Spenc

Would you mind describing what happens when he gets angry? We have already established he is not physically threatening toward you. We also established that you have fear of angry men, which your husband seems to pick up on and exploit. Anytime you mention that a discussion doesn't get very far, you state that he gets angry. Anger doesn't necessarily mean the end of a conversation though. So how is it that in your relationship, anger seems to just end conversations? What actually happens in time and space that a conversation happens to end once he becomes angry? EDIT: To clarify, anger and conversations are not mutually exclusive. Or you could agree to take a break to cool off before resuming the conversation later. By what process does the conversation come to an end, and how is it that the conversation is not brought back up later? After an argument or conversation ends, is there even a reference to the conversation later or does it become something that you both just pretend didn't ever happen?

Which part in particular are you referencing?

I did not perceive the podcast the same way that you did, Brazilda. I agree with you that there are opportunity costs to doing an episode on Jeff Sessions, because it means they are not putting there considerable time and energy in doing all that research and production into some other valuable show. In fact I've argued on this board and on the facebook group that Stef is potentially misallocating his talents in covering political issues. However, I felt it was clear in the episode that the show was moreso attacking the talking points of the anti-Trump people and media that are trying to frame everything to do with this administration (and non-left ideologies) as racist, intolerant, etc. It never seemed to me like a blanket endorsement of Jeff Sessions and all his positions or even a significant majority of his positions. If you are to call in to the show, I think it would be interesting if you talked to Stef about what he feels his responsibility is going forward with the Trump presidency and the movement that is connected now to the FDR community. I'm not seeing much debate and self-reflection among these conservatives and alt-right people who are calling and posting on facebook. When is Stef going to debate Vox Day or STATIST Bill Whittle on their statist bullshit instead of just talking about the left? There was just last week I think that conversation with the French woman who was facing consequences for doing journalist work with Russia Today--she stated multiple times int he call how only christianity can provide morality for society. Now, I seem to recall a little book called Universally Preferable Behaviour that Stef wrote to contradict what that woman was saying, but Stef didn't seem to find it germane to the conversation to mention anything about "rational secular ethics" which really was quite annoying to me. It feels (yes, this is not an argument, I'm just trying to share my experience) to me like Stef is erasing his own voice and his own decade of philosophical contributions in order to kinda fit in with the right wing crowd without any reciprocity from his counterparts. Why the fuck should Bill Whittle (STATIST Bill Whittle!), among other right-wingers, feel like he can come on Stef's show and spout a bunch of anti-philosophical pro-state ideology without being challenged on it? And Stef seems to not have the same freedom, by his own omission of counterpoints and reluctance to debate. I get that before Nov 8, the show's motivation was to help Trump, so I'm not even arguing that he has to interject counterpoints into every conversation. But when you look back at older volumes of the show, Stef consistently debated with libertarian thinkers like Walter Block, Jan Narveson, Michael Badnarik, and everyone got along and the libertarian community was better for it. I'm eagerly waiting for Stef to inject the same contribution to the anti-left/alt-right/Trump crowd because they desperately need it!

What evidence is there that Trump has any intention or capability of reeling back the types of programs that single mothers are on? A lot of the programs are state sponsored to begin with. Which ones are federally funded? I'm not going to include the Dept. of Education stuff like Head Start and NCLB because these are supplementary--maybe they provide a bit of additional babysitting but not much. It seems like this is just a case of a woman who has been swept up in the fear-mongering of the media that wants to promulgate a War On Women

I'm curious if you're familiar with Real Time Relationships, the book by Stefan, or the methods in general from podcasts? How often would you say you and your husband communicate with these methods? Or how often would you say you communicate with these methods? P.S. the book is free to download or only like $2 on iBooks, and i think there is a podcast dedicated to a full reading, or at least a good outline of the principles

Sorry to hear that. The biggest red flag that jumps out to me about your relationship is that you mentioned that your husband has topics that are off-limits even in counseling. You're not even supposed to bring up criticisms in a setting where that is the exact place to facilitate bringing up those criticisms. Let's say hypothetically he was reluctant to accept these certain topics and criticisms at home when he feels overwhelmed and frustrated, but he was willing to at least hear them out in counseling with the help of a professional there to mediate the discussion. That would seem like a path to improvement going foward. Kids are pretty outspoken until they learn to adapt the discomforts of their parents. If a father is frustrated by open criticism, he will impart frustration or fear in the child to bring those things up. So either the kids have to go behind his back to talk about their feelings to you, which you've already expressed would upset your husband to be talked about behind his back; or they have to participate in family self-censorship between all of you.

was he call 1 (UPB or call 4 (determinism)? I'll offer $0.02 of reaction and hypothesis:

Would you like to call in to discuss your anxiousness about calling in? Maybe Michael can assist you with that!

