What (if any) is the objective evidence that call-in shows are the best way Stefan can promote freedom in the world?

[TruthBeTold]

This thread on Reddit raises what I think could be some valid concerns about the quality of content which has been coming out of FDR recently. Here are some quotes:

• "Mr. Molyneux's chief trouble is that his deontological moralisms and argumentation ethics are irrelevant to anyone who isn't already a Libertarian/Ancap/Objectivist stalwart or at least sympathetic to that worldview."
• "With Stefan... not so much. I look at a 2.5 hour podcast, and from past experience, it's not going to be nearly as dense and informative as (Tom Woods). Most will be a complete waste of time..."
• "I agree with the people here that he's just not progressing. He's stagnant and it's the same stuff over and over."
• "It's really not much of a surprise that people in this sub have generally moved away from Moly. Aside from the gradual migration in this sub towards egoism/nihilism, Moly has another large issue with the people here -- and perhaps libertarianism as a whole: he's really not producing new content."
• "Even as much as I value what the guy says about freedom in personal relationships and peaceful parenting and find those who bash him on these points either annoying or outright malicious, I have to agree with this post. He had tried a new segment where he went over topical current events but there has been no new edition that I'm aware of even though that was even well received on this sub."

My personal viewpoint is that some of Stefan's best work was in short topical content: his daily drive podcasts, his appearances on Schiff Radio, and his speeches. I am and will always be a fan because I believe Stefan has said more correct things than I have ever heard in my life, and I truly want him to be known for excellent content and remembered for centuries.

 

So my question to the listeners, staff of FDR, and Stefan himself - is the time spent on call-in shows more valuable for the cause of freedom than other work Stefan could be doing (such as short daily topical podcasts, guest interviews, books, public speeches, books)?  Please give some empirical evidence to back up your viewpoints as best you can.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

There is no "objective evidence" in this case.. Because there is no objective standard of "how to best promote freedom."

 

I think the call-in shows are fantastic and indispensable. They are so important to me because I can't find a replica anywhere on the web or in the world. 

 

Molyneux has 227,000 subscribers on YouTube & Tom Woods only has 25,000 (at least according to what someone said in that reddit). If that's true, then I think that would be your objective evidence he is doing a hell of a lot more to promote freedom than at least Tom Woods. And I think Tom Woods and other libertarians are great. But peaceful parenting and self-knowledge are a lot more important to me than libertarianism. Libertarians is just the conclusion of a self-knowledgeable society, in my opinion.

 

I don't feel FDR is hitting a dry spot. It does feel like it's been a bit since a debate or an interview or a TV appearance, and I hope to see those things worked in once again soon. Since he has been diversifying his content for as long as I've been following him, I expect he will. If not, then I expect new books or some other product of his labors. But the call-ins are consistently of amazing quality, in my opinion, and I am completely satisfied and in fact feel generously gifted at the amount of amazing content Stefan and FDR produce completely for free.

[Crallask]

Hate to break it to any of these supposed critics and people who think the FDR group need better direction and are stagnating.

 

But the show has grown by leaps and bounds in the past year alone.

 

I mean, objective evidence? Has it just so happened that none of these people (or yourself) have heard Stefan say "The call in shows are BY FAR the most downloaded and consumed content of the show."

This gets back into the realm of telling an expert what to do. It's really bizarre to hear someone say that Stef should run a podcast more efficiently. You know who knows that way better than everyone else? The guys whose fucking livelihoods depend on it.

 

Not to say general improvements can't be made here and there, but they're switching things around here and there to constantly achieve the best performance.

 

Remember how they removed the live streaming from the call in shows? Pretty huge change overall. Also note that after such his calls seem to have become shorter in the span of their time (at least from recent memories) 

 

That having been said, it's nearly impossible for Stef to compete with his younger self in terms of duration. Between all his other responsibilities, from my honest understanding of his situation, it would be too brutal on his system to play it like he's in his early 40's when he's almost 50.

 

So changes need to happen? They will - the ones they've found to be the best with all the data they have that we will never see.

