Peter Joseph on Stefan Molyneux: "The Art of Nonsense"

[Vuk11]

Peter Joseph on Stefan Molyneux: "The Art of Nonsense"

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cnuRRWZxSE

 

Warning: fanaticism included

 

 

 

Hey guys, this is my first topic. I really didn't want it to be about this but I think people should see. (So the more important topics come later )

Peter Joseph has let his Ego show in a pretty horrendous response to Stefan's review of the debate. This looks to be the start of a nice big flame war and the comment section is hot with abuse. Just a warning for people it contains obscene language if that's the kind of thing you like the avoid. You will get a clear picture of how the video continues purely from the first 120 seconds.

 

I just want to know what did you think of:

- The "debate"

- Stephan's review

- Peter Joseph's responses

- Should Stefan reply to this, if so why/Why not? Or is it just the start of a useless flame war?

 

Personally I don't like to see anybody going at it over anything, so I will not pressure anyone especially Stefan to reply to something like this. I don't think there's much to gain from it, as you pretty much can't use reason and logic with this type of emotional flaming.

 

Take care all I hope to have some productive discussions soon. 

Cheers.

 

PS. If this topic isn't permitted due to the whole flame war thing, I will gladly delete it.

[waywardvariable]

Thanks for sharing Vuk11, seems to me that this whole thing is devolving from what started out as an interesting debate into a series of tit-for-tat video spin sessions, reminds me of what we see in the "mainstream" media in "discussions" between Democrats and Republicans. Personally I think it's a mistake for these two gentleman to go this route since both made some interesting arguments during the original debate, I would suggest instead just shaking hands (along with apologizing to each other for the inflammatory post debate rhetoric) and then perhaps scheduling a second debate.

[MrCapitalism]

 

I just want to know what did you think of:

- The "debate"

I didn't watch it. I have no plan to. If you haven't seen these sort of debates, they're really important in helping you see the manipulative people in your own life. I'd like to think Stef has helped me to see that.

 

 

- Stephan's review

Stef knew he was going to be talking to a manipulative person.. and from the fallout... it appears that he was correct and prepared.

 

- Peter Joseph's responses

I don't see a need to subject myself to that.. I already know it's there... good enough for me.

 

- Should Stefan reply to this, if so why/Why not? Or is it just the start of a useless flame war?

Manipulative people, to be able to keep manipulating you, need you to continue communicating with them/ have a relationship with them. This choice on your part is the basic foundation of their abuse. Stef knows this... he only does this for his viewers... I can imagine that choice is up to him.

[Vuk11]

Cheers for the replies 100% agree with both of you.

I'm in no way trying to pressure Stefan to reply to anything just getting opinions it's none of my business what he chooses to do about anything.

[PatrickC]

Yes, I'm not concerned with a reply to this video and I confess to being somewhat bored with the whole debate now. If it gave some folk some insight they otherwise didn't have, then all the good. The topic is done I feel, unless someone can find some insights otherwise overlooked.

 

In reference to waywardvariable's comments, I'm not sure Stef owes this guy an apology.

[nathanm]

13 minutes in…I can't WAIT to see if he touches the ending.  Ahhh, must resist the urge to fast forward!

Oh well, how very interesting.  THAT part of Stef's video reply was curiously absent!  Too sore of a spot, don't touch it!

[waywardvariable]

In reference to waywardvariable's comments, I'm not sure Stef owes this guy an apology.

Fair enough xelent, of course it's up to Mr. Molyneux if he chooses to apologize for what Mr. Joseph appears to have taken as personal insults ( which I don't think was Mr. Molyneux's intention). I think it's generally hazardous to do your own post debate analysis (in my opinion one should leave that up to the audience) because more often than not it leads to escalating tensions in what started out as an exercise in rational debate. That being said IMHO Mr. Joseph's response was completely beyond that pale as it was predominately an exercise in demeaning and insulting Mr. Molyneux personally, very asymmetrical and childish response on his part.

 

Anyhow I do hope these two gentleman settle their differences and decide to do a follow up debate since it would be interesting to watch.

