self awareness in the MRA 'camp' and a desire not to just become a mirror image of feminism (this to me is evident by, just recently, Paul Elam saying that any attendant to the conference in Detroit seen being violent or in any way reacting to the protests would loose all standing on the AVFM site; the calling out of fringe elements is something feminism never did because it thrived on escalation). It cannot be denied that while these are "men's issues," but because of the intimate relationship men and women have on a large biological/sociological scale, these issues impact women as well. For instance, the predation by the state upon fathers is a men's issue, but it has ramifications that hurt the sons and daughters that grow up in fatherless households. It's also, albeit to a lesser degree, important to recognize these groups of social and personal issues have a name recognition as Men's Rights and are associated with organizations (like AVFM) that call themselves "Men's Right's Activists." Especially taking into account the largely libertarian nature of these people and these groups, maybe that name recognition will invite them into other conversations about atheism and anarchism. They have already conquered one great cultural irrationality and might be up to taking a whack at a few more. I understand your hesitation, it's difficult for anyone to cut through the cultural milieu we are all born into and often almost drown in; I certainly don't think we want to make that more difficult unnecessarily. However, if some newcomer to the board takes one look at the topic name, doesn't even look at the content therein, and immediately writes it off as a misogynistic cult, I don't think they would have much of anything valuable to add to the conversation at hand (and they probably wouldn't have gotten past 'Anarchism' without having a full blown meltdown). What is it that Stef said? "we don't want stupid people in our movement"?

I also think feminism, as Stef puts it, "socialism with tits" has much more of a tangible negative effect on people's lives than bad diets or IP. Anarchism and Atheism are huge topics that are always being discussed because so many people are beaten down with them as kids and when you throw off the shackles, it's such a relief! I felt the same with gender issues, and really looking at the issues that men and boys face, and more importantly connecting with my own feelings, there is a great sense of relief. I think that this is one of the great irrationalities that we yearn be free of, as we do with gods and the state. And I'm really excited that my ideas could contribute to the community, I hope this space serves the greatest conversation well. Thanks to Mike and the whole crew who made it happen. I also like "the he-man woman haters club (now accepting female listeners!)"

I notice a lot of topics about men's rights and gender issues getting scattered over the "General Message" section as well as a few others, and I'm wondering if FDR might benefit from a "Men's Rights/Gender Issues" topic like Stef has on his YouTube Channel. I don't know a lot about the volume of posts on this topic so I don't know if it justifies it's own section, it just seems inefficient to have it scattered across the forum when it's becoming a bigger and bigger issues in the community; Especially with the waves caused by Estrogen Based Parasites, and Stef's attendance of the (please donate!!) men's rights conference in Detroit.

you might want 2 or 3 metric tons, just to be safe. I used to think that Wikipedia was pretty reliable on things not political in nature. How naive of me to think statists don't make everything self serving and political.

really liked it! gives me inspiration for a novel I'm writing.

why did he spend three to four minutes defending the virtue of male characters in a completely unrelated movie?

Thanks a bunch! I thought it was weird that it wouldn't be in there, it seemed like a really basic thing to forget to add; should have guessed it was just me being inattentively blind.

when you play the podcasts on 'automatic play' it goes through the files backwards, podcast 1001 plays after 1002 etc. Could there be a way to listen to them in release order from the beginning?

