Matthew Ed Moran

Game is the result of women not finding men valuable primarily for their resources. Men who are looking to have no anxiety are looking for the wrong women. Women who are looking for men with no anxiety are not good women. Resources are primarily what a good woman is looking for. The type of man who can get resources is what women will be attracted to.A stay-home mother committed to raising children, who is in her fertile years, is what good men are primarily looking for. Women who want children and aren't looking for resources are dangerous. Either they don't want children with you, or they plan on getting the resources from the state. Men who aren't looking for mothers are going to get screwed in my opinion.

you didn't mention anything about children. seems kind of important. maybe you somehow overlooked

If you're around crappy people, in my opinion and visceral experience it is not worth it. If you're around good people, then you'll be living but you probably won't be drinking or having sixteen girlfriends a week. I don't see anything necessarily regrettable about doing stupid hilarious stuff, but if you have someone you can connect with than you can at least be honest at the end of the day and repent or make adjustments if you need to. As someone who did a lot of stupid hilarious stuff in my teens, it grew very isolating over time, until it felt more like a coercive force over me to continue what I was doing, rather than be able to reflect on my life and make choices from the knowledge I gained. My experience is that doing the same thing over and over kills the soul, because nobody actually would want to do the same thing over and over if they had another option. People who drink tremendously and sleep around I think feel tremendous pressure to keep doing it, despite having worse and worse regrets in the moment and in the moments following. The vision I get is literally of a person being coerced to put toxic chemicals into them, to sleep with people they don't like. This visceral, personality crushing brutality on one's conscience is to me a form of self coercion, or self harm, for a society that doesn't care about their personal well being, vitality, health, freedom of conscience, freedom from child abusers, at all. So to harm oneself for these people will unleash an inhuman rage at the base of the spine at the disgusting injustice. I can see no positive from doing it, given that there are other options.

Is it fair to say the government is giving people debt that they must pay in the future in exchange for their goods and services? It's like if I went and took your house, and then I gave you debt in return saying you owe me more resources in the future. So it is a process of accounting where assets are artificially turned into liabilities. So when there is a gov't deficit, in real terms, the government is being starved of assets. If the gov't has accounted to make purchases in the future by having a flow of assets that have been cut short due to its mismanagement, then the only two options I see are inflation or deflation. Inflation is the gov't destroying the value of all assets in the economy by destroying the structure of production to meet the needs of the gov't short term consumption. Deflation is making the assets more valuable, by investing in them for longer term consumption, at the expense of gov't accounts defaulting on their purchases. I will try and show an example of how I am trying to apply this analysis to social security. Social Security was essentially a ponzi scheme. It traded people liabilities for their assets, in the promise that in the future their liabilities would be something they could live off of. The assets we know are destroyed by government mismanagement, so it's not like the government is going to come back and give SS recipients NEW assets. The gov't can't hand out food to people, or medical care, unless it is taking them from elsewhere. The assets are gone, and in their place are liabilities. So when people are handed out tons of new liabilities for social security, that's like putting a piece of paper in a vault saying "better get some resources," and expecting people to be able to live off that. What is the solution to that? It seems to me either it is deflation or inflation. Inflation destroys the structure of production by making it more focused on near term consumption. Deflation lengthens the structure but requires less present consumption. So for people expecting SS benefits, the only way to pay them is to create consumption assets at the expense of the next generation's standard of living. Sorry if I'm rambling, but I'm interested does MMT recognize this (if what I'm saying is accurate) and what are its prescriptions? Thanks for the time you're investing here.

