Tyler H

Likewise. I've often found your posts to be quite cogent and admirable so I appreciate the compliment that much more. Will Torbald, on 15 Jul 2016 - 7:43 PM, said: war wôr/ noun 1. a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state. "Japan declared war on Germany" synonyms: conflict, warfare, combat, fighting, (military) action, bloodshed, struggle; battle, skirmish, fight, clash, engagement, encounter; offensive, attack, campaign; hostilities; crusade; nuclear war "the Napoleonic wars" mindset ˈmīn(d)set/ noun noun: mindset; plural noun: mindsets; noun: mind-set; plural noun: mind-sets the established set of attitudes held by someone. "the region seems stuck in a medieval mindset" at·ti·tude ˈadəˌt(y)o͞od/ noun a settled way of thinking or feeling about someone or something, typically one that is reflected in a person's behavior. "she took a tough attitude toward other people's indulgences" synonyms: view, viewpoint, outlook, perspective, stance, standpoint, position, inclination, temper, orientation, approach, reaction; opinion, ideas, convictions, feelings, thinking "you seem ambivalent in your attitude" To say that, as philosophers, how we act in times of peace is a result of some kind of established set of attitudes I find, to be perfectly frank, a little insulting. Digging our way out of the avalanche of propaganda with the golden spork of philosophy is a meticulous and painstakingly difficult process at the end of which we are rewarded with consistent philosophical principles to guide our decisions; decisions that are often hard to make in the moment because they fly in the face of our immediate comfort for the sake of longterm happiness. To say that it is just a mindset diminishes those accomplishments. The second half of that comment is a bit more denigrating than the first because I would have to be a complete artard to be in armed conflict with someone and not notice. I am aware that there are evil people who would revel in my demise, but what does this have to do with supporting a system that has done nothing in the name of protecting us but fill waterbombers with N-Stoff and dump it on the conflagration of islamic extremism? I still find it hard to believe you meant this literally or maybe you're working with different definitions so would you mind expounding on your comment or showing me how my literal interpretation is incorrect if it is? I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that UPB does not compel supporting Trump. UPB proscribes; it does not prescribe. It tells us what not to do; it does not tell us that we have to do anything. Also, although you may have just used the percentage to emphasize your statement, I feel I should point out that an action is either consistent with UPB or it isn't. There are no gradations in that regard.

I just finished listening to this conversation and I feel quite a bit of despair. I cannot argue that Stef is wrong in relation to the state of affairs in the world today, but I did not hear arguments as to what political action can do to prevent what amounts to an absolute disaster for those who fight for truth and freedom. How do we know that a Trump presidency will not make matters worse? Could it not enrage BLM to the point that more attacks happen, or strengthen recruitment for the islamic extremists? What if the actual course of events that buys more time is a Clinton administration? Where the left spends a little more time plundering the coffers for every last scrap before the whole thing comes crashing down. My point is we cannot know. I am reminded of the trolley problem, except in this scenario you don't know which action causes more harm. How can we justify voting under these circumstances? Also, if Trump represents western culture I would consider us far worse off if there were not such a huge following for him. Yet there is, so we can find some comfort in the fact that there is a large number of people who still hold western values; enough to elevate Trump to be in a position to seriously compete with Clinton. We can still come together on common ground and add our voices to theirs without adding our sponsorship to the state through voting. Well said sir. You cannot possibly mean that literally, so would you mind rephrasing?

I was spanked and until finding FDR would have continued that abuse for all the reasons you hear everyone who spanks profess. One of the arguments I found truly compelling was that although the evidence is correlational, the risk is there. However, and it's quite tragic, I believe you are right that some, maybe most, people are too intransigent. I shudder to think of how close I was to being one of those people if I did not hear compelling arguments from someone I respected. In fact, sadly, the first person to ever earn that respect, not demand it. Hmm, maybe there is something there. Maybe the best way to change people's minds is to earn their respect first.

I'm not sure how this relates to political action. Certainly I can make that choice for myself but I do not get to make that choice for others, enforce it at the point of a bayonet and call myself moral. Has this thread been created yet? Will you add a link when it is?

It won't change my view on how critical he was of Ron Paul, because he was - however I'm sure it will enlighten me on any reasons why he may have adjusted his position. I will give it a listen thank you. oh, der Thanks Mike, I will give this a listen as well.

I've thought that as well and it would definitely ease my concerns. The cataclysm is statism. The cataclysm is coercion. The cataclysm is people who think they can possibly know the future and decide what is best for everyone else. I'm sorry, what is WPMOA? This quote inherently supports being governed by superiors when the goal is not to be governed at all; as if there were someone so superior to us they could govern us. Not surprising coming from a deist. Ni diem, ni maitre.