I notice it has been 2 weeks since your original post. Have you found anything helpful in this thread that you have been able to apply at home? Have you or your husband noticed any difference in you resulting from getting a few outside perspectives on your relationship?

Hmmmmm......I can't help but sense he has a few unprocessed issues with his mother/parents

the facebook group is hardly a philosophy group, it's more of a The_Donald shitpost group, except The_Donald is actually funny

I'm curious: 1. Objective/Rational: Does your husband love you? 2. Subjective/Emotional: Do you feel loved in the relationship? How often? Based on your answers, how do you hypothesize children would experience growing up with this person as their parent?

So here is a theory of why he is resistant to self-knowledge. Obviously, if he isn't self aware, then he can do things like this that appear good and benevolent on the surface and he can feel like a noble white knight for his actions. We know that someone with self knowledge would not have made these same choices and would empathize with the young woman and recognize she is under duress and feels indebted. Therefore.....if you push him to pursue self-knowledge, he has to come to terms with the fact that he had a history of this sort of manipulation, recognized an opportunity to prey on you, and went into fast action to do so. Because right now, while he lacks the self-knowledge he doesn't have to face responsibility for his actions and you are kind of condoning and excusing his behaviours. Somewhat fairly in the sense that he lacked the tools to consciously know what he was doing (giving him the benefit of the doubt based on your answers), but at the same time, he was 45 years old and completely responsible to understand his own actions. So he does have friends then? I don't understand the mutual friend thing.... Would these friends be aware of any of the conflicts in your marriage, or do you abstain from talking about those due to your husband's anger? When you say it is fear conditioned from the past, do you mean from your family relationships as a child? Again, it seems like your husband is really intelligent in the ways of [probably subconsciously] empathizing with you and then using his sense of your emotions to manipulate you. He seems really adept at recognizing how to get you to self-censor and excuse his bad behaviours and stuff. So like I said above, what incentive does he have to change himself? He will have to face his own history which will be hell for him, and he will lose this factor of plausible deniability about his intentions with respect to how he has mistreated and manipulated you! As long as he stays as he is, he can expect you to not notice or hold him responsible for his skillful awareness of your psyche and his manipulations! Isn't this incredibly strange to you that you know a man 5 years, who wants you to have his children, and you don't know why he wants kids? And it seems questionable how badly he really wants to have the children because otherwise he would be trying to answer your questions and address your concerns so that the baby-making could commence, right? Like, if I really want a job, I make sure I am prepared to discuss in detail why I want the job, why I'm fit for the job, etc. so that I actually have a chance at getting said job. It may be a bit tedious, but I really want the job so that is not going to deter me, and in fact I'll be motivated to meet the expectations. And of course, after he dies, you're younger and a woman, so you;re probably living 25+ years alone after his death. That means he has to provide you with a spectacular ~30 years of marriage from now until he passes to not only compensate you for that 30 years of your time but also for the 25-30 years of being a widow that follow. Just curious why you didn't have any comment about my point about researching into your dating market. I'm not pushing you to dump this guy and hit the meat market or anything, I just wanted to make the point that I mentioned in the last post: when you have kids, you want to be able to tell them that you did the best you could, and this means not only from the time of birth or conception, but from the time you set out to determine who the father will be. If you take it for granted that this man is the best father out there, then you aren't really doing the best you can. Which isn't to say that he isn't the best available man, just that you maybe shouldn't base that off of a month-long courtship while you were under duress

Based on her descriptions of her husband, narcissism and psychopathy did not really come to my mind and there is a lot of open space for a person to occupy between being curious and knowledgeable about oneself and being a psychopath or a narcissist.

Just saw this movie for the first time. Martin Blank (John Cusack) returns to Detroit for a hit job the same weekend as his high school reunion in a little suburb outside the city (Grosse Pointe). He disappeared from home on prom night, ditching his girlfriend, friends and family and has not been seen or heard from since. Everyone spotting him in town before, and then during the reunion, asks him what he's been up to for 10 years and he repeatedly tells people he kills people for a living. The generally just laugh it off as a joke or skim right by it due to self-involvement, drinking, etc.) What I found really interesting about the movie is the way his honest confession of his murderous job juxtaposes the common small talk of the ordinary people of the society that he is separate from (he is a self-described loner beyond just having a secretive job). The very method by which Blank speaks with candor for pretty much the first time in 10 years, is the same method by which the society at large avoids real conversation. The script that everyone follows in their small talk reduces their interactions to being meaningless drivel, and simultaneously this is Martin's only experience of vulnerability and openness. I really enjoyed observing this in the movie and thinking about it.