If you don't spend the NimaBucks into existence, then sure you may start physically taking things from people, but how is that different from a situation in which you spend the NimaBucks into existence, and then tax them? In the former situation there is no inflation. There is simply a net loss for the economy in real terms. In the latter situation there is inflation when NimaBucks are spent, and then later when the bucks are taxed the inflation is removed from the market. There is no actual market demand for NimaBucks. When you say deficits only cause inflation when there isn't a larger demand for NimaBucks then there are in existence, that has nothing to do with market demand for money. As soon as the government begins spending NimaBucks into existence and forces people to accept them as payment, any demand for NimaBucks is the opposite of market demand. It is destroying savings every single time they are used. You can call a situation in which taxes can't be collected via fiat exchange a situation of unemployment, but that is so deeply insane (edit: sorry just to be clear I'm not saying you're insane) that you have completely removed yourself from discussing the economics of the situation. You're just using economic terms which rely on market demand to discuss what is the demand of violent force. If someone wants to force me to work for them, and I don't, that is not unemployment. (edit: sorry this is a non argument I made without realizing ^) I am not an expert, so maybe I am completely wrong, but MMT is not describing economic transactions. It is describing a method of accounting for taxes over time. As soon as government receives goods for nothing (for violently imposed fiat - this is nothing), you are accounting this as private savings, but in economic terms this is monetary inflation and a net loss of savings. When you say balanced budgets create unemployment, all you're saying is government can't collect as many taxes as it did in the past. You're using language very different than I have seen in Austrian economics, which would never define unemployment as not engaging in slave labor.

I'm still having some trouble understand Rosen's example, but I'll check out that video and probably the book. One question I have: if in Rosen's example the government must spend the fiat before it can be taxed, then is it even possible for the government to run a surplus? If the government only spends 80 fiat notes, how can it collect 100? Edit: The video is really interesting...

The inaccuracy is you're using "unit of value," which is not an objective or tangible measurement. Money is not a unit of value. It is a unit of account. It measures relative costs of different things, but it doesn't measure the value people get from consuming those things - which is purely subjective (which is why there can be no objective units to measure it with). The point of an economy is ultimately to consume, so when resources are directed in a market, by definition they are allocated towards consumption. When they are directed by government, there is no principle that would direct resource allocation towards consumption. Rather, since they are forcibly redistributed from a free market allocation which maximizes consumption over time, government spending is creating negative value for the economy. So when you change the "unit of value" to being dollars in your example, then you have a more realistic understanding of what is happening. If the government runs a surplus, there is less money for the market, but there are more resources. Whatever maximizes the amount of resources in private hands maximizes consumption over time. So if the purpose of an economy is consumption, then what is better for the economy is more resources in private hands, but not necessarily more money. I'm sure you get this, but let me know if I'm missing something.

Just responding to the first part. I don't understand how surpluses can be a bad thing and deficits a good thing if prices are allowed to fluctuate freely (i.e. no minimum wages, no price controls, etc.). When I think of "good for the economy" or "bad for the economy," I think in terms of who is controlling resources. If the government taxes money, but does not spend it, then there are more resources in private hands which is a good thing. If prices can move freely then they will adjust to the new money supply and there will be deflation, i.e. an increase in purchasing power, for private citizens. If the government runs a deficit, then this is inflationary and it puts more resources into the hands of government employees. This seems like the worst possible situation.

Her statement is "voting leads to putting someone in a position of power." That makes it sound like there is no one in a position of power, and then voting brings about a situation in which there is. Even hypothetically if there were no one in a position of power, and then you had a group of people conspiring to bring someone to power (i.e. to form a state), their action of voting wouldn't be the immoral act. The immoral act would be the way in which they initiated force. If all they did was vote for someone to be in power, that wouldn't magically make it a reality. She also puts out a moral challenge: would you sign a pledge saying "I backed Hitler." I would sign a pledge saying I backed the guy who wasn't Hitler. In fact, I would be more proud to vote against Hitler than to not vote at all and would see that as a greater duty of mine.

