FDR2927 reaction on me.

[Victor]

Stopped listening at 1:02:47. I'm angry the show is taking this turn. I feel there's some sort of agenda to grow the listenership from the religious flock. They can certainly overspend us.

 

I've made profound transformational changes inspired by Stef's ideas, to maintain a happy world for my wife and two daughters free from religion and statism. I feel it's a betrayal.

[Mister Mister]

You say "I'm angry" and "I feel it's a betrayal", which is understandable, but is there something Stef said specifically that you think is false?

Do you feel differently after the follow-up show? 

Also can I ask, do you think it would make sense for the man in the call to break up his family over his loss of religious faith?

 I found it to be a very moving call, and I really felt deeply for the guy, and while surprised at what Stef said, I appreciated a lot of it.  Actually one of my dearest friends in the world is a Christian and an Anarchist, I thought of him during this show.  He has always been generous and thoughtful and far more willing to discuss the areas we disagree than most people.

[Kevin Beal]

This thread is like the 4th or 5th about this exact response.

 

Stef has stated multiple times that he doesn't want just any audience, and has put out material that swarms of people have used as their "that's it, I'm out! Stef, you've changed, man!"

 

It's always characterized also as Stef failing to meet someone's expectations, without argument, just betrayal, disappointment, etc. Well, not always, but that's a common response. And it's always on issues that seem to me to be totally benign. Perhaps it's a failing of mine to understand, but I wonder if something deeper is happening when people do this.

 

Stef is just a person, and is wrong about things just like the rest of us, but people don't usually feel betrayed by me when I say something they take issue with. What, am I not good enough for your offense?! Haha. So, why is that?

 

Well, probably because it's not Stef you're talking about at all.

 

Is it not a betrayal of rationality and integrity to simply say how offended you are about something without providing rational argument? What was the argument specifically and how is it wrong? If you can't even answer that, then I don't understand how we're talking about anything but some subjective experience that you had, which is anti-philosophical when you frame it as righteous moral outrage.

 

Why should Stef care that you are offended? What are you? His wife?

 

"I'm offended, you should change" is gross.

[Duart]

As a deeply religious Christian I feel that Stef has made the right move in accepting what value my community and god can bring. 

 

I'm joking of course, actually an atheist anarcho. 

 

Stef hasn't given any more ground to Christian's or theism than he is to the state when he recommends paying your taxes. These institutions exist and whilst the pressure to conform may be ostracism in the case of religion as opposed to prison this doesn't diminish the damage they can cause, especially to a family with no better place to go. 

 

"Out of the frying pan and into the fire" sums up the result of your expectations. 

[Victor]

You say "I'm angry" and "I feel it's a betrayal", which is understandable, but is there something Stef said specifically that you think is false?

 

Do you feel differently after the follow-up show? 

 

Also can I ask, do you think it would make sense for the man in the call to break up his family over his loss of religious faith?

 

 I found it to be a very moving call, and I really felt deeply for the guy, and while surprised at what Stef said, I appreciated a lot of it.  Actually one of my dearest friends in the world is a Christian and an Anarchist, I thought of him during this show.  He has always been generous and thoughtful and far more willing to discuss the areas we disagree than most people.

 

I think Stef's argument was something like: religious people (Christians) are the best communities for pro-family values. You already have children and is there really a better place for them? Religious people are nicer than atheist. Religious people have deeper conversations. Religious people stand up for their values (meaning are more courageous). Thus, it's better for you to stay with them. If you were single and had no children I'd say something different. But that's not your case.

 

Those premises and the conclusion are irritatingly wrong, misguided and offensive to me, who has worked so hard to get out of the religious mindset thanks to Stef. Religious people have worthless conversations since they are not about reality. Religious people act by inflicting their values, not defending them with arguments and reason. Religious people are cowards for not having the courage to face reality. It's not better to live in fantasy land since the first value is honesty. If he really believes religious communities are all that great and he has been promoting young single people to stay out of them means that he owes a lot of people some big apologies; but also begs the question of why would he have a different rhetoric had this guy been single? Are some people spendable to achieve social change, and ok for them to miss out on the great things Christians have to offer? 

 

I have not listened to the followup. I should probably do that before continuing posting. I feel a strong pull to make an evaluation on many hours of arguments.