I'm curious, how would you rate the character of your husband based on this 'courtship'? Or generally, any financially stable 45-year old man with highly limited personal skills picking up a young woman at her lowest point and springing a proposal on her when her only other options would be like a women's shelter or something? Have you discussed this with your husband or in counseling? It seems like you're not 'supposed to' talk about this, as you mention below that he a) lied in addition to preying on you at your weakest; and b) was upset when you shared this info with a friend. How would he react to you saying the marriage was a mistake at the outset? So, how nervous are you then posting information on this forum? Aside from your voice, you could be equally anonymous on a call with Stef. Can you explain what you mean when you say you are "fearful" of involving other people or trying to talk to him? Is there a physical threat, or is this a fear conditioned in you from your past that he exploits now? Hence why it might be valuable for you to research some statistics about what the dating market is really like in your area and age group. If you're not sure if there are better options available, all the more reason to research and know. My mom once told me that "i did the best I could", and Stef and callers into the show often mention that line from parents as a way to deflect inquiry and criticism. Well, if you have kids with this man and then they have a father that won't allow them to connect with him, no matter how much you work on your own self and connect to them, you can't say that you 'did the best you could' if you aren't going to spend a few hours looking up statistics to help you decide on who their father will be. Is your husband already open or accepting to your hope of having children? And do you sense he is genuinely accepting of children for growing your family as opposed to a) conceding children to you so that he can always hold that over you that he made a major compromise; or b) a way to further lock you into a marriage where he does not meet your needs. Like, what is really keeping you two together for the rest of your lives? What are the chances that if he is refusing to change that you are actually going to carry on with this for 30 more years, and be there to care for him in his old age and give him comfort as he slips into the mortal abyss? Obviously, if you have kids, he gets you locked in for 18 more years, and even if the marriage breaks up at that point once the child-rearing is done, he gets a kid or two as indentured servants to accommodate his behaviour.

1. Out of curiosity, why were you attracted to him in the first place? Why did you think a lifelong relationship was a good idea in the past when you were proposed marriage? It might kind of give him a shake to the head if you gave him a breakdown of how he is a) different than he was in the beginning when you fell in love; b) in contrast, the same as he was back then and has not grown as a person in all this time; and/or c) different than how you (as an individual or as a couple) had envisioned when you planned your lives together, thus creating a disappointment in your lives. 2. I would actually say the best course of action, based on the limited knowledge I have from this thread, would be for you to participate in a call-in show, have a lengthy chat with Stef to uncover some core issues in the relationship and with yourself and him as individuals. Then sit down and have him listen to the episode with you and see how he reacts and proceeds from there. 3. If you're not open to the idea of calling in, I would suggest maybe you try to do like a role play type of thing within your own mind, or maybe with a friend or someone who you trust and is familiar with your relationship and can help. Basically, write down like a movie script or however you would do it a dialogue of you either talking about the relationship the way you might in the call-in show or if you were talking directly to him. Have him sit down with you and read through it and again, see how he reacts and proceeds from there. I'm just trying to kind of offer you a method or two of having the conversation with him in a way that is a bit more passive for him, since you mention he is not open and talkative if you put him in an active role. Just my opinion on one strategy to take What is your sexual market value? I'll assume you are 30-33, but you could also be referring to like a baseline fertility with higher risks of problems which would put you at 37-40. In either case, there are certainly men out there looking. If you're in the over-35 group, you might be looking at divorced part-time dads highly represented in your dating market. You might want to search statistics about your area, your age group, etc. I believe match.com does annual statistical reports about their membership, or maybe it's another site. Then again, i think plenty of fish and most of the rest do as well, so you should be able to get an idea for what your market value is out there, and what kind of value is out there for you to get. You would also have to take into account the issues surrounding a divorce from just making court dates, meeting with lawyers, etc. to the emotional stress of doing it. And how long would it take you to clear your mind and heart to start dating again? That could take roughly 3 years of fertility and reduce it to about 1 really easily, if your husband would be contentious about a breakup.