I think what is lacking in this thread is a lack of courage. If you really have a problem with dsayers, if you think he has really harmed your interests or is harming the interests of others; if you think he a black mar of hypocrisy on this community - then speak up about it! And I don't mean one or two lines. Otherwise you come across as petty and a bit of a hypocrite yourself. I have personally negative reactions to certain posts or posters, sometimes so voluminous in the anger and passion I feel against what they are saying, that I feel helpless to express it at all. I sort of succumb to fear. When you have passion, and you feel that passion is burning in the moment you express it, you make yourself vulnerable. Those moments are all or nothing in how you express yourself. There is no middle ground, in my opinion, between vulnerability and self censorship. If you self censor, no matter how well you try to hide it, you will be forgotten in enough time because no one will care enough to connect to what you're saying and carry it on to their family, friends, or children. It's not always the case, but it's a tendency I notice in myself that I want to fight back against, to squelch this fire against what I despise about what a person is saying. It's self censorship of the worst order, because it harms the person self censoring, but it also takes away the opportunity of the recipient to hear what you really feel. Passive aggression is like a bottling of the soul. All the passion, anger, and rage against evil, hypocrisy, and despair is quickly dispersed like a gas into the atmosphere, unless the energy is harnessed and directed exactly at the deserving idea. When I really put a lot of emphasis into a post, I worry about it for days after. I feel paranoid, self conscious, and obsessive about all the ways in which I could be attacked for it. For me, burying my rage, bottling it into terse, predictable, cliched (for my standards) one-liners or clever insults is a source of lost opportunity to acknowledge how deep my fear of being my unfiltered self is. It's far too easy a habit to fall into; the comfort of being nearly quiet. If you have something to say, say it with emphasis and attitude. Drill into an idea until its spouting out oil as if you punctured a great beast, and its thick blood is the food and energy for everyone who has participated in the effort. Simply flicking your wrist at some idea you find deplorable, like personal hypocrisy, is not enough. If anything, it invigorates the other person to double down on their hypocrisy because they will see you as a fresh example to make a victim of their delusions. Stefan really turns up the heat against his enemies. If he wasn't willing to unleash his anger when he saw fit, in every conversation or debate he has had where it was necessary for the world that he push back with unrelenting vigor for consistency, we would be left with the monotony of boring evil and its platitudinous, dry, lengthy distractions that it puts forward every time it's challenged, because it expects and relies on good people to shut up and not have the courage to call out their feigned attempts to be genuine and truthful. I am reminded of a guy like Peter Joseph, who on the surface isn't some raging lunatic, but in my opinions expresses this type of extreme dissociation from the truth with verbal acrobatics that drone on continuously. It takes the same effort and skill and amount of courage (more courage actually) to match his every word that he drones on in predictable fashion, with real-time, energetic, and passionate expressions of anger and rage at the level of inconsistency and dissociation that he is expressing. That's something I thought of when I was reading this thread. I was tempted to respond about the people in this thread, but I couldn't get over how petty and what a wasted effort that would have been by my standards. Either I am going to try and bring it to the level of principle where it hits my conscience deepest, or I am not going to try at all.

If you can't refute the scientific literature about IQ, then maybe you should own it and be the example. You're telling us to identify as racists, but you're defining being a racist as simply acknowledging facts. You want others to identify as racists, but your way out of taking on the label is by denying facts. You're a hypocrite.

So being a liberal is really bad for parenting, but hitting children is totally OK. Got it. The mother decided to go to work 6 months after having a child. Hooray for priorities! I was re-reading your first post, and I think this sounds like some fresh manure if you don't mind me saying. You've been baby sitting for 8 months. If this is an important issue for you, why are you only finding out about it now? Why are you reluctant to speak your mind about it? 8 months is a long time to act in away to avoid something you find important with people you claim are friends. Certainly you would have made the effort to find out about this earlier if you thought it was going to lead to a positive outcome. I think your pattern of behavior deserves a bit more respect than you're currently giving it. It annoys me when people have a habit of behavior that they blame themselves for (I do it too sometimes). If you have a habit of behavior, there is usually at least one good reason why. You can find out by bringing this topic up directly and seeing if you get rejected for it. The middle area of acting one way and blaming yourself for it seems to me the worst option. If you have the intention of bringing this up,, I don't see any reason for the delay. If they actually plan on re-evaluating their standards for raising their children, then it would seem that is definitely information they would want before they decide to have more kids. I would be completely surprised if you brought this up and it led to a positive change given what you have shared about the mother and your self censoring for this long, but I would love to be proven wrong.

