ClearConscience

I just finished watching two teams I very much do not care about, duke it out for the world championship of American football. There's this video, I don't know if you've seen it, where this guy, a Denver fan, talks about how he paid $21k for four tickets, and will likely be paying over thirty grand for the expenses of the entire trip. When asked, "What if you lose?" he insisted that losing is impossible. The interviewer questioned a second time and this dude was like, NO! We will not lose.! Oh yeah, make sure not to tell his wife how much money he blew on this shit. I must admit, one time I paid about $50 USD for a a college football game, Michigan vs. Notre Dame, which was a special nighttime event, the first in school history. I could have sold that ticket for about $250 but I went anyways, because I wanted to go. But to drop $30k on one sporting event... that's pretty astonishing. Now I'm watching Hilary Clinton's victory speech in New Hampshire... oh yeah, she lost to Bernard Sanders. Sorry, but a presidential candidate can't actually be called "Bernie". I refuse. Should we address him as President Bernie? No. But anyway, she's effectively forfeiting New Hampshire and yet she's smiling and waving at the crowds of people. She's trying to speak but the crowd won't let her over the chanting, "Hi-lah-ree!" I mean, I understand that they're excited about the fact that she ONLY lost by... whatever... but still, she lost. And even if she won, why are these people so impassioned? They seem crazy to me. I can somewhat justify being emotionally invested to the point of fervor with regards to a sports team, or a particular competitor on survivor or American Idol, I really can... but this is about the future of the country you're living in, and the potential use of violence used against you, your family, your children, and even worse, countless lives oversees who had no say in the matter whatsoever. And you're chanting and wrapped up in some emotional zealotry about it. Ewww.

I think we should rename some states and cities. And yes, I'm serious. Imagine if China took all our automotive manufacturing. Imagine if all of the major, American, automotive companies were manufacturing in China. Oh wait... anyway, now imagine if China didn't like us very much and decided to name their automotive manufacturing hub, "New Detroit." Yeah... there'd be a city in China that everybody in the world called, "New Detroit." Imagine that. That's what we did to the UK when we won our independence. We were like, "Oh, you have York? We're making a new one, because your version sucked, and we're calling it 'New York' so deal with it." The same with Jersey. The same with Hampshire. The same with Orleans (French). I think we should, out of respect, change these names. Trust me, this is a great idea. Out of respect for our friends and allies, we truly feel we ought to change these names. It was wrong of us to do it in the first place. And we should change "New Hampshire" to "New Hampsher," change "New York," to "New Yawk," change "New Orleans," to "New Orlins," and change "New Jersey," to "New Juhsey." Yup. That would be a fucking awesome headline and would make everybody's happy. Okay, so I'm not serious, but I want to know if anybody else thinks, in a if-you-were-the-dictator-of-America kind of way, that it's a funny idea where, yeah... I would do that because I can. That's my Donald Trump side coming out.

Just watch MSNBC. Find a host you can tolerate and watch how they portray the same exact story that Stefan will talk about on his youtube channel. It's very enlightening.

My suggestion is to decide for yourself what the religion of Islam dictates, and not what you are told, second-hand, from your friends who, in my honest opinion, probably never read the book themselves. Here's a link to a video that tells the historical account of Muhammad, according to the Quran, to get you started: https://kat.cr/the-message-1977-brrip-720p-x264-dual-audio-eng-hindi-xdesiarsenal-exd-xmr-t9239883.html Yeah, it's a torrent site. You're not going to get sued for downloading a video that will teach you about the religion that the movie was meant to promote. HOW DARE YOU COVERT TO ISLAM! lol... no. If you read the Quran, or even just watch the film, you will see how Muhammad reacted to criticism and violent aggression when he tried to alter the status quo. If you invest some time into reading the New Testament, you will discover there is a stark contrast between Muhammad's methods and that of Jesus. I would encourage you to decide for yourself, based on pure reason and level-headed observation, which method more or less aligns with your conception of morality. As for me, Jesus was exceptional. He is the ideal in every way imaginable. This is contrasted with Muhammad, who responded to aggressive action with further violence. If you actually pay attention to the story of each "prophet", there is a stark contrast in the base, moral principles, that each person held. In my opinion, this is a very important factor that is often overlooked by people who have no examined all three religions, i.e. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

According to string theory, there exists 11 dimensions, the fourth of which is time. Even if string theory was somehow, inexplicably, proven false, we all know that time exists, and an omnipotent and omniscient God would have to, by definition, be capable of manipulating this dimension if he desired. That means He "exists outside of time." I mean, technically that statement doesn't make any sense. It's like saying we, human-beings, exist outside of 2-dimensions... yeah... we experience in full detail, and can manipulate, 3-dimensions. Any conception of an omnipotent and omniscient being should be capable of experiencing and manipulating all 11 dimensions. That's what's important in this discussion. I hope that helps.

In the debates thus far, he's only been given about 2 minutes to reply, if that... I agree that this is not even remotely close to enough time to give substantive responses to the questions asked, but I cannot, in good conscious, fault Donald Trump for the structure of the debates thus far. it's sad. Sorry if the edit is unacceptable but I was caught up in the editing of such a comment. I really can't speak to some of the generalizations that you made in this remainder part of your post. I think that if candidates were afforded 10 minutes to respond, in detail, then Trump would be exposed on his complete lack of knowledge on the issues. But at the same time, most voters don't seem to actually care about how much knowledge a particular candidate has amassed. It's not important. What's important to the average voter is the confidence and personality that any given candidate exudes and how well they are able to dominate a particular discussion. I think that is important to understand when watching the debates and assessing the situation. Donald Trump may hold every ideal that you want in a candidate, but Donald Trump is probably the most calculated politician I've seen in a long time. He only does what is best based on polling data, and what gives him the most media coverage. That's the point I was trying to demonstrate. And it's important to point out that he has gained a huge following solely on the basis that he hasn't accepted donations from organizations that he doesn't support. He is capable of fully funding his own political campaign on his own dime. That's huge to a lot of voters.