 

About the man on the call giving up his family... I don't know what he should or should not do. Keeping up with the format of the show I would have expected Stef to ask him to imagine how free and powerful it would feel for him to be able to tell the truth in his heart. He would also talk about the great relationships he'd be able to have with his children if he kept honest and open and vulnerable, in contrast with the miserable relationships of a coward hiding an earth shattering truth from his loved ones.

 

I could use some of the reasoning Stef is demonstrating here to twist and justify getting a State job or even running for office. It's just that it'd be easily shown as manipulative and dishonest if I did that. And that's how I feel about Stef's reasoning.

 

And it's such a weird thing from such a man that the only explanation I can come up with is donations. I've seen dishonesty in the past caused by asimmetry in donations and have raised my voice accordingly and got an effect. I'm looking for a similar effect now.

 

It's a show and I don't have an argument for a particular business model. A man has to do what he has to do to make a living. It's my taste. I don't want the show to be easy on religion.

[Victor]

Not sure this post will make it into the thread. You, the sensor, if you read this, you can reach out to me directly in my email.

 

I learn now that for the first time in this many years my posts require review before being available. After over 1,200 posts. After pouring my heart out here so many times. After engaging so many to promote this site. After committing so much... I am now not trusted to speak freely? And this without an email or a reach out?

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Not sure this post will make it into the thread. You, the sensor, if you read this, you can reach out to me directly in my email.

 

I learn now that for the first time in this many years my posts require review before being available. After over 1,200 posts. After pouring my heart out here so many times. After engaging so many to promote this site. After committing so much... I am now not trusted to speak freely? And this without an email or a reach out?

 

Imagine how the people who created and maintain this site, and have provided the thousands upon thousands of hours of content you enjoy for free must feel after you basically accuse them of conspiring to make bad arguments to grow the listnership... Without even providing a shred of evidence...

 

After they committed so much...

 

And I hope you emailed them about this before you decided to make a public post, since you expected them to email you before moderating your posts.. And by the way, I get my posts moderated all the time, and I've only been here a few months

[jpahmad]

Not sure this post will make it into the thread. You, the sensor, if you read this, you can reach out to me directly in my email.

 

I learn now that for the first time in this many years my posts require review before being available. After over 1,200 posts. After pouring my heart out here so many times. After engaging so many to promote this site. After committing so much... I am now not trusted to speak freely? And this without an email or a reach out?

 

That happens to everybody.  At least, it has been happening to me a well.  Don't take it personally.

[Victor]

I was able to recover part of the post I tried and did not get through because of a Review wall. I don't know about this issue, but if it's just a bug I'm willing to ignore and just move on.

 

Here's a reconstruction of my original post:

 

I think Stef's argument was something like: religious people (Christians) are the best communities for pro-family values. You already have children and is there really a better place for them? Religious people are nicer than atheist. Religious people have deeper conversations. Religious people stand up for their values (meaning are more courageous). Thus, it's better for you to stay with them. If you were single and had no children I'd say something different. But that's not your case.

 

Those premises and the conclusion are irritatingly wrong, misguided and offensive to me, who has worked so hard to get out of the religious mindset thanks to Stef. Religious people have worthless conversations since they are not about reality. Religious people act by inflicting their values, not defending them with arguments and reason. Religious people are cowards for not having the courage to face reality. It's not better to live in fantasy land since the first value is honesty. If he really believes religious communities are all that great and he has been promoting young single people to stay out of them means that he owes a lot of people some big apologies; but also begs the question of why would he have a different rhetoric had this guy been single? Are some people spendable to achieve social change, and ok for them to miss out on the great things Christians have to offer? 

 

About the man on the call giving up his family... I don't know what he should or should not do. Keeping up with the format of the show I would have expected Stef to ask him to imagine how free and powerful it would feel for him to be able to tell the truth in his heart. He would have also talked about the great relationships he'd be able to have with his children if he kept honest and open and vulnerable, and that they would eventually appreciate his courage, in contrast with the miserable relationships of a coward hiding an earth shattering truth from his loved ones, where every ritual and every prayer would send shockwaves of shame through his remaining spine. That openness and vulnerability would actually serve to empower others to follow and create an example of greatness in humility and dignity in a world so devout of it.