Stefan doesn't say white people have higher IQs. He cites research from experts that he cannot refute that shows whites have higher IQs. Having a high IQ is not a characteristic of genetic superiority. Stefan has explicitly said on many occasions that IQ is simply an adaptation to an environment. You admit you are not familiar with the science, so you reject it as racist because it makes you uncomfortable and because it's the popular thing to do. You're the bigot here.

I personally worry about what Stefan's sex life is like when I watch his show. It's a great distraction when I find his arguments emotionally displeasing

If I were in your situation I would feel fear rather than guilt. It's natural to have that emotion around someone so traumatized to hit an infant. Your fear might have increased the more you thought about it but weren't acting on it. Guilt does not seem appropriate because you did not do anything wrong. I wouldn't discount speaking to the wife rather than the husband, and it may also be a slightly easier conversation for you. Depending on how that conversation goes, you can inform the husband of the effects of his actions and get to the bottom of what they are both doing to reproduce violence in their son.

Even if some unwanted force is the only option, the child can't be morally responsible for trespassing. The moral responsibility falls on the parent. It is up to the parent not to have the child trespass. (for it to be trespassing, the family would have to demand the child leave. If I were having a child over, I would not want force to be used against him/her, and so I wouldn't consider it trespassing and would offer enough time for a peaceful resolution - I think most decent people would offer the same courtesy) If they demand the child leave, using force to do this is one option, but it doesn't excuse the lack of preparation that can avoid the situation altogether. If force is being used on the child that would be appropriate for an adult in the same situation, then the child has been put in a situation that he/she cannot be expected to handle. regevdl offers great ways she deals with it. If she can do it, so can anyone else. major props to her

There is not a single argument you have presented that I disagree with. I found your attaching of a feeling of nervousness to someone else fascinating. If you feel the nervousness of someone else, then at any moment in time, we're likely all sharing the emotions of one another in some way. Empathy is something I think I have a capacity for, but I'm likely so screwed up in terms of processing and identifying my emotions that I have trouble recognizing my own from those which belong to others. I see two extremes of empathy now (none or total), neither of which seems conducive to what a healthy, willing and honest relationship would require. And I did this all without ANY of your help. GO ME!