You need to show that you understand their point of view before you offer a new one. Say something like, "I agree that women need to be protected from predatory men. There are men that exist in this world that see women as objects to be conquered and trophies to be won. These psychopaths don't recognize that you and other women should be seen as no different from themselves, and should be treated as independent, autonomous, respectable people who have all the same needs, insecurities, hopes, and dreams as they do. And because these crazy, psychopathic men exist in the world, our society needs to establish laws to protect women. I am fully on board, and these concerns are absolutely necessary for our society to thrive. Now, just for the moment, I would like to consider some unintended consequences of being overly concerned with the protection of women, where it can seriously damage the lives of well-intention, loving, socially-conscious men. Just as there are men in this world that will exploit and harm women for their own gain, there are women who will do the same to men. If we stray too far down the road of protecting the innocent, just, well-intentioned women, we enable the parasitic, aggressive, harmful, psychopathic women to harm the innocent, just, well-intentioned men. There are women, who exist in this world, who will feel ashamed by social standards, their peers, and most importantly their families, for having consensual sex with innocent men. There are women who exist in this world who will use the law against innocent men for their own benefit. My only wish is that you acknowledge that these women exist, just as I have acknowledged that evil men exist, so that we may help protect all that are concerned." Do you see the difference between my approach and what you likely said? The purpose is to erase the separation between you and your adversary. If you genuinely care about the person you're talking to, then you're obligated to abolish this contrived divide between one another. You need to assume that you're both here, talking about this topic, because you genuinely care about the world that you're living in. That means you're on the same team. Say that explicitly. I recognize that most people on this forum are not Christian, but I am. I am not Christian because I was told to be. I am Christian because the New Testament is chock-full of amazing lessons that you can use in everyday life. Please read this with an open mind, because it's actually relevant to the topic. "Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by [satan]! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.” So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house. Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.” He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.” Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.” “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” ~Mark 3:20-34 The purpose of the passage is to recognize that you and "your enemies" may share the same aim. The most important thing for you to do is to recognize what both of your aims are, and demonstrate that you recognize that you are friends in this aim. The debate is not about differing aims, but which path is best for accomplishing that aim. If both parties recognize this simple fact, then there can be no false judgments. You were more successful because the patriarchy enabled you to be more successful. The end. This approach will not work at all. it will do nothing but confirm their previously held beliefs.

It's often best to try and reiterate their position back to them before you propose an alternative way of thinking. If you can show that you fully understand their previously held beliefs, in full detail, then you have demonstrated that you're not blindly following some emotional, hate filled, racist, sexist, anti-religion, ideology. The primary reason why people would form these types of judgments about your character is because they don't feel as though their position was heard. They think you rejected all of their ideas based on previously held prejudices. By reiterating their thoughts back to them, you can remove all doubt that this is the case. When people are introduced to ideas that challenge their previously held beliefs, they feel as though they are being attacked. A typical response to an attacker is to fight back or flee. You've just described both responses. They attacked your character, ad hominem, and then fled the situation. If you're actually interested in helping people, rather than simply winning, instead of establishing a "me vs. you" dichotomy within an argumentative structure, I would suggest trying to establish a conversation structure where you are taking their ideas as the foundation of a line of reasoning and showing where it goes wrong. Does it lead to a contradiction? Does it have a false premise? Or does their solution to a particular problem have unintended consequences that create additional problems? Then make a generic statement like, "Through my research, I found this to not be the case." or "I don't want to have contradicting beliefs." or "I want to ensure that our resolution benefits the most concerned." and then offer an alternative way of thinking that resolves these problems. This is a perfect opportunity to try to connect with her empathy. Demonstrate to her that you are very concerned with women being protected from dangerous rapists. You understand that some women live in fear of being attacked by men who have little to no concern for their well-being, and these men see women as objects to be conquered and trophies to be won. Tell her that living in this kind of fear is a terrible existence and we, as a society, need to work together to alleviate such fears. But then you ask her to see this from a well-intentioned man's perspective. If a woman is ashamed of her choices, feels criticized by her peers or family because of her sexual decisions, or feels resentment toward a man that she has slept with in the past, some very evil women, just like the evil men we discussed earlier, will use these rape laws to attack innocent men. And you believe that these innocent men matter just as much as the innocent women. And any policy that we make, as a society, should work toward the benefit of both men and women, and minimize the harm towards the innocent of both. That's right, and this is true of most people, not just feminists, not just liberals. If you actually care about the people you're talking to, and care about their beliefs, then you're obligated to do your best to ensure they can't jump to the conclusion that you're an ideologue who hasn't carefully considered both sides. You need to demonstrate to them that you have.

I'd urge you to go through Stefan Molyneux's youtube videos over the course of, oh let's say 7 months, and jot down the titles of each video that has over 100,000 views. I hope this will enlighten you on how much you are the minority when it comes to the idea that current events don't matter to people.

Many people choose to go to less expensive universities because they are conscious about value for money. There's no reason to attend Harvard in order to be a nurse, for example. Some people would disagree, but many would not. However, if the price of attending university is dispersed to everybody, the individual will choose the most expensive school because the costs of attendance would be hidden. Everybody will be paying more to educate the same number of people.