Can you point to evidence that we are at the brink of a cataclysm? And that Trump can save us from that cataclysm? This is not an instance of imminent danger where there is a reasonable level of certainty regarding the outcome to justify using self defense. There's no way to know that a Trump presidency will save us from anything. There is no avoiding the hard times that await us; Trump may make it better or he may make it worse. If he makes it better than it bolsters the idea of statism in the masses minds. If he makes it worse then people die and those who put him there will have blood on their hands. We stick to our principles, we live free and happy and when their system crashes down around them we show them a better way. We all know violence doesn't solve problems, it's a temporary solution with unforeseen consequences. It commands compliance in the moment yet changes nothing in the victim but foster resentment. Society will change when we change their minds with words not weapons. In regards to Natalia's recent post (it won't let me quote) - do you have any evidence to support these claims? Quotes, videos, posts that show Stefan exhibiting this behavior? These are pretty steep allegations to say he is intentionally manipulating and misleading people and inciting hatred. I've listened to thousands of hours of material and I've never heard anything that could support those claims.

Would you mind identifying these examples of dishonesty? I did not catch them on my read through and would like to examine why I missed them.

What does this even mean? Yes, two different people are two different people. Trump may not be a politician now but he will be if elected. It has nothing to do with the candidate and everything to do with the office. I could not possibly disagree more. We are to abandon principles for irrational pride and culture? If we abandon principles when it suits us you can throw UPB and the argument for morality out the window and go join the statists. I put forward the argument that voting is immoral and suggested that if Stef convinced someone to vote for Trump that would be immoral too and all you have to say is you certainly hope so? I certainly hope not! I hope I'm wrong or I hope that if I'm right then anyone promoting Trump or voting for him will avoid that immorality and stay home this November. Joining the political process is saying that you know what's best and you're willing to enforce it through the barrel of a gun.

I've been wanting to express my opinion on this topic for a while so I suppose now is as good a time as any. I stopped listening to every new podcast around the time FDR started covering the debates so I'm not sure what has been said and what hasn't. From the podcasts/videos I have listened to/watched I do infer what in my opinion borders on support. The most recent one I can refer to and put forward as evidence is the video on bernie sanders giving his support to clinton. In this video Stef criticizes bernie and hillary and says at the end if you're looking for something different you got trump. Not exactly support but I think many people will see it that way anyway, especially when contrasted with earlier videos in relation to voting. There was no holding back when it came to the myriad of reasons not to vote when dr. paul was running accompanied by an amazing elucidation into how pointless electing a new fancy bmw hood ornament (maybe trump is more of a chrysler?) to slap on an old shitty lada would be (podcast 1189 or youtube The Truth About Voting), I wonder why this position is noticeably absent in the videos on trump I have seen. I understand lambasting the media for their mendacity but why withhold the reasons to not vote and to decry statism? Now I haven't heard Stef explicitly support or endorse trump so for me to assert that would be unfounded and not conducive to the level of discourse we strive for here, but as we know many people will not see that difference and will think that voting for trump will do something other than lend support to an immoral and destructive system. This is why I said it borders on support; it's not support but - in my opinion and of course I could be off base here, if so I apologize and welcome correction - it's really close. In one of the first roundtables with other notable anarchists in which Stef participated (podcast 953 ~40 min. in) Wendy McElroy convinced Stef (and myself) that voting is immoral since you are lending support to a candidate whom, if elected, will undoubtedly commit immoral actions for which you will share responsibility. Have there been any podcasts arguing why this position has changed? I understand the fact that trump is not taking money from the usual suspects is appealing, but this in no way means he isn't only interested in power, control, and the expansion of his own financial portfolio; the type of person the position of POTUS attracts without exception. I think this topic strikes a chord with so many listeners because it's quite possible that Stef has convinced people to vote for trump and there is an argument to be made that there is little difference between voting and convincing someone else to vote. I understand that statement implicates an enormous accusation and I hesitate to even type the words and there is a more than good chance that I am wrong and I would love to be corrected if so. However I write it for the longshot that maybe I'm right and the arguments are welcomed criticism that prevents people from doing something they may later realize to be immoral. I also completely apologize if there are videos I have not seen that address any or all of these issues; if so please point them out to me. I write this post with the best of intentions and hope it is received that way. If not I am absolutely apologetic and welcome correction.