I meant wrong as in inappropriate and potentially immoral. I maybe could have been more clear as to what I was envisioning. If a child is very sad, and the parent's response is also to be very sad, this seems to me to fit your definition of empathy, and yet from a common sense perspective it does not seem to be overly empathetic, because it would lead the child to feel helpless. The more empathetic response, it would seem to me, would be for the parent to override their feeling of sadness if they do feel overwhelmingly sad, and to instead be assertive to help the child manage and understand his or her own sadness. Expressing sympathy for the child might be an important part of that process, but what I am skeptical of and am trying to push back against is the idea that empathy is fundamentally about feeling the same way as someone else, because that can lead to some tricky counter examples that do not seem to involve empathy, which I will try and explain. If empathy were feeling the same thing as someone else, then Stockholm syndrome would be an empathetic act. However, adopting the prejudices of another person against oneself does not seem to me empathetic from a common sense standpoint, because it relies on completely suppressing the inner self to conform to an abuser. I think if a definition of empathy logically leads one to put an abusive relationship in the category of an empathetic relationship, because the two parties are attempting to share the feelings of others instinctively out of fear, then this seems troubling to me at least. An alternative to defining empathy as sharing a feeling, is to say empathy is the process by which one observes their own thoughts and emotional states and recognizes the difference between their experiences and others, without jumping to that sort of existential angst that abusive people act out on. Abusive people and sociopaths have difficulty recognizing boundaries and that others can have emotions that they perceive as negative towards themselves (negative towards the abusers), because it is a source of existential angst for them. To counter this, they tend to feign but perhaps genuinely experience what they perceive to be the emotions of others ("I feel your pain" because disagreeing with the source of your pain may put me in danger does not seem empathetic). Again, this involves a sharing of feelings between two parties, but I would not call it empathy because there is no observation of the self. It is simply a response to a threat and an identification with another person out of fear. The last reason that I think the definition of empathy you provided first may not stand under scrutiny is because we cannot know what other people are feeling in the same way we can understand what we are feeling. To get anywhere near what someone else is feeling, first you must recognize the distance between yourself and that person, that you inhabit difference psychological structures which are complex and cannot be completely communicated at any given moment. Only after recognizing these innate boundaries can you get an empathetic understanding of what someone might be feeling. However, it is a fundamentally different experience to empathize with someone within yourself, because first you must understand your own experience and recognize that it is directly observable in a way unlike the experience of someone else. To feel what someone else feels is fundamentally an unknowable proposition because there is no apples to apples comparison. There is your directly observable internal experience, and then there is the behavior of others that you perceive. There is a difference between observing a behavior of someone else, and observing your own internal state. People who lack empathy such as abusers have difficulty understanding this because the idea that others' behaviors cannot be completely understood is threatening to them. They are compelled to imitate the behaviors of others, and this may appear to be empathetic, but my argument is that it is imitation and adaptation, not empathy that is the product of self awareness. I'm sure you understand a lot of this, but I wanted to push back against your definition because I would be personally troubled with the idea that someone who is trying to inhabit the thoughts and feelings of someone else is trying to be empathetic with them. Again, sorry to repeat myself but maybe it bears repeating, what is fundamental about empathy is not experiencing what someone else is experiencing, because that is impossible and unknowable. What is fundamental about empathy is understanding the boundaries between our own experiences and the experiences of others. The definition of empathy I think makes the most sense is an observation of one's own thoughts and feelings without fight/flight response, self attack, self censor, and any other response which moves one away from the observations. I think empathy is generally a good thing, even if it can be managed around abusers, because it is a form of self management that is more sustainable than fight/flight. However, in the extreme circumstance of being captive such as children are in the homes of abusive parents, then empathy may be impossible because the experience of noticing the boundaries and the idea that at any moment you could be prey to the whims of your captors that comes at your expense would be overwhelming and put one in existential danger. Feeling what another person is feeling is not what is fundamental to empathy, and may not be knowable, because as you said emotions can be complex combinations, and are linked to personal histories, and are biologically influenced, and also seem to vary significantly in degree. The internal state is such a complex phenomena that sharing the same feeling may be impossible, but the degree to which there is similarity that is the result of two people having a genuine empathetic response to one another (from their own self empathy), I think empathy can lead to connection in that way, which is of a different breed than those who share the experienes of fear and boundarieslessness connect without seeming to feel any genuine empathy for one another, because they cannot empathize with themselves. I'm sorry if that way really long-winded. I appreciate the opportunity to expand on what I think because I make more connections the more I am pressured to explain it. In that way, it is a process of empathy because I am focused on explaining my own thoughts and feelings in a way that is comprehensible to myself, and delineates the difference between how I am understanding my own experience and how others respond to my experience. In other words, I am gaining empathy from this conversation.