 

But to try to tell the dude how to run a podcast when he has made the LARGEST SHOW based on the most controversial and unpopular stances, ethics, and beliefs. That's... that's just silly. Stef used to podcast from driving to and from places (mostly work iirc) and now he's reportedly second in terms of liberty searches only to Ron Paul out of everyone else in the freedom movement.

 

 

And time and time again, Stef has said what his most objective way to approaching freedom is going to be. Maybe you've heard of it. 

 

"The promotion of peaceful ~" You finish it!

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 Please give some empirical evidence to back up your viewpoints as best you can.

Last I heard the call-in shows were the most downloaded. 

I'm reading that Reddit thread. Are we libertarians such bitchy little tossers? 

[J. D. Stembal]

How is "Stefan is mean-spirited, Tom Woods is never a total dick" an argument backed by empirical evidence?

 

Truth be told, I've stopped listening to the call-in shows regularly, but it has more to do with me getting sick of listening to the determinism/RBE proponents. You have to remember that the call-in show is mainly there to serve the interest of the callers, and most of the time we are waiting for them to stop bullshitting to get to the meat of the call.

 

There were some really powerful calls from last year that stick out in my mind where Stefan dug deep into the callers' childhood experiences. That's where the real connection is.

 

Define "value for the cause of freedom."

[WasatchMan]

It seems like a lot of the arguments are based around Tom Woods being better than Stefan.  While Tom Woods is good at making economic and political arguments, it is not philosophy.  Stefan is working things out with callers (for the most part) from first principles, ethics, and universals.  I personally find philosophy more important than empirical/pragmatic arguments because it teaches people how to think instead of memorizing a bunch of data.  In other words, statism being immoral is more powerful of an argument than statism being impractical.

[kalmia]

Ideas go nowhere without a tribe that sees them as core beliefs. Isolated individuals with fringe ideas eventually take those ideas to the grave. If it is multi-generational, then taking ideas to the grave makes the whole thing a waste of time and effort. I'm not sure of the evidence of success, but I think he has been taking a strategy of connecting with people as a way of building community. 

[andkon]

A valid argument against Stef('s arguments or statements) could take the form:

 

On show #x, at minute y, Stef says "z." This is incorrect or false because ________.

 

Compare to the OP in the linked thread: "I tried to watch one [call-in show] today, and just couldn't. It was a call-in, and Stef just went immediately into, well... I had to tune out." Which one was it? What did he say and why was it well... worthy of tuning out? This is just the argument from intimidation. "Dude, I can't believe Stef even said that! It was just sooo bad!" (But what did he say? And why was it bad?) Then there's name-calling without providing any examples... which is a "complete mean-spirited ass" and "total dick" thing to do. Oh, the irony.

 

Mr. Molyneux's chief trouble is that his deontological moralisms and argumentation ethics are irrelevant to anyone who isn't already a Libertarian/Ancap/Objectivist stalwart or at least sympathetic to that worldview.

 

Speaking of providing evidence for efficacy, where's his evidence? Moral arguments don't work? So why is it that so many ancaps say that they were turned that way by Stef and his arguments? I don't have a number for it, but it's common enough to invalidate the idea that it's "irrelevant" much less for "anyone."

 

Moly has another large issue with the people here -- and perhaps libertarianism as a whole: he's really not producing new content.

 

I especially LOVE this because often the other criticism is that "Moly" has gone off the deep end because he's "shitposting about sex and women lately." So which is it? Is there no new content period or is the near daily new content complete crap? The food is bad and there's not enough of it!

 

The OP in the reddit thread shows no curiosity and does not say why the show was apparently so terrible that well, he just had to tune out. It just is. You can't win them all, especially those who refuse to articulate what their criticisms even are. A lot of people just issue these vague discontented statements because it's a substitute for attacking what they really can't. The OP says later in the thread: "For example, his vehement atheism is beyond any kind of reason" and "It takes a degree of maturity to allow other people to live their lives in ways that we may not agree with. Stefan is incapable of rising to that maturity level, as are many atheists." (Yeah, maturity.) So the guy is emotionally uncomfortable about atheism but can't offer any actual arguments so of course it's easier to just tune out than to either 1) address the actual arguments or 2) address the emotional discomfort.