[nathanm]

GentleMAN that is, there's clearly only one of those involved here as Joseph shows.  If someone called me a con artist, douchebag, bullshitter etc.  and reinforced all of the criticisms I originally had of them I wouldn't have any interest in 'settling my differences' with them.  It's fucking over at that point.  They're just another asshole on the internet, and you gotta move on to greener pastures.

[kalmia]

Peter Joseph and Jacque Fresco are con-men. I have seen parts of their act in my religious upbringing. Assert anything strongly enough and be the winner. That is the bulk of their game. PJ seasons heavily with his word salads to fog his real intentions from those who don't understand that he isn't speaking coherently. I have watched some of Fresco's stuff, and it is an old man with childlike fantasies. That is useful to a  point, but if he intends to actually achieve anything, he needs to connect it with practical steps. Unfortunately for him, that would mean letting go of his delusions of being the central planner of the future, a role he has invested himself in and, and a role that will remain as nothing more than a fantasy til his moment of death.

Always keep in mind that manipulators get angry at those who reveal them as nothing more than manipulators. 

I'm listening to this now. It is SOOO full of projection. 

[Rob_Ilir]

If there was a "if they are people who could have made one of the call in shows guests a living hell, dont engage them" standard, Peter just orbited it. 

[Alan C.]

I wouldn't waste any more time on Peter Joseph. He's a clown. Stef's analysis was very keen; the ZM/VP consists of frustrated children acting out (which seems to be endemic to Leftist movements).

[nathanm]

I wouldn't waste any more time on Peter Joseph. He's a clown. Stef's analysis was very keen; the ZM/VP consists of frustrated children acting out (which seems to be endemic to Leftist movements).

In other words, one's propensity to expend ancillary chronological assets upon Mr. Joseph would be inherently squandered if one considers the aforesaid intrinsic jester nature of the man as shown in the irrefutably axiomatic digital muniment.

[Wesley]

In other words, one's propensity to expend ancillary chronological assets upon Mr. Joseph would be inherently squandered if one considers the aforesaid intrinsic jester nature of the man as shown in the irrefutably axiomatic digital muniment.

Dang! I did so well until I had to look up the word muniment.

 

However I don't feel so bad when my browser's spell check doesn't think its a word.

[nathanm]

That post was brought to you by Apple's built-in DictionaryThesaurus application! Muniment is apparently a legal term.  Never heard of before myself.

 

I like to learn new words, but Joseph's silver tongue serves to obscure his message rather than make it clearer.  I found that if you read the transcript instead of listeningwatching, some of his most dense sentences take on the form of comedy.  Which is nice considering the man has never said anything funny AFAIK, nor does he find anything else funny.  Note the complete whooshing miss of Stef's 'rank amateur' bit right at the start.  Didn't get it, throws in the "cute" insult.  Classy guy…sheesh!

[Magnus]

In other words, one's propensity to expend ancillary chronological assets upon Mr. Joseph would be inherently squandered if one considers the aforesaid intrinsic jester nature of the man as shown in the irrefutably axiomatic digital muniment.

 

Peter Joseph is just another Marxist, but without that refreshing Marxist honesty that openly declares how much they would like all non-believers to be dead.

 

Damn, but this Zeitgeist schtick is O.L.D.  Lenin himself tried to abolish money.  Lenin!  How unfashionable can you get?  IT'S BEEN DONE.  Granted, Lenin's no-mo-money scheme didn't work out too well, but at least the man did more than whine all day and make YouTube videos. 

[Vuk11]

Does anyone get this approach by them to attack SM for being "reductionist". I explained that the point of a debate is to reduce to a base premise, if your base premise is flawed then everything that leads off of that is by extension flawed. The I get hit with "It's holistic"......isn't Holism emotional and subjective about a supposed "broader view"? 

[Lians]

Does anyone get this approach by them to attack SM for being "reductionist". I explained that the point of a debate is to reduce to a base premise, if your base premise is flawed then everything that leads off of that is by extension flawed. The I get hit with "It's holistic"......isn't Holism emotional and subjective about a supposed "broader view"? 

 

Ah, the endless ping pong game of sophists. The moment you pin them on something, they run to the other side. This forum has seen its fair share of their breed. To continue the mud wrestling analogy from the chat yesterday: Why would you wrestle with a lubed up opponent?