I think Trump is a fan of having power and of building his own legacy. What happens in the world is important. America has the strongest military in the world. Who the commander and chief of that military happens to be should be concerning. The tactics currently being employed to attain power are interesting to some people. I think Trump is probably more calculated than you want to believe. Also, he claimed explicitly that his behavior is such that it maximizes media coverage. Well if you offend enough people you won't be likely to win public elections I guess. But the topic of my post doesn't really have anything to do with the moral virtue of offending or being offended.

Every "offensive" remark that Donald Trump has made has been intentionally offensive, to incite rage into a very insignificantly small minority, with the sole purpose of gaining media coverage. Donald Trump said, at his most recent New Hampshire speech, "How many cameras are lit, yeah there's a lot of them. Every time I speak now, it's on live television. You know why? It's a very simple business. Ratings! If I didn't get ratings these cameras would not be on. Okay? They would not be on." So when you hear Donald Trump make silly remarks that seem to invoke intense emotional responses in relatively insignificant vocal minorities, I want people to know exactly why that is happening, and that it is totally calculated and intentional. These insignificant vocal minorities are being used as pawns. EDIT: If you haven't seen the new South Park episode, it couldn't have come at a more perfect time. It's about how absurd political correctness has become in this country. Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee... and if the Democratic party gifts him the opponent of Hilary Clinton, who he will absolutely destroy, then he is going to be America's next president. You've been warned. I hope he doesn't totally fuck up foreign policy, although he likely will... In that South Park episode, Tom Brady was identified as the ideal for how to manage public scrutiny. Deny involvement and claim hypocrisy on those who rightfully accuse him of wrongdoing. Today, Donald Trump announced that Tom Brady has official endorsed his presidential campaign. I can't make this shit up.

Firstly, if a robot can perform a particular job as effectively, or more effectively, than a human person, the robot will be selected above the human person. This is a fact. Where's the source? There's no empirical evidence. I would suggest you think about it for literally half of a second. The only thing that an increase in minimum wages does is it accelerates the value of automation as a means to replace human labor. The fact of the matter is that this is unavoidable. The result is going to be a group of uneducated, reliant, and helpless leaches on state welfare. AND IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT! I think the conservative majority is being pulled into a group-think that people who are on welfare are the enemy. No, they've been given a well-arbitrated incentive to remain on welfare. It's not their fault. People who are currently on welfare should agree with our position, that's the point I'm trying to make. And it's only going to get worse. Instead of granting free healthcare to people who are making shit money at McDonald's, we should offer free education, and loans that are REQUIRED to be paid back, to educate these people in order to get them into jobs that have a high demand. The amount of financial aid would be dependent on the demand for that particular job, at that particular time. i personally know of a ton of construction jobs that are unfilled. It requires a bachelor's degree in... anything. It doesn't matter what institution you went to. This is in Michigan, because I went to high school here and I have contacts from my high school peers, who are currently looking to employ reliable workers, and they will train them for however long it takes, at $10/hr or more, 40 hrs/week, with prospective bonuses and advancement. I mean, finding solid work is not hard here, and this is Michigan, 30 minutes from Detroit. They just need somebody who will show up to work, not complain, and want to be the best they can be on the job. That's what my contacts, several of them, have said. The problem is that you can live relatively comfortably by selling drugs on the street, and having a few needy kids that the government will compensate for. Literally, the government will give you money for having kids. If you're on crack, drinking alcohol, and smoking cigarettes and weed, you can have kids that will be labelled "special needs", resulting in exorbitant amounts of money from the state. I know this because I've volunteered in primarily black school districts as a volunteer instructor and educator. I did this for multiple years. I volunteered, exclusively, in learning disabled (LD) and emotionally impaired (EI) classrooms within the black community. About 60% of the parents are the same. They literally manufacture, through any means necessary, LD and EI kids in order to reap state money, and it is always, ALWAYS, single mothers. It's disgusting. The parent-teacher conferences are the worst. I will have gone out and bought socks for a student, and then a week later see them without socks, in the middle of winter, before recess. I asked him, "Where are the socks I bought you?" Every time, liek clockwork, they would say, "My brothers or sisters stole them." It's not just socks. I would buy goose feather, down, winter coats for the kids that didn't have them. It was always stolen by their brothers and sisters (read:gangs). I would hug them and they would cry in my arms. This happened multiple times. It's bullshit. If you don't have sympathy for these people, then you're either ignorant or you have no empathy. You've never experienced it the way I have. You just haven't. I'm talking about 2nd and 3rd graders. They learn from an early age that you either take or get taken from. It's so systemic in black culture, that I get called racist by my peers. I cry for these kids and these arrogant assholes call me the racist. Yeah... I just wanted to share my thoughts on it, and I understand that it's anecdotal, but I feel like I've at least experienced the worst tha there is to offer in terms of impoverished, black, culture and how hard it is to escape it. I just hope you guys are willing to hear me out.