When a child is crying I don't necessary see why it would be empathetic to be sad. It might be the wrong response to feel sad (in fact it probably would be). It might be better to feel anxious or angry so that you have a reason to stop whatever is causing the child to feel sad. I don't necessarily see either what a shared experience has to do with empathy. Evil people will share experiences with others all the time to leverage over them by providing sympathy when not sympathizing with might lead them to become angry. Bill Clinton had a infamous line "I feel your pain" - this is a common tactic of sociopaths to use sympathy as a leverage to gain power over someone. If someone believes you have their best interests at heart simply because you are willing to share an experience with them, that can be very dangerous to the extent people involved will sacrifice their own happiness and adopt the sadness or pain of others to gain leverage. It is unhealthy for both parties. When I am attempting to be empathetic I am not trying to imitate what the other person is feeling, because I cannot know for sure what they are feeling. I can only rely on what they are willing to share with me and try to make sense of it myself. That is why I refer to empathy as a subjective experience of one's own thoughts and feelings. Sometimes this will lead to a different emotional reaction on my part, and if this happens, I don't think I am failing in empathy. I think if I discounted my own experience because it did not reflect theirs, this would be much less empathetic than the alternative, which is to imitate their reaction. I think this is explained in the FDR show What Is Empathy on youtube. The idea that feeling what another person is feeling is the basis of empathy I think is wrong, because you cannot know for certain what another person is feeling. Even if you do know, it might not be empathetic to share that feeling. If someone is feeing despair and is on the brink of suicide, the worse thing I might do is join them in despairing. I would actually say empathy is giving people what they deserve.

I know this is completely abrupt as an answer - maybe check out the most popular takings on youtube from FDR on the topic to get a more comprehensive definition - but empathy is fundamentally a form of introspection and reflection on your own thoughts and feelings. Since thoughts and feelings happen in real time, they also are empirical and can be compared to the happenstance they occur: perhaps in a conversation; or at sight of a beautiful picture. Empathy is an awareness of the subtle and logical happenstance of one's own personal experience, and a recognition that there the only directly observable experience is your own. Those who imitate empathy will feign direct knowledge of your experience as if they can know it for certain, and that is a very crude form of empathy which sociopaths utilize to attempt to inhabit the minds of others as if they themselves are invisible.

There is also the case of people who have incoherent beliefs or a smallness in their life who wil nitpick someone who has greater visions based on universable principles for not acting in perfect congruence with their beliefs, despite living in a state of affairs that makes the manifestation of their ideals impossible. In other words, small people are threatened by those who dream big, and will try and tear them down in spite at any notice of their own despairing lack of impact and longevity in the eyes of the future. There is a life after death for those who strive to chase their dreams at all costs, knowing full well they will fail to be able to carry the world on their backs, but the great benefits that accrue to the philosopher who lives for the future requires astounding humility and patience that most others cannot or will not (because knowledge is responsibility) conceive of. I am paraphrasing this perspective that I came across in the closing speech in the recent call "My Husband is a Milwaukee Police Officer| Black Lives Matter" and it's excellent.

You never fight back at the bullies, but you shoot your guide. That is what stands out most to me. For some reason, I don't think it is about your capacity for abuse towards others, but about being a victim of abuse yourself, and responding to the abuse by blaming yourself. In the dream there was no reason it should have been live ammo (it wouldn't be at an airsoft arena); and you shot your guide by pure accident. As a result of loading the ammo to defend yourself, your dream taught you to think this would lead to you hurting the most innocent person involved without any reason, which likely indicates it is someone else's prejudice which is telling you who will be harmed if you defend yourself. That you have a real, steel gun in an airsoft arena means you possibly have the perception you have the ability to defend yourself only with murderous rage, but since there are standards in the arena (society) that prevent you from using this rage (and standards you have by keeping the gun unloaded), you are actually defenseless given the context. Does that make sense? Having a real gun, as unlikely as that is to get into an airsoft arena, and as unlikely as you are to find live rounds on the ground, seems more like a handicap than anything, as if it's weighing you down from running or defending yourself with any of the tactics allowed in the arena (society). The bullies all stop and stare, but they had been doing the same thing to you on purpose that you accidentally did to the boy, and it was their fault in the first place that you even had to load a gun to defend yourself. I am not assuming it is a coincidence that you think to load the gun after the bullying becomes more and more annoying. I'm not sure I understand how you have a capacity for abuse in this dream but are choosing not to participate. It seems to me if you're being bullied and you defend yourself, you are justified and that this is the best option. The dream begins in an arena which seems to imply there will be a fight or there currently is a fight in your life, and how you handle the fight (do you chose to defend yourself or attack yourself) will determine whether you achieve inner peace. I think it is very illuminating that you interpreted this dream to be about your capacity for abuse towards others, when you in fact are the victim of tragedy from others in every way in this dream. By the way, why would you ever be let into an airsoft arena with a real gun? That does not seem realistic. I am not sure I understand the immunity to abuse completely. If they were all live rounds, surely you would not have surived more than one shot. The last thing I will say is that there is a sense of unpreparedness; and an agitation that you have from being unprepared and having no capacity to defend yourself in this situation. To unleash this agitation on the one who is helping you in the dream cannot be helpful. The agitation seems more likely to be because you were thrown into this situation and were unprepared and ill-equipped. That you could not express this in the dream would indicate there is some person who is responsible for your unpreparedness who you do not think you can hold accountable. I also think that you perceive the ten year old boy in the dream as a pro and chose to take his lead signals a feeling of incompetence and lack of direction in yourself. To take the lead of a child in real life in a situation that has any stakes would seem only to be the result of a feeling of profound helplessness or ineptitude in managing the specific situation. This is jut my opinion and I could be wrong and you could be right in your interpretation. I think yours made a good deal of sense but I hope this narrative can offer an alternative perspective that might be useful.