 

The shows I imagine are easier and cheaper to produce since it's two people talking. No research is necessary, no travel expenses, it's just a free flow of often personal topics that is in such low supply anyways. Since the shows (IIRC) are still the most downloaded files, that seems like a better payoff than spending a week traveling to get a few hundred people in a room somewhere.

[PatrickC]

I like both Tom and Stefan for different reasons. I think as Crallask points out, the empiricism is in the growth of listeners and that the call ins are by far the most popular shows in Stefans repetoire.

 

However, I personally listen a lot less to either these days. Mostly because with philosophy and libertarianism you reach a point at which you understand most if not all the arguments. At which point it's time for ourselves to ferret for the new information and discover it for ourselves. Demanding these guys to produce more new content, sounds a lot like central planning. (I jest with you of course)

[Kevin Beal]

I also prefer the standalone content, myself. Whatever that's worth.

 

Mike mentioned that the most downloaded content is the call in show. (I don't know if that's minutes listened, or view counts). And Stef mentions often that he wants the show to be market focused, be about the topics people are most interested in. It makes logical sense that they would then do that, especially since the whole point of the show is to talk about topics raised by the listeners.

 

Stef has argued multiple times that he wants for people to be free in their personal lives, and not focus so much on wider abstract issues, since we can't change the FED or stop people from wanting to vote. To that end he's focused a lot of energy on personal issues, creating connection, self knowledge, and things that people can actually do something about. The call in show serves that purpose, but so can other podcasts he puts out.

 

The call in shows are often about explaining concepts which I'm already familiar with listening to past shows, and it can be good to get another application of the principle or just a reminder, but I revisit old podcasts when I'm looking for that. But most people haven't listened to as many podcasts as I have, are not as familiar with the first principles that were demonstrated earlier in the stream. I'm sure that if I called in with an advanced topic, it would be appreciated and make for interesting conversation, but what most people want to talk about is more fundamental. Which is obviously of a lot of value to people since so many people are downloading those shows.

 

If it's a matter of what you like, there are a crap ton of podcasts that aren't call in shows that I'm sure you haven't listened to yet that are calling your name. If it's a matter of advancing freedom in this world, then maybe what I've said above will be helpful in understanding where they are coming from at least.

 

UPB is not deontology or argumentation ethics. It is a priori, but that's about the only common element.

 

The What is Art? series was all new stuff to me, very interesting and relevant in my own life. Decmocricide had some new arguments against democracy that I'd never heard before. The recent gay marriage podcast, same. The recent abortion podcast, same. I'm not sure that the people complaining about new content are really paying very close attention. I haven't observed that myself (outside the call in shows, as I mentioned).

 

It just sounds like mindless hating to me. Let the haters hate.

[TruthBeTold]

If the call-in shows are the "most downloaded", does it follow that those shows are the best way Stefan can help achieve freedom in the world?   My suspicion is that the listeners of the call-in shows are already fans, but fail almost completely in attracting new listeners.

 

I choose to promote FDR by spreading videos in non-libertarian communities with the hope of improving visibility. I've tried very hard to post relevant call-in shows to these outside areas, and they almost always get lackluster or negative reactions The usual complaints are the length and the dry "talking head against a grey background" look - its very hard to get people to sit through a long call for the great take-aways. Topical videos (usually those made well in the past) tend to do a bit better.

 

A lot of the feedback in the reddit thread is constructive criticism about the content - from a community which should be embracing FDR. For some reason there is a fundamental disconnect. If Stefan instead spent 7-8 hours on other content (writing books/papers, interviews, etc)  rather than call-in shows, could he be doing more good for the world?

[PatrickC]

If the call-in shows are the "most downloaded", does it follow that those shows are the best way Stefan can help achieve freedom in the world?   My suspicion is that the listeners of the call-in shows are already fans, but fail almost completely in attracting new listeners.  I've tried very hard to post relevant call-in shows to various non-libertarian communities, and they almost always get lackluster or negative reactions.