This is due to parental expectations. I'm sorry I don't have a study that makes it COMPLETELY, INDISPUTABLY, WITHOUT QUESTION, the reason. I don't have that. That study doesn't exist, because it would never be approved, because it's inhumane, because it would result in the death of human lives. I shouldn't need to explain why I don't have the study, but based on previous responses, apparently I have to explain why I don't have the study... wow... Anyway, there are a bunch of kids in Japan who are addicted to anime and video games. It's a genuine addiction. When the new school year starts, these kids recognize that they either rise to the heightened expectations of their parents, which are insane for literally every student. Before I move on, I really want to educate people on how parents of most Japanese kids think. Again, I'm not going to cite it. I'm basing this off of all of the Japanese people I've met in my life while being a member of the Society of Physics Students at the University of Michigan, as well as several other Japanese students in other classes. Yes, it's somewhat anecdotal, but they've shared with me what the expectations were at their schools. It was, either you score in the highest 80%, or you should have worked harder. It was very analytical. It didn't matter what subject you were studying. And these kids studied 20 hours per day. Their parents would wake them up at ungodly hours in the morning because they should be studying, not sleeping... and after school, they should be studying even more-so. Every Japanese student I talked to spoke, very much so, flawless English. Learning English was part of their absurd study habits. At least the Japanese students I talked to, this was the case. Again, it is anecdotal. Fine. I'm sorry I don't have better statistics. You can call me ignorant. You can say that my references are inadequate. I really don't care. There are kids, in Japan, who are addicted to porn, video games, and anime. And when the new school year arrives, they commit suicide because they perceive the expectations and are too ashamed to confront the inevitable. Shame, in Japanese culture, is immeasurable. If you know anything about Japanese culture, you know this. You can dislike this comment, you can say it's ignorant, you can say I have no empirical facts to support it. Fine. I've heard it all before. I still think that this comment will benefit some people and put some things in perspective.

The reason why I said this is because, the longer a particular group, or in this case family, is subjugated to violent authoritarian aggression, the more this cultural normalcy will impact the prodigy of that particular group. If you, personally, want to believe that the subjugation of a population, for a couple of months, or a few years, is equivalent to an entire life-spans of enslavement, then I have nothing to say to you. There have been no psychological studies on this. Believe it or not, but no professor at any academic institution has received funding in order to subjugate an entire group of people to unfathomable authoritative control in order to complete a multi-generational study. When I made that assertion, I was relying on common sense. If you don't have common sense, I unfortunately can't help you. I would just refer you back to the part of my critique where i urged Stefan to stress the importance of rationalism relative to empiricism.