[PatrickC]

You're quite right Lians this forum, community or what have you, has seen it's fair share of flaming and sophistry over the years. It's rarely been profitable to keep engaging when the vitriol from your opponent is this high. I look forward to the board conversation eventually moving away from this topic into more fertile areas of thought.

[Dave Bockman]

Peter is like the douche in Pictionary whose drawing is indecipherable, but he just keeps circling it over and over and over until we all die

 

Peter Joseph and Jacque Fresco are con-men. I have seen parts of their act in my religious upbringing. Assert anything strongly enough and be the winner. That is the bulk of their game. PJ seasons heavily with his word salads to fog his real intentions from those who don't understand that he isn't speaking coherently. I have watched some of Fresco's stuff, and it is an old man with childlike fantasies. That is useful to a  point, but if he intends to actually achieve anything, he needs to connect it with practical steps. Unfortunately for him, that would mean letting go of his delusions of being the central planner of the future, a role he has invested himself in and, and a role that will remain as nothing more than a fantasy til his moment of death.

Always keep in mind that manipulators get angry at those who reveal them as nothing more than manipulators. 

I'm listening to this now. It is SOOO full of projection. 

[TheRobin]

Peter is like the douche in Pictionary whose drawing is indecipherable, but he just keeps circling it over and over and over until we all die

 Haha, for better or worse, this made me laugh out lout quite a lot

[Kevin Beal]

You're quite right Lians this forum, community or what have you, has seen it's fair share of flaming and sophistry over the years. It's rarely been profitable to keep engaging when the vitriol from your opponent is this high. I look forward to the board conversation eventually moving away from this topic into more fertile areas of thought.

 

I'm not sure that I agree with this. Surely there is something to this idea that we should not feed the trolls and that assholes are just going to escalate when their sophistry is pointed out, but even in those cases there are exceptions to why you shouldn't engage, and in the case of Peter, he is going to just make himself look worse and worse. I don't believe the same is true for Stef who (at least in my estimation) appeared very thoughtful and reasonable in every interaction he's had with the Zeitgeist movement.

 

I think that there are ways that are healthy and advantageous to engage bullies like Peter and I think Stef's doing a wonderful job of it. I would actually appreciate another response from Stef, maybe something as a continuation of how people like Peter operate and to avoid debate (kinda like you were saying) with them.

 

Peter is not some troll on the boards. He has a far reaching influence over a crap load of people. His ideas are actually corrosive and it's nice that he's undoing that for himself by being such an mean-spirited sophist in his video responses. I personally would like him to continue along that trend until his really ugly personality is plain to see for enough people that will see it for what it is.

 

Many things brought up are cases where either Peter is right or Stef is right, and if Peter starts looking like a sophist to thinking people, then that means more eyes and ears in this part of the internet. And that's a wonderful thing.

 

I must also confess that I do feed the trolls, and have never really taken "do not feed the trolls" to heart. So you can take everything I say with a shaker of salt.

[taxcattle-nzl-lf078305]

In my lunch break today I had an opportunity to listen to the debate. Maybe I am just an uneducated buffoon, but I found it extremely difficult to follow Peter's arguments due to his use of overly la-de-da language.

 

His position appears to be (it is hard to tell for certain) that while he sympathises with the libertarian position on the state of the world, he disagrees with core libertarian principles of property rights citing "structural violence" as a reason while these cannot be permitted. In listening to him and following up afterwards, I have so far only been able to equate "structural violence" with "lack of choices" such as may arise through societal prejudice or perhaps manipulation by those in a position of power. This lack of choices is in his view a form of coercion, claiming that limited choice through circumstance is the same as no choice through statist monopoly.

 

I find this an interesting argument, but thinking about it a little I find myself unsympathetic to his solution. He seems to be prepared to accept active coercive power (the willing and concious power of centralised authority) to counter what can (most generously) be described as passive coercive power. The difference being that the former requires the active participation of actors, while the latter is passive, environmental, and a matter of circumstance.

 

I am not convinced by his arguments, but I accept that I might have been if I was in a position to understand them better - perhaps if he had used simpler language.

 

Can anyone come in to bat for Peter?