 

A lot of the feedback in the reddit thread is constructive criticism about the content - from a community which should be embracing FDR. For some reason there is a fundamental disconnect. If Stefan instead spent 7-8 hours on other content (writing, interviews, etc)  rather than call-in shows, could he be doing more good for the world?

 

Interesting so you ignore the evidence that more listeners download these shows for your own bias and preference. A preference which so far no one really knows, other than it's meant to be new and innovative for you and your reddit readers perhaps.

[Kevin Beal]

If the call-in shows are the "most downloaded", does it follow that those shows are the best way Stefan can help achieve freedom in the world?   My suspicion is that the listeners of the call-in shows are already fans, but fail almost completely in attracting new listeners.

No, it doesn't necessarily follow. But if we accept that getting eyes on the content is at least partially causal in spreading the content itself, then it's not irrelevant. It's not like some completely trivial fluff nonsense.

 

I don't know what is best for promoting freedom in the world. All I know is what I can do in my own life, to varying degrees of success. If you have a superior way, or an actual logical argument that says that he shouldn't focus so much on the call in shows, then do that or make that case.

 

I don't really care about what people say, I care about reason and evidence. The quotations you posted are wrong if you accept that What is Art?, Democricide, the recent gay marriage and abortion podcasts had new and interesting content. If that's true, then obviously it takes precedence over what some random people said about the show.

 

If the call in shows fail to attract new listeners then I'm curious to hear the argument for that. It seems like a stretch if they are the most downloaded. You'd think that a show downloaded a larger number of times would be heard by a wider variety of people, unless the core listenership only really listens to the call in shows and not the other content, which I doubt, but who knows?

[WasatchMan]

A lot of the feedback in the reddit thread is constructive criticism about the content - from a community which should be embracing FDR. For some reason there is a fundamental disconnect. If Stefan instead spent 7-8 hours on other content (writing books/papers, interviews, etc)  rather than call-in shows, could he be doing more good for the world?

 

The disconnect could be coming from a lot of things. My guess is it is atheism and peaceful parenting, which a lot of the libertarian community rejects.

 

Continually asking the question "could he be doing more good for the world?" is extremely disingenuous, and very telling that you don't have recommendations and only criticisms. Theoretically everyone could be doing something better which would equate to more good in the world.  I am pretty sure Stef doesn't think he has reached the theoretically maximum optimal "good for the world", but is trying the best he can to aim for this ideal.  The job of the critic who is coming at an issue from a genuine goal to improve is to provide constructive criticism, with actionable things that can be done to improve perceived issues, and a reasoned argument of how doing "y" will create better results than continuing to do "x".  Asking a bunch of abstract question with a very limited ability to measure or compare is just being an obstructionist.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

A lot of the feedback in the reddit thread is constructive criticism about the content - from a community which should be embracing FDR. For some reason there is a fundamental disconnect. If Stefan instead spent 7-8 hours on other content (writing books/papers, interviews, etc)  rather than call-in shows, could he be doing more good for the world?

What does "good for the world" mean? 

[J. D. Stembal]

I've tried very hard to post relevant call-in shows to these outside areas, and they almost always get lackluster or negative reactions.

 

Stefan should be getting negative reactions to the larger audiences of people on the internet. That means the medicine is working. I had a very negative reaction to Stefan at first. My thought was, "Who is this nut-job?"

 

Let me guess. Your Facebook friends are skeptical of this thing called the non-aggression principle because that means they can't worship the state (their parents) any more.

[jpahmad]

I've got a great idea.  Give Stefan more money. 

[TheRobin]

For me personally, when I first found the show I found the listener call-ins very intersting and helpful, not to a small part because it helped me understand how some principle work in practice in our everyday life. So while I listened to a lot of his "solo-talks" where he'd present an argument or line of thought around a topic (which I too found very intersting) I find that more and more I barely bother to listen to those anymore (not inlcuding the Truth of-series though), but I still find new insights in most of the call-in shows and  I still find great value in those.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

I wonder if the people posting on this thread on Reddit are analyzing the best ways that they themselves can promote freedom in the world.

 

Haters gotta hate...

[TruthBeTold]

Interesting so you ignore the evidence that more listeners download these shows for your own bias and preference. A preference which so far no one really knows, other than it's meant to be new and innovative for you and your reddit readers perhaps.