Here is Stephan's viddeo: I tried to mark every point of controversy that I had. @1:20 - For a better argument, look at what Thomas Sowell said several decades ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul0q35mrHh8 @8:00 - they deleted the racist insults because all reputable news organizations delete inflammatory, unsubstantive, racist insults from their comment sections. They want to encourage people to visit their news articles, give meaningful analysis, and have constructive discussions on their website. Every reputable news organization wants this. It sounds like they deleted his post because it was unsubstantive, angry, racist, venting. There's nothing wrong with deleting such posts. @9:25 - Stefan claims, from the fact that Bryce Williams was black, homosexual, and raised as a Jehovah's witness, that there was conflict in his upbringing. I agree that there are tendencies, but just because there are tendencies doesn't guarantee force, violence, judgement, or a negative disposition toward contrary or competing points of view. You can never just assume that a person is aggressive towards something without some form of substantive proof. @18:00 - Why do black people tend to make different choices than white people? Is it cultural? What influenced the culture to such an extent that it yields such vast differences between blacks and whites? Saying that black people are responsible for their choices doesn't shed any light on the differences between what influences the choices of blacks as opposed whites. This sounds like a debate between free-will and determinism, but it's more than that. It's about basic human needs, and emotional reactions to fear and trauma. My suggestion is that Stefan needs to avoid the topic of black free-will, and push the topic of eliminating authoritative domination within black society. At this point in time, all that black children typically know is authority and dominance. Authority and dominance as a solution are endorsed by Republicans and Democrats alike. That is the epitome of the problem and why, not only has it not been solved, but the problem has been exacerbated. @19:45 - If you're not interested in nitpicking the delivery of a valid arguments, then skip this section. Ignore it as most ration people should! That being said, I'd suggest that Stefan make these videos, and edit them with hard-cuts, and say, literally the same words you spoke, but with a lower tone of voice. A higher pitched tone makes it more of a joke, more of a ridiculous exclamation, and less of an honest criticism. This might seem to many as unworthy criticism, but look at Pat Condell, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQjTLGgQV2w) for example. Take note of other successful, politically controversial, personalities. @28:04 - This is absolutely correct, Stefan. What Stefan says here is the truth, and it's blatantly obvious to anybody who isn't indoctrinated or inculcated, which ever term is less offensive to you, into the ideal of white privilege, black disadvantage, the alleged fact that inequitable outcomes are automatic proof of inequitable treatment, and the unjustified recognition that egalitarianism is the indisputably highest good. It is unfortunate that Stefan provides no evidence, and even more regrettably no arguments, for this conclusion. The fact that the left uses evidence, a.k.a. empiricism, to convince people to support ideals that are, in fact unrelated, shows a huge disregard for RATIONALISM. This is a very prevalent topic in philosophical academia - British Empiricism vs. Continental Rationalism. The rest of society, unfortunately, is totally ignorant to this conflict that exist in academia. Needless to say, due to an over-reliance on science, and the general population's justified respect for its merits, continental rationalism has been unduly neglected as a result. This is a huge problem for society, and it is my honest opinion that Stefan, with his massive audience, should push the value of rationalism in relation to empiricism. The left tries to push an agenda that, by being white, it is a privileged to live in a society where small businesses can, e.g. deliver pizza after the streetlights come on, without their delivery drivers being mugged, beaten to the point of having to go to the emergency room, and having all of their earnings stolen. The party-line is that this is white privilege. White people, and businesses that cater to white communities, do not have to worry about what happens after dark. This is a fact. But No!!! White children are inculcated into the understanding that they have no interest in blackmailing small businesses into exchanging protection money for the absence of violent attacks toward their employees when the cops can't feasibly enforce the laws. This is not the case in black communities, where children are taught from birth that you either take or be taken from. You're required to do what you can to get ahead otherwise someone else will lie, steal, and cheat in order to get ahead of you. That is what a very young, impressionable, black child learns from a very early age. It is important to espouse this truth, Stefan. Hey, Stefan! Say that this is the difference between black and white society. That is the difference. It truly is. I teach these kids, every day, in the classroom. This is the greatest difference between black culture and white culture. @31:10 - Stefan is exactly correct here. Elinor Ostram is a great source for proving ample evidence that Stefan is absolutely, without question, undeniably correct. If you were to listen to what Stefan was saying without the background knowledge that I have, then there would be no way of knowing that Stefan was correct, which is why Stefan isn't convincing as many liberals, progressives, and socially-fixated people as he otherwise could have. I really want people to understand that, although you may agree with Stefan, it is because, based on your past history, you are predisposed to agree with the stuff that Stefan is saying. I am not. I was raised in Ann Arbor, Michigan, as a liberal. I was raised as a progressive who hated conservatism, who said the constitution, as a document that was expertly designed to be altered as society changed, and believed that if we were only able to convince white people that blacks were raised in an environment totally foreign to what we, white people, were accustomed to, then all of the conservative whites would finally understand how the constitution was meant to be amended to benefit the lowest rung of society. Here's what Elinor Ostram had to say on the subject. She won a Nobel Prize based exclusive on this article: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/2009/ostrom_lecture.pdf. 31:20 - I'm nitpicking, but Stefan said Asians are best equipped to solve problems in the Asian community. White people are best equipped to solve problems in the white community. Even though Stefan didn't say it, Hispanics are, in fact, best equipped to solve problems in the Hispanic community (which may be why Donald Trump is currently winning the Hispanic vote - among Democrats and Republicans). Elinor Ostrom proved this point... but Stefan was not confident enough to say what I am about to say. Stefan... was not... confident... enough to say... what I am about to say. BLACKS ARE BEST EQUIPPED TO SOLVE PROBLEMS IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY! That is to say, without the help of the federal government. When you hear that "Black lives matter!", those are people who are demanding the federal government should manage the black community. These people are idiots. Black people need to manage their own communities on a local level. The very idea that the commander in chief, the president of The United States, can do ANYTHING to help a local community of black people is utterly retarded. IT IS RETARDED! The president has no power over these small communities. It's utter insanity and total ignorance. @32:00 But there are still ridiculous problems with Stefan's message, and it pains me to even have to point this out. Blacks, in America, are exclusively the product of slavery. Literally 99.9% of the entire African-American population is here because of slavery, and at this point in the video, Stefan consciously tries to argue that, during world war 2, the Japanese internment was worse than 200 years of slavery in addition to a perpetual fight for black equality, through the Jim Crow era, until modern times. He later argues that the Jewish discrimination is worse than what black ancestors underwent over a period of 200 years. Yes, I agree that the internment of Japanese-Americans was awful, ridiculous, and unconscionable. I mean, as an American, we literally took every Japanese person, at the point of a gun, and forced them to relocate to a very large cage. As an age twenty-something, I have to say... What-in-the-actual... I agree that what the Germans did to Jews was unbelievably idiotic. The Germans literally took Jews from their homes, their families and their neighbors/friends, stuffed them into cargo trains, and then funneled them into death chambers. What... in the actual... fuck. People in the past were clearly mentally retarded. That is the most absurd, irrational, insanity I've ever heard of. All of what I've just talked about is totally retarded. These people were fucking morons. But think about being forced to work in a field, picking cotton. Think about separating cotton from the seed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXp-O6SIeyg). This is what "the house slaves" did all day, every day. They didn't do it voluntarily. They didn't do it because they thought it was expected of them, culturally. They did it endlessly, until they thought their arms would fall off, because if they didn't their skin would be whipped until they bled to the point of no return. ... ... ...and this was the "house slaves," who drastically had it easier than "the field slaves," for over 200 years. Yeah, from birth until death. And their children did this from birth until death. And their children's children did this from birth until death. They did this because if they didn't, they would be tortured relentlessly, forever. The field slaves had it one-hundred times worse! Stefan, and everybody listening to him, needs to recognize how insanely cruel slavery was. Does it have an individual impact on the culture of modern times? Honestly... not even close. There is no person alive that has ever come close to experiencing the cruelty of American slavery... and it should really make you question that whole confederate flag controversy that people are so eager to voice their opinion about. Fuck the confederate flag!!! What in the actual!! But I digress... Honestly speaking, slavery was unconscionable bullshit that nobody should even come close to making appear to being negligible. That being said, it is currently 2015. Nobody should be interested in dwelling on the horrific and undeniably cruel distant past. Nobody alive today ever experienced the absolute insanity that was the slave era. BUT IT IS STILL IMPORTANT, FOR ALL INVOLVED, TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT WAS TOTALLY INSANE! IT WAS PSYCHOPATHIC!!! Why I bring this up, is that in no way should Stefan say that he'd rather be a Japanese-American in an internment camp, which was ridiculous, over being an African-American slave in a cotton field, which was obviously worse by several orders of magnitude. To say otherwise is unbelievably retarded. It is...I'm at a loss for words... idiotic. The Japanese-Americans who grew up in internment camps were able to make a decent living and cultivate a moral and virtuous family, with children who attended college, and contributed to society. Black slaves in cotton fields were doomed to perpetual slavery with no hope of freedom, let alone prosperity, and were inculcated in what they were told... that they were inferior, worthless, negligible, and nothing more than a means to an end. That was their entire life, from birth until death. These are the facts. This is what every person should know. There is a huge difference between Japanese internment and African-American enslavement. Stefan acknowledged that there were injustices, but refused to disseminate between the injustices against the Japanese and the injustices against African slaves. The two are not even remotely comparable, and Stefan should know better. In fact, I refuse to believe that he doesn't know better. He is willingly lying to you! @ 33:55 - Stefan retracts everything he previously said in order to cover his tracks, like a lawyer who makes all kinds of impermissible statements in court, fully knowing it's not permissible in court but says it anyway to influence the jury despite the fact that what he said was completely impermissible in a court of law. Later, he cites that blacks who immigrate from Africa are more successful than the blacks who are the offspring of proliferated slaves. Stefan says this as if it supports his view that racism is dead in modern America. On the contrary, the fact that the prodigy of slavery is drastically worse off than African immigrants drastically proves that 200 years of perpetual slavery is the cause of all of the problems in the black community!!! Think about it. You are black. You immigrated from Africa, e.g. Uganda, where English is your second language and you are brand new in a society no where close to anything you have experience before, yet you are blatantly better-off than blacks who were born in the United States of America. What... in the actual... fuck! Why? Why are blacks born in a 3rd world country, who don't even speak English, better-off than black people who were born as American citizens, in America?! That's a problem! Right?! Am I wrong for saying that? Yes or no?! Don't answer yet. I don't want you to form any opinion based exclusively off what Stefan or I have said thus far. This topic requires a great deal of insight and research. What Stefan is getting at is that a lot of black people blame unadulterated racism, not only perpetuating from law enforcement officers, but from the overall society as a whole, as the primary cause of the problems in black culture. In my view, this is an oversimplification of the black experience. It is not at all accurate of what is actually, in reality, going on in black culture. Black people tend to not believe that they hold value in their society, white society, or otherwise. The majority believe that they can escape poverty through music, movies, or athletics. I would like to emphasize the latter because this is ultimately what they believe. That is a problem. This is the stigma that affirmative action is attempting to overcome. Progressives want inner-city blacks to recognize the obstructions that their particular circumstances yield. Progressives want to hide from inner-city blacks all of the avenues toward overcoming those obstructions. That's the overwhelming problem. Progressives benefit from a perpetual underclass that blames the opposing party for their downfall. That is their voting bass. My essential argument is that Stefan leaves too much for the opposition to find fault with, and provides no reason for anyone to alter their predisposition. Stefan has claimed, in the past, that reason cannot work for altering people's frame of mind. i would argue that Stefan has yet to even try. @35:15 - yes, 4-5% of white people owned slaves in the south, a long-ass time ago. It really doesn't matter. 10% of Germans were Nazis. Okay... Again, it doesn't matter. What matters is how long that particular prodigy was dominated as slaves. What matters... is how long... that particular prodigy... was subject.. to an illegitimate authority... at threat of unimaginable physical pain and death. That is all that matters. Nothing else matters. Of all the things that you think that matter, nothing else comes close to mattering. Nothing, on this planet, matters more. I honestly don't know how to phrase it any more clearly, but nothing in existence matters more than this single solitary thing. That's how much it matters. Okay, I'm just going to throw this last criticism out there. Please read on. Please al least finish reading until the CONCLUSION. Stefan should link to the appropriate source within the video as he makes his assertions. A list of sources at the end is almost entirely useless to the average consumer. I noticed one of his "sources" is buzzfeed. Uh... what in the actual fuck is that? Buzzfeed is a worse source than a tabloid. Another is Pewforum. A forum? Uh... bad. For one of his links, the article title is, "Jehovah’s Witnesses boss: Don’t wear tight trousers, they’re designed by homosexuals". Another article Stefan linked to was, "Black Pastors' Group Urges Civil Disobedience Against Gay Marriage Ruling." I'm sorry but there was literally no relevance here. In what way are these sources relevant to anything in the video? Maybe there is some relevance, but it certainly isn't intuitively obvious to me, and since there is no indication within the video that any source is used for any of his assertions, specifically, I have no idea where Stefan's info is coming from... ... Just saying! @8:40 (in reference to when I said, "Just saying!") - Don't make rash judgments about people's colloquial habits. It's just ad hominem bullshit. However, ad hominem is, in fact, a universal flag of douche-baggery. Some final thoughts I didn't address already: Stefan, you barely touched the concept of red-lining. But fine. I actually understand this concept and red-lining was a RACIST practice that actually yielded better loaning practices that what were previously used. Yes, RACIST, UTTERLY RACIST, TOTALLY RACIST, RACIST, RACIST policies yielded financially responsible lending practices. Those practices, which saves banks millions of dollars in failed lending opportunities, was deemed racist by politicians and made illegal. This practice is called red-lining. I know what red-lining is. A bunch of households failed to pay their mortgages in a specific area and the banks said, fuck all of the people in this area, we're not loaning money to ANY of them. Certain Democrats were able to show circumstantial data which showed that these geographical regions that banks were targeting happened to be, in large part, populated by black people. It was, at most, a coincidence. But since democratic politicians showed that most people who defaulted on their mortgages were black, it was enough to convince people that it was racist. That is what red-lining is. Red-lining has always been a geographical predisposition to defaulting on mortgages. This is abundantly clear based on several mortgage bankers who, literally, give zero fucks about the melanin in your skin. They just want to have a return on all of their investments that they can report to their superiors. That's what people need to understand, republicans and democrats alike. Nobody gives a fuck about all of this bullshit. People just want to make money and show statistical profits to their bosses, i.e. show that they are valuable to the company. Holy shit. Nobody in the banking industry gives a flying fuck if you're black. They just want to show a profit and that is entirely, ENTIRELY, determined on your credit score, which they input into compute software, which spits out a number that tells them what to do. I know. I'm actually deeply involved in this industry. The most racist banker cannot decline your loan request. It's solely based on software that maximizes the companies profits. There is literally zero individual, subjective, evaluation.