[PatrickC]

That's an interesting view Kevin and not one I had really considered. It was interesting to note that I felt a certain anxiety whilst reading your post. My desire to not want to re-engage with PJ, 'might' underscore a lack of courage on my part perhaps.

 

When I was thinking of the past (FDR wise), I am mainly recalling the big flame wars, such as the Guardian episode for instance.

[Kevin Beal]

That's an interesting view Kevin and not one I had really considered. It was interesting to note that I felt a certain anxiety whilst reading your post. My desire to not want to re-engage with PJ, 'might' underscore a lack of courage on my part perhaps.

 

When I was thinking of the past (FDR wise), I am mainly recalling the big flame wars, such as the Guardian episode for instance.

When you mentioned the Guardian episode, I too felt a little anxiety. Maybe there is something I'm missing.

 

There are two things (that I'm conscious of) behind my last post, which are a podcast where Stef talks about the importance of conflict like when there was a co-worker he had that was overtly aggressive and very irrational, who he provoked into showing that at a meeting resulting in that guy getting fired (as he should have been earlier). I'll post the link later if I can find it.

 

The second thing is my own desire for conflict, which is coming up more and more with very interesting (at least for me) insights I've gotten in therapy about it. I don't think it's because I like conflict for it's own sake, but rather because there are a lot of people out there who should be challenged, but never are, and that I don't have to risk gaslighting myself over it, they just simply are wrong.

 

I've had mixed results, and I'm not certain what exactly healthy is, but it's incredibly interesting to me and I'm obsessed with trying to figure it out. Literally obsessed...

[PatrickC]

When you mentioned the Guardian episode, I too felt a little anxiety. Maybe there is something I'm missing.

 

There are two things (that I'm conscious of) behind my last post, which are a podcast where Stef talks about the importance of conflict like when there was a co-worker he had that was overtly aggressive and very irrational, who he provoked into showing that at a meeting resulting in that guy getting fired (as he should have been earlier). I'll post the link later if I can find it.

 

The second thing is my own desire for conflict, which is coming up more and more with very interesting (at least for me) insights I've gotten in therapy about it. I don't think it's because I like conflict for it's own sake, but rather because there are a lot of people out there who should be challenged, but never are, and that I don't have to risk gaslighting myself over it, they just simply are wrong.

 

I've had mixed results, and I'm not certain what exactly healthy is, but it's incredibly interesting to me and I'm obsessed with trying to figure it out. Literally obsessed...

 

Yes, I recall the podcast and its very interesting because I had to do the very same thing with two members of staff recently and it proved to be a very productive response to upping the conflict.

 

Yes, I now realise that I was suggesting an alternative in a different, but related thread. Conflict and how to handle it in healthy way are very important I think. Like you, this is a new idea for me. Hence my feeling a lack of courage in my previous post. That feeling might correspond rather well with this topic I think.

[MysterionMuffles]

I'm gonna be a masochist and TRY to listen to it....

[LibFedDemRepCon]

In my lunch break today I had an opportunity to listen to the debate. Maybe I am just an uneducated buffoon, but I found it extremely difficult to follow Peter's arguments due to his use of overly la-de-da language.

 

His position appears to be (it is hard to tell for certain) that while he sympathises with the libertarian position on the state of the world, he disagrees with core libertarian principles of property rights citing "structural violence" as a reason while these cannot be permitted. In listening to him and following up afterwards, I have so far only been able to equate "structural violence" with "lack of choices" such as may arise through societal prejudice or perhaps manipulation by those in a position of power. This lack of choices is in his view a form of coercion, claiming that limited choice through circumstance is the same as no choice through statist monopoly.

 

I find this an interesting argument, but thinking about it a little I find myself unsympathetic to his solution. He seems to be prepared to accept active coercive power (the willing and concious power of centralised authority) to counter what can (most generously) be described as passive coercive power. The difference being that the former requires the active participation of actors, while the latter is passive, environmental, and a matter of circumstance.

 

I am not convinced by his arguments, but I accept that I might have been if I was in a position to understand them better - perhaps if he had used simpler language.

 

Can anyone come in to bat for Peter?

 

Peter does talk in ridiculously hard to understand language. I think he would be more successful if he made his message more understandable. 