 

I didn't state a preference.  I gave relevant personal experience and asked questions seeking empirical evidence.

 

Let me guess. Your Facebook friends are skeptical of this thing called the non-aggression principle because that means they can't worship the state (their parents) any more.

I'm feeling very mocked by this sort of assumption.  I think I'd feel better if you'd asked me to clarify the communities I spread his videos to rather than make up a scenario like this. To clarify, I spread videos extensively across several non-libertarian communities, for example, a video on atheism to atheist forums.

[PatrickC]

I didn't state a preference.  I gave relevant personal experience and asked questions seeking empirical evidence.

 

The preference and bias of your Reddit readers then. Although I'm beginning to doubt your sincerity for ignoring the evidence as stated.

[TruthBeTold]

The preference and bias of your Reddit readers then. Although I'm beginning to doubt your sincerity for ignoring the evidence as stated.

First point, they are not "my" readers - they are anonymous individuals within the freedom movement giving a wide range of feedback, a majority of which is negative on long call-in show content.

 

As for evidence, I'd love to see some - its what I asked for.  There have been many opinions stated, but nothing in hard numbers. Has there been any work done that would be considered "market research" (to borrow terms from business: "new customer acquisition", "customer satisfaction", or "customer retention")?

 

I am extremely sincere about seeing the world improve. I do not doubt your sincerity, I ask that you don't doubt mine.

[Crallask]

Why is this such an immediate concern for you? Do you think that Stefan is not doing what's in his best interest to get the most return on his content?

 

It's actually highly insulting from you since you're basically saying "Well Stef and Mike have never thought to overview which parts of their content are the most well received."

 

You're asking for data - they've stated what the data is numerous times. Do you think they're just producing content arbitrarily? That someone who used to run a software company and talks about business has no idea about customer needs or preferences?

 

Do you even realize how you appear when you ask these questions and ignore answers as merely being "opinions."

 

So you want some hard numbers? Back when I first joined, Stef had a subscriber count of 80,000~ This was Q4 of 2013. Less than a year later it was over 200k. 

 

They don't need you to try and figure out what works best for them. Maybe if you have some data they missed then please feel free to share it. At the moment you're doing little more than being condescending seemingly without even being aware of it.

[TruthBeTold]

Maybe if you have some data they missed then please feel free to share it.

This is a valid request and one I had hoped came across in my original post.  Reddit is a top 25 website worldwide and top 10 in the US. The /r/Anarcho-Capitalism sub-reddit has 21k subscribers.  That community should be one that supports FDR my a large majority - but they do not.  If FDR is not able to find a strong level of support among a community like that, then I think that is a very dire sign. The companion sub-reddit /r/Libertarian is another one which rarely gives support to the FDR videos posted there.  The same is true for the Objectivism, philosophy, ex-Christian, atheist, and parenting sub-reddits that topical videos have been posted to. If the data we're talking about is a measure of the level of support, then the data seems to show that certain aspects (ex. length) of the presentation of the show are the major stumbling block to more widespread popularity.  I have "evangelized" (for lack of a better word) FDR for a long time in the reddit community and elsewhere, so I do feel qualified to give a fair evaluation of the level of support. The best responses to FDR I've ever gotten is from the older, shorter content like  "The Sunset of the State", "Story of your Enslavement", certain interviews, etc.  In fact, I myself came to follow Stef after seeing the "Jon Stewart's 19 Tough Questions for Libertarians!" video posted to r/Libertarian.

[Crallask]

Sorry, but just for the sake of clarity - why should FDR be able to find support there?

[LovePrevails]

I don't listen to call ins much any more because I don't have the time any more but I think they are really about connecting with the listeners and being accessible rather than just a talking head. Also callers get a lot out of them. They are also meant to model how a philosophical conversation can be applied to personal issues.

[WasatchMan]

Just make your case on what he can do better then the call-in show, and stop with this circular abstract argument. In other words, put up or shut up.

[shirgall]

I have an even better idea, when you give Stefan money, tell him why you did it. That's the kind of feedback that gets results.