This is a very rational objection to the terminology, and fundamentally this is why Rosenberg didn't prefer the title. However, he did define some forms of communication as being violent, and I would like to show you, at the very least, his reasoning. When you use judgments, demands, or comparisons, you're either restricting freedom (the demand part which is fairly obvious - I hope), or in regards to saying that the person is lesser than what they previously believed, you're not attacking their physical body, but rather you're attacking the image of themselves. This form of violence REQUIRES that the other identifies herself differently than you're accusation. The destruction of her image is a form of violence under Rosenberg's definition. When you say she is fat, when she believes herself to be normal or thin, when you say she is stupid, when she believes herself to be normal or bright, when you say she threatens, antagonizes, dismisses, or whatever else, this is a judgment and not an observable behavior. That is the distinction Rosenberg wants to make. Stefan has made a great fuss about ensuring that moral judgments are not wrong. It is good to have moral principles. Stefan wants to ensure his audience is firm in their moral objectives. I do not blame him for this. Morality is the most important thing to be firm in, in your entire life. Objective morality is real. Right and wrong is real! This is the foundation of our dispute. I see that. Reject it. That's the easiest way to refute the title. You can say Nonviolent communication is a dumb title because communication cannot be violent by definition. I have no response to this. The conversation ends. But I warn you that you are missing out on information that can help you in your future. It's just a title.

