ThinkSkeptic

Do you think that the word "aggression" is appropriate in the phrase "passive-aggression"? According to Webster's, "aggression" can mean "hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior," which is the intention (and likely result) of being passive-aggressive. If the answer to the question above is yes, I think the development of the term "microaggression" to refer to people being hurt by hearing certain ideas they disagree with is at least defensible as a form of aggression. If microaggressions are aggression, what those who use the term believe will claim is that it's immoral enough to justify firing someone from their job or initiating force against them. I think it's obvious that it isn't immoral because killing a lion or a snake is aggressive, and if humans had never done that, then humans would have all been eaten by their predators long ago. My point is: maybe what we should be saying to those who accuse others of microaggressions, implicitly claiming that microaggressions are always immoral, is that causing injury/harm to someone is not always immoral and they need to make the case that a specific instance of microaggression is immoral. It's not enough to claim that an action is aggressive to condemn it.

It was, but the topic of the call was evolution, and determinism wasn't brought up until the very end. He should've said something like "ok, I need to move on to the next caller..." instead of ridiculing him.

Yeah, it was just off-putting to hear him dismiss the idea without an argument because he's normally patient enough to have some back and forth before bringing the hammer down. I'll email you. Thanks.

I enjoyed the show, but I have a critique about what Stef said at roughly 2:25:40. The caller said he believed in determinism and Stef said "I don't talk to robots." He was ridiculing the fact that determinism implies that events occur in a predetermined way. First, I'm disappointed that he would suspend his integrity (by being cheeky and short) when faced with the subject of determinism -- it leads me to believe that he is emotionally opposed to it. Second, I've heard other conversations he's had with callers and I don't think they've done determinism justice or they have been too nervous and inexperienced in debating to properly push back. Thoughts?

I can't find any video in which they've interacted and I'm wondering whether it exists. If it doesn't exist, then why? Has Ron not wanted to talk to him, has Molyneux not wanted to talk to him?

ILO, I belive you're confused by the definition of government, and understandably so. There are two words we shouild use when discussing thsit topic. "Government," which means an organizational structure of society, including institutions, justice system, security services, and so on; and "state," which is a type of government that uses force to survive. In an Anarcho-Capitalist society, there would be a government because there would be a structure of insitutions that serve to organize society, such as dispute resolution organizationss, securityu companies, notaries, whatever. So, yes it's possible to have a government without violating the NAP, but is it not possible to have a state that does not violate the NAP, because a state, by definition, must forcefully assert authority to resolve disputes in a certain geographical area, and most of the time also steal wealth from the people.