[J. D. Stembal]

This is a valid request and one I had hoped came across in my original post.  Reddit is a top 25 website worldwide and top 10 in the US. The /r/Anarcho-Capitalism sub-reddit has 21k subscribers.  That community should be one that supports FDR my a large majority - but they do not.  If FDR is not able to find a strong level of support among a community like that, then I think that is a very dire sign. The companion sub-reddit /r/Libertarian is another one which rarely gives support to the FDR videos posted there.  The same is true for the Objectivism, philosophy, ex-Christian, atheist, and parenting sub-reddits that topical videos have been posted to. If the data we're talking about is a measure of the level of support, then the data seems to show that certain aspects (ex. length) of the presentation of the show are the major stumbling block to more widespread popularity.  I have "evangelized" (for lack of a better word) FDR for a long time in the reddit community and elsewhere, so I do feel qualified to give a fair evaluation of the level of support. The best responses to FDR I've ever gotten is from the older, shorter content like  "The Sunset of the State", "Story of your Enslavement", certain interviews, etc.  In fact, I myself came to follow Stef after seeing the "Jon Stewart's 19 Tough Questions for Libertarians!" video posted to r/Libertarian.

 

Perhaps Reddit is not doing enough to spread the cause of freedom. Why do you continue posting topical FDR videos in the subforums if you aren't getting any traction? Is it possible that your choice of videos is the source of the failure?

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

I wonder if the people posting on this thread on Reddit are analyzing the best ways that they themselves can promote freedom in the world.

 

Haters gotta hate...

 

Just to follow up with some comic relief which I feel describes the situation here at some level:

"And you know a hater can't stand a goddamn winner!"

 

 

These hatin'-ass motherfuckers want you to be miserable...

[TruthBeTold]

These hatin'-ass motherfuckers want you to be miserable...

 

I don't think it solves anything to reduce this to dismissing them as "haters". In fact, by doing so, you are becoming haters yourselves.  This can go back and forth forever, just generating more animosity and allowing either community to create mental ghosts to burn over and over again rather than approaching each other with curiousity and honesty.

 

Concerns have been raised there about certain actions as they understand them.  I think there could be a lot of gains if Stef were give a bit of directed outreach to the subreddit. I would be happy to help facilitate this sort of outreach in any way I can, both at Reddit and elsewhere.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Concerns have been raised there about certain actions as they understand them.  I think there could be a lot of gains if Stef were give a bit of directed outreach to the subreddit. I would be happy to help facilitate this sort of outreach in any way I can, both at Reddit and elsewhere.

 

The title of this thread is indecipherable from trolling.

[Existing Alternatives]

Ultimately, Stefan does what Stefan does. I am sure he is hugely inefficient, but so are most humans. FDR tries to put out as much content as they can with limited resources and a skeleton crew. It seems to be relevant to a certain segment of population that directly keeps him in business. We already have one Tom Woods, why would we need another?

 

On a personal note, I used to hate call-in shows and just skipped them as they queued up on my podcast player. But lately, I realised that I care less about Stefan’s opinion on California drought, but much more about some real guy’s real issues with his kids or parents and understand how he (or she) is resolving them and what I can learn from that to make my life and my relationship better and freer. And that is what is important to me.

 

There is nothing wrong with providing constructive criticism. If you think that the “talking head against gray background” does not work (provided you know what you are talking about) let them know, I am sure they will take that under consideration.

[TruthBeTold]

The title of this thread is indecipherable from trolling.

This response is not only insulting, incorrect, and unconstructive but is itself an attempt at trolling.

 

I started the thread to discuss objective results in an attempt to help the show find a larger audience among a group of people that are already on the side of freedom. I appreciate greatly the more rational responses, though I'm still at a loss for any takeway from this discussion other than the general consensus to be (to paraphrase) "fuck em". I'd hoped for better, but if this community doesn't want to reach out, then I can't make you. I think its a missed opportunity, though.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Stef did a very excellent podcast called "Troll Spotting", which will give all a good idea what to look for in spotting trolls, particularly in thread titles. You can download it from the Bronze Section podcasts.

 

Oh wait.