I've already addressed this. You're in luck that, in my current mood, I don't mind repeating myself. MORAL... JUDGMENTS... ARE... NOT... VIOLENT... COMMUNICATION... Making a judgment isn't communication by definition. It's a thought. That being said. You didn't even make an argument in this post. You just listed premises. "hence the argument you allege is fallacious, but which I've demonstrated directly follows from premises we both accept" is just a statement completely unrelated to the previous premises. I have no idea what argument you're referring to and I have no idea how this conclusion is relevant to premise 1, 2, and 3. Here's some advice. Premise 1 is totally unnecessary to any argument. It's literally the same as me saying unnecessary premises are unnecessary. Why would you even say that? There is no possible way saying, "violent x is violent" could lead to a profound conclusion. This is called a tautology, for those who don't know, and you will be punished for using them in academia. Premise 2 is false. Defining an act as violent is not a moral judgment. It's just a definition. Premise 3 is a lie. I say this because I've made this correction so many times it's painful to see you construct this straw man over and over again. There's no possible way you could have just made this mistake. It's purposeful deception. And the conclusion is completely unrelated to the premises for reasons I've already discussed. You didn't even make an argument. You just said some stuff. EDIT: And for those wondering, I was not trained in debate. I was trained in philosophy, which is writing papers and thinking. In philosophical discussion, we don't yell at the other person. Specifically, we don't yell that we already resolved a dispute that is rehashed. We kindly remind the other that we thought it had been resolved, and ask if they may have thought of something new that would refute the previous conclusion. Stefan doesn't do this. In academia, we work with one another to arrive at truths, and we certainly don't try to justify logical fallacies. That's silly. You learn in the introductory classes that if your reasoning is logically fallacious, we work together to construct an argument that leads to the desired conclusion that is logically sound. If we cannot, then we question whether the conclusion is true. Stefan had no interest in doing that. Stefan has never studied philosophy in an academic institution! I studied philosophy at the #12 ranked philosophy institution in the world, according to QS world rankings. I graduated with high honors. People there don't behave like Stefan, and certainly they don't call a genuine interest in truth "passive aggression". I've learned to speak in a way that offended Stefan. I call a body of work "crap". Note, I called my own work "crap" and not Stefan's, but that's just how I talk. In an institution like the University of Michigan, you talk to people from all sorts of backgrounds. I had discussions with students who grew up in the projects in Detroit, students who lived in India, China, the Netherlands, Flint (MI), and all sorts of other places. Each of us uses terminology a little differently. The difference is that nobody is fundamentally concerned with being right. We're all there to gain an understanding, to learn. That's why we chose the University of Michigan. I did not feel Stefan had that same interest at heart. He was there to impress an audience. That's what I sensed from him.

I don't judge trees.

I'm Brian. I called in. I think you already know that because my email is linked to this account. In the call in show, I was labelled as passive-aggressive. When given justification for this diagnosis, it was reveled that I was misdiagnosed on all but one count, and I chose not to criticize Stefan on the same issues, because I felt as though this diagnosis had been retracted. I then come to find that not only do you both still feel as though I was passive-aggressive, but you labeled the show after this misdiagnosis! Stefan insulted my intelligence. He insulted my education. He said I was a poor representation for the field of philosophy. And then he called into question my character. The worst part, is that his argument was illogical. The fact that violence is a concept, has nothing to do with the logical form of the argument that he presented. That logical form is invalid, regardless of what subjects are placed in it. Stefan says he likes logic. Here is the logic. Denying the antecedent is a logical fallacy. Here is its form: If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore, not Q Let P = you adhere to NVC guidelines, Q = you are nonviolentBy doing this, you can create Stefan's argument. If you adhere to NVC guielines, then you are nonviolent You do not adhere to NVC Therefore, you are violent The argument above is logically invalid. It is logically fallacious. If this is not what Stefan was saying, then explain to me what it is that Stefan was saying. p.s. Why do my comments require moderator approval? If it's because my comments have received down votes on this forum, that's not because of any reason other than I post opposing views to Stefan, and Stefan is not an omniscient wizard of perfect accuracy like those who down vote me want to believe. Fortunately, the truth is no subject to popular opinion, right?