Can I ask what specifically Stef said that convinced you to vote for Trump? Also Schiff has some things to say on Trump's economic policy. :Edit to install video:

I've been re-listening to the audiobook lately, a few times over actually and each time I catch something new. It's short but it's a heavy mother. I believe it reflects Abbot Terrasson's remark in regards to books that "it would be much shorter if it were not so short". I think you are right though; that the standard of value as described by UPB would be rational/logical consistency. If ethics are subjective than anyone can have any opinion about it and make up any rules they want. If you want ethics to be objective then they need to be universally applied or they are just subjective. What is immoral is what is impossible to be universalized (what I assume Will meant by "universally impreferable"). If you're going to say something is good and moral and people should act this way, then saying an action such as theft/murder/rape is good or preferable is illogical because one person would have to act immorally to create the possibility for the other to be moral. Also, if they cannot both perform the same "moral" action at the same time, then the theory self destructs. I believe this is what separates the immoral actions from the merely aesthetically negative actions along with the degree of avoidability. I'm still trying to grasp the concept in a way that I'm confident with so please anyone correct me if I'm wrong about anything or misunderstood something.

Just my opinion, from what I've seen of this third wave feminism movement, the fact that she's a woman will trump (haha) the fact that Bill is a scoundrel and she stays with him. I also think that the powers that be will get the president they want, whomever that may be.

He murders people and eats them... If that's not evil I think we are working with different definitions of the word.

Greetings! I was searching for a thread I had seen before that had some podcasting tips and I came across yours here. I'm just starting out too and I have a lot in common with the things you've said. I also fantasize about all the things I want to do but never put them into action, so I just started talking into a camera. That was hard in itself. I'll say that you definitely have some things down that I don't yet. I think your volume and energy are good. It does feel like you're engaging with the audience and showing a lot of feeling. I did start feeling disinterested about 5 minutes in or so and stopped listening at about 8, but I think that it may have just been that my attention wasn't grabbed by the story. I hate giving any kind of negative feedback but I know it's important for people who are actually customer focused to hear and it's something I need to learn to do if I want to take this honesty thing the whole 9 yards. Something that sticks out to me as a criticism; I think the ginger stuff might've been a little harsh - even if this guy's a douche his hair color doesn't have anything to do with it. (BTW - that was really hard for me to type let alone not delete) Anyways I understand this was a spur of the moment private monologue that took a lot of courage to do let alone post so I applaud you for that sir. I also see that this was 14 months ago so how is it going? Learn anything along the way you want to share? Any tips for starting out? Please let me know! Hope all is well! -Tyler

I saw this last night and thought it may be a step in the right direction - an open discussion on race that seemed to include the idea that white people can be discriminated against just like any other group of people. However the internet was abuzz today on how the show is bent on shaming white people and perpetuating more white guilt. Did I miss something in the trailer that speaks to those concerns? Do people think this show can have a positive impact, or is it just more race baiting?

interesting stuff, thanks for putting this together!

i am interested, when is the next one?

Stef mentioned in one of the recent call in shows that little girls don't bond with cows. While for the most part probably true, it made me think of this video I had seen a few months ago that's too adorable not to share. It made me think twice about my beef consumption. It hits its peak around the 3 minute mark.

I don't remember if that was the first time it happened or not; I imagine the first time I had no idea what was about to happen. But I remember what I felt the times that I knew what was coming. My whole body would tingle and it felt like a rush of blood would go to my head and I would get really hot. I remember feeling really, really scared.... terrified. I tried but knew pretty much right away I wasn't going to be continuing a relationship with him. The apology he gave would've been nice except for the fact that being prefaced with "if i did anything to hurt you" gave it the label "bullshit non-apology" to anyone with ears to hear. "If", as if I hadn't spent the entire conversation telling him he had. I've been thinking that too, I remember a few things that by themselves may or may not be indicative of sexual abuse, but I know my stepfather was sexually abused as a child and considering the propensity for victims to recycle the abuse I fear there is a lot more I'm not remembering. Yes I was certainly turned into a little obedience robot, until of course I became a teenager and the power ratio flipped and all they're unjust authority went right out the window. Unfortunately any good advice they might've inadvertently spit out was in one ear and out the other since they had no credibility. Funny about the dog thing, my stepfather was a breeder at one point in his life. Thanks for the support everyone, it really means a lot.

Yes, the state has been working on eradicating poverty for how long? I'm sure they've almost got it.......

Do first time callers not get fast tracked anymore?

I would recommend True Detective as well, it seems impossible that they'll be able to follow that season without Harrelson and McConaughey, They set the bar pretty high. Also, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke are great in that.

Ohhh Funny Games was a good one, good call. I only saw the remake I think, the one with Michael Pitt (Boardwalk Empire). Another movie that comes to mind (a remake of a korean film A Tale of Two Sisters) is The Uninvited.

Dan Carlin has a podcast called Hardcore History, you might want to check that out. I book I got but barely scratched the surface of is Murray Rothbard's Conceived in Liberty. Certainly a different take on colonial and post revolutionary America than you will ever hear in a classroom.