I remember a podcast where Stef talked about people who micromanage and are workaholics and such, in reference to someone who was a procrastinator but whose parent(s) was a workaholic. Stef made a point that workaholics and micromanagers are the worst procrastinators, because they concern themselves with minutiae instead of dealing with the more important things (e.g. spending 60 hours a week at work and very little time with their kids) Anyways, in the same sense, i think this same type of theory applies to people who are concerned with the growth of others around them. Like the father who is too busy to parent his children because he needs to sweep the floors of his shop because the employees just don't get it quite right. This father thinks of himself as "too important" in all the other areas, so that he can distract himself from the truly difficult areas of his life where he truly is required. The critical person thinks of themselves as important to the other people around him or her. This person has his or her own aspirations and instead finds the minutiae of what other people are doing in his periphery to be so immediate and important to his attention. When some of these people start to shine and show themselves to be capable and independent from the critical person, he becomes jealous and fearful as his charade starts to fall apart around in cognitive dissonance

Boss, I'm curious if you consider yourself to be an introvert or an extrovert. And as far as your friends who self-report mental fatigue to you, would you consider them to be introverted or extroverted. There seem to be physiological differences in people's brains which lend to introversion or extroversion. I think an extrovert could experience some burnout from being isolated too long, as the way a friend of mine self-reports his experience. As an introvert, I would experience some burnout from a stimulus overload

more conversations with STATIST Bill Whittle Exactly. Keep in mind that Stef used to talk about charging $.50 per episode of the podcasts. I will not revoke donations from the show until they go back to the former model, however when I make donations, I will add a note accompanying the donation that I am paying on account for the episodes I consumed from the first 4.5 volumes of the show.

1. I would say that incrementalism has been about equally tried and equally failed as the tactics of these ideologues you are pissed off at for refusing to be empirical. 2. That is a huge huge huge IF. And one of the issues with it is that his supporters offer no test to measure whether his presidency will be a success or failure. So far it generally seems like we should all just declare victory just on the basis that Hillary didn't get in. And yes, that tastes sweet. The election is over, I want to hear how you and Stef and everyone else is going to use the connections with the Trump insiders, the other media sources like Cernovich and Adams and Alex JOnes to spread the message of freedom. I remember Stef used to consistently do debates with giants of Libertarian movement like Walter Block, Jan Narveson, Michael Badnarik, etc. Everytime I hear an interview with Bill WHittle or VOx Day, I think, Stef should be asking tough questions or flat-out debating these guys on their pro-state bullshit! He lays down a red carpet for them to march out their shit ideas without any pushback in the name of promoting Trump. Okay, let's stomach that until Nov. 8, but election night is long past, it's time to use these connections to debate and spread better ideas to their audiences and hopefully even Trump himself.

not really, if you're advocating for a temporary blip in an economic statistic at the expense of principle I agree on the first point. Anarchists, Austrians, etc. all have the means of quantitative analysis. I don't think this next point is a truthful claim. What is sufficient private sector saving? Nobody knows, especially not you, Trump or any of the people he appoints. You are encouraging the achievement of a baseless goal, "economic growth" or "jobs" without explaining why it is the priority or ideal pursuit in economic policy. You're not giving evidence that the private sector should, under the conditions of trade and budget deficits, be handed any additional funds through fiat policy. This requires qualitative assessment, which is not half of a dichotomy, it is a precursor to engaging in the quantitative analysis. Or at the least, a means of testing the veracity of a quantitative approach before following through on a quantitatively-approved policy.

I'm not sure that voting is the same as consent to be governed. While I understand the sentiment of the statement, I'm not sure that one is a corollary of the other. FOr example, the vote isn't a referendum on whether or not to scrap the government or whether to proceed onward with the system. That would be more in line with "consent to government and consent for the government to impose its rule over those who did not consent". When people go to the polls, they go with the conditions being: a) there will be a continuance of government, b) there is a set procedure for selecting the ruling class, and c) this vote is your only input on the process and selection of the rulers in the eyes of the state. I'll go look for your other thread about this topic to see if you addressed these points there.

In what context would you say they are immovable. I am immovable on the NAP in the context of discussing right and wrong. If you had asked me a different targeted question, I might answer differently. e.g. A difference between saying, "Is Trump a good candidate for president?" (No) vs. "Is Trump preferable to Hillary?" (Almost certainly yes). In other words, are arguing for people to "support" pragmatism over philosophy or are you offering a debate on which plausible outcomes would be preferable over others? If you're arguing the latter with the language of the former, you're of course going to run into trouble. Out of curiosity, are you yourself philosophically an anarchist?