Bob Murphy Explains "Rio 2" to Stefan Molyneux

[Culain]

 

Austrian Economist Bob Murphy gives his take on the film.

 

I have not seen the film myself so i can't comment too much, but near the end of the video at 10:30 Bob makes the point that the husband sometimes has to abandon his own personal interests and comfort for what is right for the 'family', I disagree with this line. The husband is a part of the family and part of what needs to be 'right' is for the family to acknowledge that one of it's key members is struggling. Though of course, I don't know what the kids want seeing as I have not seen the film, I only know that the mom wants to stay and the husband wants to leave.

[LovePrevails]

I can't even be bothered typing why I think this guy is so wrong

 

the point is not that it's the purpose of the movie to be anti-male

the reason why its so insidious is because it passes under the radar and props up male self-sacrifice as an expectation of that being his "gender role" - between his own personal desire and ...?

[Livemike]

The thing is, the imaginary criticisms of superman are actually valid.  Why the hell is Clark expected to drop everything, including work _he's competing with Lois on_ to save her?  I mean it's made specific time and time again in the comics, movies, TV shows that Clark Kent and Lois Lane are often going after the same story.  The only reason Clark ever seems to win these contests by the way is because he is superman.  He's never shown getting a story before Lois that isn't about Superman.  Both are considered the best reporters on the paper, since she never gets the scoop on superman she must get the scoop most of the time on non-superman stories.  

 

The difference between Rio 2 and the Christmas movie example is that there doesn't seem to be ANY examples of Blue or the scientist actually doing anything good.  The only example you give of Blue doing something "positive" is that he ignores his own interests.  He isn't capable in any way but sheer apathy towards his own interests.  The reason he feels like an outcast is because he's being treated like shit, even by his wife.  His interests are treated as utterly irrelevant by everyone.  So he ends up the hero.  What does that mean?  That even after everyone has treated you like crap you're supposed to save their ass.  It's a lot like Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.  Guy with special abilities gets teased, guys who teased him need him, teased guy helps them out without comment.  Yeah lovely example for the little boys.  Get treated like shit, but still do what everyone else wants you to do.  Kinda the opposite of Atlas Shrugged.  

[GYre0ePJhZ]

I will comment on this response as where I see Bob making fallacies or applying sophistry. I am doing this more for fun and practice rather than because I think Bob's response is important to debunk or because I dislike Bob, which I don't.

 

The sophistry aspect of what Bob is doing here is through trying to frame Stef as being more like an animal than a rational person to be taken seriously. Evidence of this are the following:

• Bob says that Stef drops f-bombs. This is a beautiful choice of words imo. Firstly, bomb is something that is used for violence by terrorists to resolve disputes, and not a rational person. With other words something to be expected from an animal. Secondly, by abbreviating 'fuck' to the f-word, he elevates himself to being better than Stef because he doesn't swear himself, which frames Bob as a rational and moral person.
• He says that Stef gets so worked up of how awful a movie Rio 2 is. Again, framing Stef as coming from an irrational standpoint. Also to be expected from animals with no sense of what civility is.
• Bob says the reason for this response it that if he can get Stef to see how he is incorrect and misinterpreting what they movie is trying to convey maybe he will calm down so he can be a happier person. Again, framing Stef as coming from an irrational standpoint. At the same time I think it is arrogant of Bob to claim that he knows what the correct interpretation of the film is while Stef does not. Actually, I think Bob misses the point of what Stef says when he claims that Stef thinks he knows what the intentions of the movie makers are. Stef's argument is that the sexism in the film (and in other areas) goes completely below the radar of most people. Stef did not say that the Rio 2 makers intentionally wanted to make a sexist movie. This could also be said to be a strawman from Bob. He also elevates himself into being someone who only has the best intentions for Stef as he wants Stef to be a happier person. It is in addition an insult to Stef about Stef's level of happiness.
• Bob says that the specific things that sets Stefan off is not correct. Again, as if Stefan operates from an irrational place. Plays very well into the f-bomb metaphor aswell. Beautiful sophistry.

 

The fallacies:

• Strawman. Evidence of this is how he exaggerates what Stef is saying: Stef supposedly says it is destructive and will fill little kids heads with the worst stereotypes and send them out in the world in ways that are gonna just harm eachother and ruin their relationships.
• He refuses to talk about the specific of what Stefan says about Rio 2. This is a sophist way of debunking arguments. Reminds me of Peter Joseph who refused to point to the specifics of what makes the free market immoral. It gives Bob lots of leeway to misrepresent Stef without actually having to deal with the actual arguments of Stef. It is a Platonic form of argument essentially, which has no place in a rational discourse as one can "debunk" with reference to strawmen rather than reality.

 

This was only after two minutes into the response of Bob. There is more during those 2 minutes and probably after (I stopped watching after 2 minutes), but I can't be bothered to indulge in this exercise after this point anymore as Bob lacks a rational methodology to debunk Stef's arguments.

 

Some other thoughts.

• I know Bob is religious which makes what Bob says a projection since religion is irrational.
• The majority of the adjectives Bob puts on Stef and Stef's arguments pertains to how Stef communicates his ideas rather than the actual content of them. This I see as evidence of that what Bob really has a problem with is not that Stef are incorrect, but that he did not present them in a way that he thinks is appropriate. That is a completely fine thing to prefer, but don't make that into a way of debunking arguments. If I scream into someones ear that 2+2=4, it does not make that equation incorrect if my methodology nonetheless is correct. You are of course at liberty to not like it, to tell me so, and to, understandably, urge me to change my ways. But it does not make 2+2= not 4.

 

What do you think? I feel pretty good and satisfied with this post as I showcase the argument on how to spot evil people (I dont think Bob is evil by far btw). This through investigating their methodology which was something argued for in the recent article on debunking the arguments of the moral teachers of mankind through looking at their methodology.

 

Edit: Typos

Edited April 29, 2014 by Avalanche

[nathanm]

Well yeah, Bob sees it his way and Stef sees it his. The intentions of the filmmakers are not always apparent, and the interpretation of the viewer can be widely varied.  You frame your interpretation based on the stuff you're interested in.  The anti-male angle on Rio 2 is not at all surprising given the current shows Stef has done.

 

I have been perplexed by some of Stef's movie reviews in the past as well, but in the end it's all subjective.  There's no right answer.  For instance I've read lots of reviews of Eraserhead which were all over the place, but then I found one guy's interpretation that clicked and made perfect sense to me.  If you can immediately connect with David Lynch films without reading what others have written, much kudos, you are probably a super genius!  I don't always see the same things Stef describes (like the whole empathy thing he saw in District 9 and Avatar) but his angle is always interesting.  I'd love to see a Donnie Darko review by Stef.

[James Dean]

why did he spend three to four minutes defending the virtue of male characters in a completely unrelated movie?

[Ahren]

His unhealthy face makes me not want to listen to him.

[MMX2010]

I stopped listening when Murphy announced, "I'm not going to go into a point-by-point analysis of Stef-said-this followed by here's-why-I-think-it's-wrong." 

 

To me that sounded like, "I'm not actually going to address Stef's argument, nor am I going to participate in a call-in show to see where I might have erred.  But I'm going to say something anyway."