 

I had a look on wiki and structural violence seems to be social structures or institutions that prevent people from meeting their basic needs. So for example if there were laws making it illegal for doctors to treat people of a certain race (let's go with african-americans) and they weren't allowed access to basic necessities such as clean water, education or nutritious food this would be an example of structural violence. The system rather than specific individuals are enacting violence against these people.

 

An African-American baby at age 2 might die of a disease that is treatable and if the baby was white would have been treated. No one directly or literally killed the baby but due to the systems in place the baby died. If there were not the racist laws in place (e.g if the system was different) then the baby would have lived. 

 

I think structural violence definitely exists but I've got no idea what Peter's argument is about it. 

[PoopMeat]

I know how much TZM likes to quote Einstien, therfore I thnik a particular Einstien quote fits Peter really well.

 

Einstien: If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

[Armitage]

Here I will introduce my Blind Spot hypothesis. I think it's a good one, because it says none of the people involved are assholes or manipulators. It keeps Stefan's policy to keep the conversation open as long as there is will and legality. I love this attitude on his, never give up on people.

I gave the discussions lots of hours of listening, but I did not see any assholes, only well-meaning people, a worthy topic but a basic problem that they failed to recognize.

 

The great question of resource-based economy vs. anarcho-capitalism has not been properly dealt with. Why? Because of a very subtle, deep and critical problem in communication. Stefan is a great thinker and as great thinkers go, they are more determined by their vices than by virtues.

Proposal: Stefan has a blind spot about how the world works. (One is reminded of Alan Greenspan's confession before a committee) This blind spot is a fixed idea which he is not able to analyze with such speed and ability as all other areas. Stefan often deals with people damaged by spanking, beating, physical abuse... He said once in his show, this kind of abuse damages brain and so we are less likely to realize that spanking is bad, if our brain is damaged in that area. These words of Stefan's showed me what's wrong. 

 

Stefan has a blind spot in his system of thinking, where he is unable to apply his power of uncovering and debunking bullshit that he is used to having in all other areas. Suddenly he goes from a moral and enlightened thinker to a conformist fascist demagogue and back, if the topic is changed. 

 

And he does not notice it!!! Neither does half of the bystanders! I believe this is probably the last vestige and holdout of blindness that Stefan has. Peter Joseph and some commenters on Youtube noticed this transformation from doctor Jekyll to mr Hyde. But Peter Joseph did not, could not believe his eyes and ears. Suddenly this intelligent commenter has half of the IQ he had and uses extremely primitive and fallacious cherry-picked arguments that he himself believes are adequate. I was flabberghasted.

 

Peter Joseph is another big thinker and he sure has a big ego. But that's not the problem, the problem is, he did not recognize that Stefan suddenly had hit the blind spot and lost half of his IQ and that they can not have the conversation on the same level as usual. The shared context on which PJ relies so much (vague talk) was gone and they had to go to a much deeper, basic level and explain some very fundamental details of how the world, market and society works. I share context with PJ and I can follow his vague talk, but those who have the anarcho-capitalist blind spot, they can't. 

 

Peter Joseph did not believe this was not an intentional tactics of trolling the conversation and he was unable to descend to that basic level, to follow Stefan on Stefan's own terms. Instead, he took it personally as an insult and demagogy on Stefan's side. But if my estimation is correct, this was not an insult. Stefan made his observations about Peter Joseph while in the blind spot. Stefan did not notice that at the time, at this particular topic, when he was in the blind spot, every single thing Stefan said at the time sounded like a brain fart of a flatulent sauerkraut-eating market Nazi. Thus, Joseph's (and my) frustration was to him a mystery, which he later tried to interpret with his usual compassionate social thinking routine, that PJ has this or that personal problem from childhood. (which he does not have) 

 

So this is my BLIND SPOT HYPOTHESIS on why Peter Joseph and Stefan Molyneux could not communicate and why are we unable to reconcile the paradigms of anarcho-capitalism and RBE. Please, this is not a slander, this is the best explanation I have come to after months of listening to all topics on Stefan's podcasts. I do not believe that this moral guy with sense of humor and great father is what he appears to be when confronted with that one particular topic. I believe I have found Stefan's Achilles heel. We all have it, somewhere.