"I personally stand to lose a lot from people withholding their judgments and criticisms of me. The prospect of people not sharing that with me actually deeply troubles me." NVC is a strategy for resolving conflict between two opposing parties. It's not a moral theory that states it is wrong to levy criticisms of others in a productive and constructive manner. Once both sides of a conflict have met one another on the level of being able to identify the other's feelings and needs, then each will be far more receptive to identifying mistakes they have made in the past, and ensuring that the other person's needs will be taken care of in the future. The identification of the other's feelings and needs, and the communication of one's own feelings and needs, must be established first, and normative statements ought not be mixed while performing this process. This has been proven effective through empiricism. Therefore, your first objection stems from a misunderstanding of the theory of Nonviolent Communication, and not from a flaw in it. "f however I am engaging in behavior which prevents in some way that person from experiencing a subjective state called 'belonging', I am obviously not responsible in the same way I would be by preventing them from breathing." You clearly have never read NVC and do not understand the tenets of the theory. I've found that most people on such philosophy forums who believe their education has enabled them to justly criticize without full knowledge, making similar mistakes. Just because a person has a need, does not mean you're required to fulfill that need, nor does it mean you must act in any way that will enable others to fulfill that need. If you use force to stop a person from eating or breathing, then you're immoral. If you use force to stop a person from acting towards the goal of belonging, then you're equally immoral. Their need does not define the morality of your actions. It is the use of force that defines the morality of your actions. Therefore, your second objection stems not from a flaw in Nonviolent Communication, but from a misunderstanding of free will and moral responsibility. "Starting your car can trigger a veteran's post traumatic stress disorder, and make them experience being attacked, and this is clearly not violent to start your car." Yes it is. If you know that starting your car will cause psychological harm, and you repeatedly start your car, than you are acting violently. Now, if you accidentally harm a man by starting your car, because you didn't know he would have a violent, uncontrollable reaction, then you're accidentally violent, and not morally responsible. The action was violent, but the actor was not morally responsible for the violence. If you do not prefer this definition, and yes, it is a preference, then that is your prerogative. However, when discussing Marshall Rosenberg's theory, it is best to accept Marshall Rosenberg's definitions. Therefore, your third criticism is not a flaw in the theory, but a flaw in your understanding of moral responsibility and Marshall Rosenberg's definitions. "1. Moral judgment is violence 2. Saying that something is violent is a moral judgment 3. NVC says that certain types of communication are violent Conclusion: NVC is passing moral judgment" Premise 1 is false. Premise 1 does not appear in any of Rosenberg's teachings. This is another argument that Stefan made, so you are correct in saying this was his argument, however the argument that I refuted as being logically fallacious was also espoused by Stefan, and both arguments are unsound. Therefore, your fourth criticism is not a flaw in the theory, but simply an unsound argument. "It's understandable that you would not know this if you haven't read the book, but he's actually talking about is what specifically is being evaluated under the framework." Thank you for this correction. I did not understand UPB in the same exact way as Stefan did not understand NVC. I now see that neither theory, under the framework, is talking about thoughts. If I'm being honest, I did know this already. It was admittedly attempting to demonstrate how you can use a strawman against UPB in the same way Stefan used a strawman (unintentionally, by not understanding the theory) against NVC. However, to anybody not educated on UPB, it is convincing to say a theory on morality is about thoughts whereas a theory on communication is about actions.... I apologize for that if it's offensive to you.

On public forums, I've been seeing two main reactions to Bruce Jenner's transformation into Caitlyn Jenner. The first is of vitriolic disgust, where the individual holds a negative attitude toward the transition, and then attempts an ex post facto justification, e.g. he's not natural, he's creepy, etc. The other reaction is in loyal support, where the individual holds a positive attitude toward the transition, and then attempts an ex post facto justification, e.g. she's courageous, she's being honest about her true self, she's an inspiration to others who feel ashamed of who they are, on the inside, etc. However, none of these reactions have approached the situation with any level of philosophical rigor. A man who covers his entire face in tattoos is just "being himself". That doesn't mean he's not psychologically troubled and neurotic, and his socially deviant actions could be a result of this neurosis or psychosis. And if it were the case, is it appropriate to reinforce such actions? Of course, I would never suggest it is good to scorn a man for the result of psychologically traumatic experiences that were inflicted upon him, but I am questioning whether it is advisable to encourage this manner of coping with such trauma. I am questioning whether or not Bruce Jenner needs counselling. No, I'm not saying homosexuality is a psychosis. I'm not saying sexual desire for the same sex is a choice, nor psychosis. I'm saying the desire to wear dresses, wear make-up, have boobs, and employ other socially constructed, and culture specific behaviors, is not innate. It's learned from early childhood trauma. Before emotionally reacting to my comment, I want you to imagine a society where there was no gender role duality. Dresses, make-up, high heals, and purses were never invented in this society, or they were worn by both males and females alike. In such a society, the very notion of transgender could not possibly exist. Therefore, to be transgender is a product of the society that an individual lives in, and not a product of the individual herself. Transgender cannot be an innate attribute of an individual.