I don't watch TV either, but any mainstream media I do consume usually has themes which make white men look dumb, incompetent, plain, boring, unoriginal, and lacking 'culture' (gee I wonder why white men wouldn't be proud of their culture seeing as it's nearly universally taught to be founded upon slavery, violence and 'toxic patriarchy'; while other cultures are noble and innocent and have their histories embellished to only focus on the positives, even if it requires making up those positives (such as the black invention myths - google it). I had a muslim 'friend' growing up and he would often taunt me about my supposed corniness and lack of culture. He once said, since he is Egyptian (average IQ 85 and poll which shows high rates of support for killing in the name of apostasy), he is interesting and diverse. I have western European roots, but apparently to him this was the equivalent to being an invisible blob of replaceable nothing in terms of ancestry, painting me like everyone else in the country to make me unoriginal; and mind you my ancestors only came up with the civilization which gave him nearly everything he cherished, including consistently applied laws and a universal justice and safety that would not be allowed to outsiders in his home country, the free market, and most inventions in the last century, and more. He also said going to parties in my majority white school life he would get the "brown stare," which I guess is when you're being stared at and you ad hoc apply a racist motive behind it despite having no evidence and not inquiring further. I get stared at too and sometimes I don't enjoy it, but I don't have the excuse of racism (thankfully) because I am white. It's anecdotal, but obviously he got the narrative from the media, because in Asian or any non-white countries you don't get to immigrate and then shame the dominant culture for "all being the same." That would be silly.

You must not be paying very close attention, because there have been call-ins and interviews which either directly or indirectly focus on Trump in the past two weeks. Just because one media story or another hasn't been commented on in the show doesn't mean Stefan has been "silent." This level of imprecision and emotionality is typical of concern trolls, whether you are one or not. And if you think the Trump coverage is to be taken literally, then you do not understand philosophy. The Collapse of Rome presentation is not on Trump specifically, but the historical analysis and comparison to present day is to highlight the themes of history repeating themselves. When Stefan covered Trump, his divergence on immigration was a very large reason why he was noteworthy, since great empires such as Rome have fallen from political favors being given out to barbarians who come from outside the country, to keep politicians in power, which destroy the values which built the empire's success in the first place. It's a philosophy show, so it would be pointless to focus on one individual. Look for the themes and you will see the reasons why any topic is being covered, in general. In fact Stefan is usually quite explicit why he has been covering Trump. If you're curious why the Khan story hasn't been the topic of any recent video, I think it's because anybody who doesn't see the trend in the media by now, given all the effort Stefan has put already towards exposing it, probably will never get it.

He has an interview with him that is over an hour long. I'm not sure if you knew that.