 

I also spent even more months studying resource-based economy and I believe once we overcome the blind spot, the common ground will show itself. But this is tricky, because right now the conversation requires to go fluidly from most abstract, advanced philosophical concepts to basics of kindergarten morality and not everyone can do that, certainly not most of proponents of RBE. I've seen some of them fail in conversation with Stefan, Stefan (and anarcho-capitalism) is mostly right and thus not easy to defeat in discussion, if I use such a word. Proponents of RBE are too used to float in lofty heights of post-scarcity social mechanics and resent going down to the impersonal meat grinder of market economy.

 

The same blind spot can be found in most anarcho-capitalists and I believe this is fundamentally the way how do some well-educated thinkers choose their ideology - where their last blind spot lies. I'm not sure, but I think my blind spot lies in the area of everyday dealing with people, as far as I know, my intellectual worldview is... *insert Stefan's fast voice* "...the best thing in the world and totally flawless." Seeing through a blind spot is extremely difficult, we don't see through ours and we project its opposite on others. Which means I get the thankless job of getting accused that I have a blind spot. I'm not sure how to deal with this problem, but I'm going to try some visual means.

[Jer]

Proposal: Stefan has a blind spot about how the world works.

 

Stefan has a blind spot in his system of thinking.

 

Suddenly he goes from a moral and enlightened thinker to a conformist fascist demagogue and back, if the topic is changed.

 

Suddenly this intelligent commenter has half of the IQ he had and uses extremely primitive and fallacious cherry-picked arguments that he himself believes are adequate. I was flabberghasted.

 

Peter Joseph is another big thinker and he sure has a big ego. But that's not the problem, the problem is, he did not recognize that Stefan suddenly had hit the blind spot and lost half of his IQ

 

What are you taking about? Apparently I have a bind spot WRT this post because I can't find where you point out what is being missed.

So what is in the AN Cap blind spot? You say he can't see something...

[Armitage]

What are you taking about? Apparently I have a bind spot WRT this post because I can't find where you point out what is being missed.

So what is in the AN Cap blind spot? You say he can't see something...

Yes, that's what I claim. You have to take it as a hypothesis, because if you didn't already see it, you're not likely to see it easily. Consider it just as a possibility. 

I'm not an expert in neurology, but I've debated many people on various topics for about 7 years... Nobody is a perfect thinker. I believe people specialize in order to become better thinkers. And I believe the way right-wing and left-wing people specialize, makes them exclude certain shared context of reality. Which is bad, because all our communication and understanding is based on shared context, most words (especially in direct verbal speech) have multiple meanings. Whenever shared context is missing, the people interpret the words automatically in their own way, without even noticing.

 

Why do I talk of a blind spot? Because the market, money and capitalism are things that are for capitalists practically impossible to think about from more than one point of view. Even if they could see everything else from all point of view, that set of ideas is a fixed point in their worldview  around which everything is rotating. I probably also have some fixed ideas, but they may not even be from economy at all, I don't know. Maybe they're about women 

 

So I try another approach, visual. Please look at this post of mine and tell me if the cartoons do get the idea across 

[Kevin Beal]

@Armitage

 

What did you think of Stef's point about Peter arguing adjectives rather than pointing out errors in logic that he had made?

 

As far as I can tell, you haven't actually pointed out any errors that Stef made, rather it looks like you are simply framing the debate, which kinda sucks to read several long posts looking for the actual counter argument only to hear adjectives, conjecture etc.

 

If it's the case that you haven't actually formed a counter argument, but instead are framing the debate, unaware of or unduly ignoring the point about arguing adjectives, then it would stand to reason that this is a blind spot for you. Doing exactly what Stef showed that Peter was doing.

 

If you are blind to this, and it makes up much of the debate, including the parts you say that Peter is making valid points that were not given their due consideration, then your conclusion that Stef is defending fascism becomes very suspect.

 

Does that make sense?

 

If I'm wrong and you have provided some kind of evidence or demonstration of your point, then could you refer me to them?