 

I've called out inconsistencies and wrongs in the past in this community and have gotten an effect. I'm doing the same here.

[Victor]

it happened again.

I think Stef's argument was something like: religious people (Christians) are the best communities for pro-family values. You already have children and is there really a better place for them? Religious people are nicer than atheist. Religious people have deeper conversations. Religious people stand up for their values (meaning are more courageous). Thus, it's better for you to stay with them. If you were single and had no children I'd say something different. But that's not your case.

 

Those premises and the conclusion are irritatingly wrong, misguided and offensive to me, who has worked so hard to get out of the religious mindset thanks to Stef. Religious people have worthless conversations since they are not about reality. Religious people act by inflicting their values, not defending them with arguments and reason. Religious people are cowards for not having the courage to face reality. It's not better to live in fantasyland since the first value is honesty. If he really believes religious communities are all that great and he has been promoting young single people to stay out of them means that he owes a lot of people some big apologies; but also begs the question of why would he have a different rhetoric had this guy been single? Are some people spendable to achieve social change, and ok for them to miss out on the great things Christians have to offer? 

 

About the man on the call giving up his family... I don't know what he should or should not do. Keeping up with the format of the show I would have expected Stef to ask him to imagine how free and powerful it would feel for him to be able to tell the truth in his heart. He would also talk about the great relationships he'd be able to have with his children if he kept honest and open and vulnerable, and how they would eventually respect him for his honesty and courage, in contrast with the miserable relationships of a coward hiding an earth shattering truth from his loved ones. How every ritual would send shockwaves of shame through his remaining spine. How his openness and honesty and vulnerability would have been actually welcomed by a community if the community was good and healthy, and would serve as strong beacons o hope to others who want a better life and for his children too. That honesty and integrity should never fall victim to intimidation in relationships, and those that do threaten honesty are not relationships worth having.

I think Stef's argument was something like: religious people (Christians) are the best communities for pro-family values. You already have children and is there really a better place for them? Religious people are nicer than atheist. Religious people have deeper conversations. Religious people stand up for their values (meaning are more courageous). Thus, it's better for you to stay with them. If you were single and had no children I'd say something different. But that's not your case.

 

Those premises and the conclusion are irritatingly wrong, misguided and offensive to me, who has worked so hard to get out of the religious mindset thanks to Stef. Religious people have worthless conversations since they are not about reality. Religious people act by inflicting their values, not defending them with arguments and reason. Religious people are cowards for not having the courage to face reality. It's not better to live in fantasyland since the first value is honesty. If he really believes religious communities are all that great and he has been promoting young single people to stay out of them means that he owes a lot of people some big apologies; but also begs the question of why would he have a different rhetoric had this guy been single? Are some people spendable to achieve social change, and ok for them to miss out on the great things Christians have to offer? 

 

About the man on the call giving up his family... I don't know what he should or should not do. Keeping up with the format of the show I would have expected Stef to ask him to imagine how free and powerful it would feel for him to be able to tell the truth in his heart. He would also talk about the great relationships he'd be able to have with his children if he kept honest and open and vulnerable, and how they would eventually respect him for his honesty and courage, in contrast with the miserable relationships of a coward hiding an earth shattering truth from his loved ones. How every ritual would send shockwaves of shame through his remaining spine. How his openness and honesty and vulnerability would have been actually welcomed by a community if the community was good and healthy, and would serve as strong beacons o hope to others who want a better life and for his children too. That honesty and integrity should never fall victim to intimidation in relationships, and those that do threaten honesty are not relationships worth having.

I think Stef's argument was something like this: religious people (Christians) are the best communities for pro-family values. You already have children and is there really a better place for them? Religious people are nicer than atheist. Religious people have deeper conversations. Religious people stand up for their values (meaning are more courageous). Thus, it's better for you to stay with them. If you were single and had no children I'd say something different. But that's not your case.

I think Stef's argument was something like: religious people (Christians) are the best communities for pro-family values. You already have children and is there really a better place for them? Religious people are nicer than atheist. Religious people have deeper conversations. Religious people stand up for their values (meaning are more courageous). Thus, it's better for you to stay with them. If you were single and had no children I'd say something different. But that's not your case.