My mother messaged me on Facebook today with an article about environmentalism. seems like something you could get behind… http://billmoyers.com/2014/04/28/young-people-are-taking-the-government-to-court-over-its-failure-to-address-climate-change/ This is what I replied. They are only petitioning the courts and criticizing the EPA for not having enough environmental legislation when it's environmental legislation that is the problem! AND the US government, and governments around the world, pollute far more than any business or factory ever could. If these kids really cared about the environment they'd want to disband and end the EPA because it's those regulations that cause the problem in the first place. If there's more legislation, all the corporations will just lobby to exempt themselves, and environmental alternatives and small business start ups won't be able to compete and the monopoly is maintained. This is the problem with thinking that the violence of the state can do anything productive. Violence is not the way to solve social problems, and violence will in fact exacerabate the environmental issues. The USSR had the most enviromental regulations on the books of any nation in history, and, surprise surprise, they polluted and destroyed their lands faster than any other country as well. Well intentioned opposition to a non solution? yes.. but trying to fight violence with more violence doesn't solve anything, in fact, it usually makes things worse. her response: They are not going to be able to disband the EPA so instead of doing nothing, they are trying to work within the system to make change. Some change. Your philosophy reminds me of born again christians who just claim that this system is unacceptable at the core and so they wait for the great by and by (in this case heaven) while you're and others are waiting for the dissolution of the state… neither will happen anytime soon. meanwhile, people who could use your help (or animals, the environment) still suffer cuz you're waiting on a different system to be put in place. I felt myself gearing up for a big political discussion and was ready to whip out my big libertarian book of studies and facts, but suddenly remembered to connect with my feelings, 'what was I feeling just then?' I was hurt. I was really hurt. I let go of all the libertarian rage that fuels my political discussions and I could do was cry for a few minutes. I haven't read all of RTR, but I've heard Stef talk about the basic premise and decided to try something new. I'd tell her how I felt. "Your philosophy reminds me of born again christians who just claim that this system is unacceptable at the core and so they wait for the great by and by (in this case heaven) while you're and others are waiting for the dissolution of the state…" When you say things like this, I feel incredibly hurt. I try to approach things logically and empirically and all I get is chastised and compared to born again christians. "waiting for the dissolution of the state" "people who could use your help (or animals, the environment) still suffer cuz you're waiting on a different system to be put in place." again, this is really hurtful. It seems that you characterize my position as just sitting on my thumbs, and sitting idly by while people suffer. Do you understand why that is incredibly insulting and inflammatory? I really don't understand the need for that, and, it really makes me feel dismissed and my love for philosophy trivialized. Not to mention that it's not true. This is what she replied I'm sorry, sweetheart. I am not trying to hurt you. But I think the parallel is an interesting one. I wonder if you can stand outside of the feeling of hurt and see the connection I am proposing. Purely theoretical in that you are very 'certain' with what you think/ believe what the solution is. I don't find certainty compelling whether it comes from the left or the right. Also, and this is not new, I tend not to value standing outside of the system and complaining or chastising if at the end of the day nothing is much different. Again, I see similarities at a meta level regardless of the issue and I tend to point out those things. It's what I do in my work and so it comes second nature to me. Ok honey. I don't know what else to say but 'sorry'…. I am not used to you getting hurt so easily on topics of philosophical nature. I didn't mean to do that and am not really that invested in the topic to continue. Sorry to have drudged this up. You know you better than I do. My response I see the connection you are making, that's what is hurtful. If I compared you to Neo-nazis or african dictators or the spanish inquisition, you get how that would just be more inflammatory and hurtful than productive right? isn't this what you get so upset with your mother about? being unneccesarily inflamitory? This is an important issue that needs to be addressed. I don't want to continue feeling like I have to self erase and self censor around you because I get attacked every time I share my thoughts with you, at least on topics that you disagree with. We don't have to talk about it now, I know I'm having a strong emotional response that might make things more difficult. To which she gave an unsatisfactory apology, and signed off. I'm shaking now as I type this message... this really rattled me and I would *so* greatly appreciate other's insight. Feel free to ask any questions about history or what have you. This follows about 5 months of really head-butting over political issues. Thanks for everyone's support and empathy, I know it's a lot to read. Love, James. Edit: sorry for the font being a little schizophrenic, I was copy/pasting from Facebook, I tried to make it as clear as possible.

If anyone gets a chance, I highly recommend this concept album, released in 1984, by the wonderful and incomparable Tony Carey. If you listen to the whole thing and really pay attention to they lyrics, I promise you won't be disappointed. Please feel free to message me if you listen to it, I LOVE talking to people about pink world. Also, in light of all the crazy messed up relationships that have been on the call in shows lately, I've made my way back to some nostalgic music, and found this gem that I really connect with; blasting it right now.

Right. That sentiment was at the heart of my question, thanks for stating it in a more concise way, Dsayers. I am all for being pro-tolerance of others but then that would necessarily mean you were anti christian because they, by definition, are intolerant of others. Principals are a bitch, sometimes.

I never understood exactly how drugs 'dissociate you from reality.' I have experience as a moderate to frequent cannabis user and an infrequent user of psychedelics and hallucinogens like LSD or Psilocybin, yet I fail to see in what way I am no longer in contact with reality while under the influence of those drugs. Even the more hallucinogenic like LSD. If I'm sitting there, having a nice trip, the reality is that the chemical Lysergic Acid Diethyl-amide is interacting with receptors in my brain causing the semblance of sensory input. My state of mind is never, and has never been, "holy crap, the walls are melting." it's always "Holy crap, it looks like the walls are melting," which is true! It does look like that. This is just my experience using these drugs. It's the same with dreams, yes, the things that you dream are not objective and consistent, they do not 'exist' in that way, but you are still in reality, you are still dreaming in a bed in the physical world. It seems a little relativistic to say that just because your perceptions change based on internal stimuli, your fundamental relation to reality changes or ceases to exist. The only way to 'dissociate' from reality is to die, in my oh so humble opinion.