[Armitage]

@Armitage What did you think of Stef's point about Peter arguing adjectives rather than pointing out errors in logic that he had made? As far as I can tell, you haven't actually pointed out any errors that Stef made, rather it looks like you are simply framing the debate, which kinda sucks to read several long posts looking for the actual counter argument only to hear adjectives, conjecture etc. If it's the case that you haven't actually formed a counter argument, but instead are framing the debate, unaware of or unduly ignoring the point about arguing adjectives, then it would stand to reason that this is a blind spot for you. Doing exactly what Stef showed that Peter was doing.

I remember the arguing of adjectives, but it was weeks ago. What minute was it, please? I should address that passage specifically. IIRC, Peter's adjectives are more than that, they were definitions. And definitions are philosophically extremely important and tricky. Stefan's definitions are very narrowed and distorted when capitalism is involved. When it comes to capitalism, it becomes for a moment a single bottleneck of all Stefan's thought.

 

I can't form counter-arguments, because there is too much wrong about the debate. Almost all things that Stefan says are... Logically correct, but in such a narrowed-down context that they are inevitably logically correct as stand-alone axioms, but mostly without relation to social and physical reality. (thus wrong for all practical purposes) Peter is solely concerned with broader context and with relations which Stefan is completely missing. And Peter refuses to believe that someone would do that without even noticing. Stefan jumps to correct some Peter's errors of vagueness in speech, but he does not notice that Peter holds the moral high ground the whole time.

I believe I have to frame the debate as a terrible neurological blindness (deeply set ignorance to context) on Stefan's side, of which both spokesmen are unaware and each seeks their own explanations.

 

 

If you are blind to this, and it makes up much of the debate, including the parts you say that Peter is making valid points that were not given their due consideration, then your conclusion that Stef is defending fascism becomes very suspect. Does that make sense? If I'm wrong and you have provided some kind of evidence or demonstration of your point, then could you refer me to them?

I regret to say, when Stefan talks about the market, he has all the definitions of freedom etc. so narrowed down, that they effectively boil down to fascism, to dictatorship of market forces (which can initiate violence against humans as they see fit, in order to make "market corrections"). At these moments he sees nothing but market forces, missing everything else. If I paraphrase Mussolini, all within the market, nothing outside the market, nothing against the market.

 

For example, Stefan is usually very good at considering a broader context and social consequences of actions - such as the effect of childhood spanking on crime rates and domestic violence in adults. That is a connection most people can't make and I applaud him for that. But if Stefan is unable to make a connection between a lifetime of economy-related stress, compensatory consumerism and its effect on families, then something is very wrong. He can make the connection in case A (spanking, war veterans), but he just can't in the case B (everything else). And if the conversation is about anything, it's about context and connections! 

 

There is a reason why Peter Joseph does not oppose Stefan on the spanking question. He agrees! They both see that childhood violence has far-reaching consequences into life and society as a whole. Why can't Stefan see that with economic violence (poverty), environmental violence (against Earth and those who live on it), structural violence (economic stress), intellectual violence (boredom, mindless suggested preferences) and so on? 

 

I must ask Stefan some day what does he think about sociology. One of classical topics in sociology is the effect of capitalism on society. Perhaps it can be remedied by study such as of Modern social theories, perhaps only a deep personal crisis can shake him out of it, perhaps nothing can.

[PatrickC]

I regret to say, when Stefan talks about the market, he has all the definitions of freedom etc. so narrowed down, that they effectively boil down to fascism, to dictatorship of market forces. At these moments he sees nothing but market forces, missing everything else. If I paraphrase Mussolini, all within the market, nothing outside the market, nothing against the market.

 

I cannot take this argument seriously. We must 'control' market forces, lest the market become fascist, really!     

[Armitage]

I cannot take this argument seriously. We must 'control' market forces, lest the market become fascist, really!     

I did not say that all. I said "when Stefan talks about the market, he has all the definitions of freedom etc. so narrowed down, that they effectively boil down to fascism, to dictatorship of market forces"

And what I meant was

market forces (which can initiate violence against humans as they see fit, in order to make "market corrections"

 

I said nothing about 'control' of market forces. Market forces can be only totally replaced and annihilated by designing a whole different environment, such as The Venus Project. We can not outlaw or control anything successfully, we can only make it obsolete. The market forces have an important function and this function must not be suppressed or ignored, it must be replaced.

 

You're having hallucinations on what other people write.