Downvoting

[Frosty]

Effort has something to do with it I'm sure, but I find it completely implausible that it's more effort to read your posts and repeatedly down vote them than to simply put people on ignore which is a one time thing, it seems like the effort to downvote is there specifically to diminish opinions of that user to everyone else.

 

The problem is some users don't want other people making that choice for them, the reason I made reference to democracy is that most of us probably understand the immorality of democracy, basically justifying the control of some people at the will of the majority, if the downvotes had no other effect than simply scoring people I probably wouldn't care, but the auto hiding of posts is a step too far in my opinion. It also doesn't really achieve the intended effect because in this case it's just making MMX double down on his position and the controversy has pronbably made it a bigger deal than it might have been otherwise (Streisand effect), which is the age old thing discussed on the show...if you use aggression to get what you want, you achieve the opposite.

[MMX2010]

if you use aggression to get what you want, you achieve the opposite.

 

Vox Day phrased it as follows, "Give a man a platform to speak, and he will speak.  Remove the platform, and he will build his own." 

 

The ostracism and downvoting I've receive have motivated me to participate in tomorrow's call-in show.  I hope I can sway Stefan's opinions, and thereby improve Stefan's message - but I'm also fearful that, if Stefan agrees with me, many of his listeners will leave. 

[_LiveFree_]

Vox Day phrased it as follows, "Give a man a platform to speak, and he will speak.  Remove the platform, and he will build his own." 

 

The ostracism and downvoting I've receive have motivated me to participate in tomorrow's call-in show.  I hope I can sway Stefan's opinions, and thereby improve Stefan's message - but I'm also fearful that, if Stefan agrees with me, many of his listeners will leave.

 

No mention of how you'll feel if proven wrong. That about sums you up, sir. Can't wait to hear the show.

[MMX2010]

No mention of how you'll feel if proven wrong. That about sums you up, sir. Can't wait to hear the show.

 

 

It went very well.  Stefan, MMD, and I were very pleased with it. 

[Eternal Growth]

Yes absolutely, I've disagreed with MMX on a huge number of things and I understand that he's frustrating to debate with, but he makes me question my own position, consider new ideas, strengthen my own arguments and find nuance where previously I saw none, these are all productive things to me, whether we settle the debate at the end or not.

 

I think the huge number of down votes are unwarranted, as an observer of what is going on it's extremely unhelpful because I now have pressure of social bias towards his ideas, I also have to keep un-hiding his posts which is annoying. I'd pefer that people dispassionately deal with each others arguments, if nothing else just for practicality, I don't see any value in the voting system quite honestly, it's not even clear what it's supposed to represent, nothing helpful quite frankly.

 

It's strange to see that a board of people that presumably mostly support the NAP and libertarian ideals are using tools like this to diminish other peoples opinions, I'd much rather selectively hide his posts myself if I deem them unproductive in some way rather than there being some kind of pseudo-democracy on the forums, maybe the free market applies and I should just choose to post elsewhere?

 

The NAP does not apply to MMX, because he has personally rejected it as a principle, supporting violations of the NAP against trans people and/or their medical professionals:

 

(7) "Facing legal obstacles to accessing medical treatment for gender dysphoria (e.g. hormone therapy if uncomfortable with the effects of hormones of the coercively-assigned gender)"  (What you call "legal-obstacles", everyone else calls "Are you SURE?!?"  Moreover, people face more "legal obstacles" when they want to donate a kidney to an absolute stranger than when they seek hormonally-induced sex-changes.) 

[MMX2010]

The NAP does not apply to MMX, because he has personally rejected it as a principle, supporting violations of the NAP against trans people and/or their medical professionals:

 

Wow.  Okay MMD and JamesP.   I don't think you can ignore that accusation, can you? 

 

Is Liberalismus correct or incorrect when he says that? 

[Eternal Growth]

Wow.  Okay MMD and JamesP.   I don't think you can ignore that accusation, can you? 

 

Is Liberalismus correct or incorrect when he says that? 

 

Upvoted, because you are now showing actual interest in assessing the objective truth value of the things that I have said, whereas before you were portraying my experience of you as somebody who is abusive / antagonistic / supportive of NAP violations towards trans people as merely something that existed in my own mind and that was completely divorced from your objective actions.

[WasatchMan]

It was a great great show and I enjoyed it as much as any call in show I can remember.

 

We're a bit slow in releasing stuff right now since we have something unique for podcast 3000 - but we'll get it out soon

 

Mike, y u tease

 

[MMX2010]

Upvoted, because you are now showing actual interest in assessing the objective truth value of the things that I have said, whereas before you were portraying my experience of you as somebody who is abusive / antagonistic / supportive of NAP violations towards trans people as merely something that existed in my own mind and that was completely divorced from your objective actions.

 

So you don't prefer to focus on whether your accusation that I violated the NAP was TRUE or FALSE? 

[Eternal Growth]

So you don't prefer to focus on whether your accusation that I violated the NAP was TRUE or FALSE? 

 

Replace "violated" with "expressed support for the violation of", as you are misrepresenting me here.

 

Other than that point, that is exactly what I wish to focus on, to quote myself: "Upvoted, because you are now showing actual interest in assessing the objective truth value of the things that I have said"

 

"The things that I have said" would include that my best-effort interpretation of something which you have said implies support for violations of the NAP (those violations of the NAP being present government initiation of violence against medical professionals if they do not conform to the requirements and dictates of the state with respect to voluntary interactions with and prescription of treatment for transgender patients - government dictates which differ between countries, but in many instances cause much harm to trans individuals, just as forcible government intervention in medicine causes harm to almost everyone and is opposed by adherents to the NAP).

 

Perhaps my interpretation is wrong; perhaps my interpretations of the 20+ other things in your posts in that other thread are also wrong, but so far, nobody has made any effort to challenge them. If my interpretations are proven wrong, I have the commitment to intellectual integrity that I will revoke them, revoke the accusation that you have supported violations of the NAP, and revoke my previous accusation that you were abusive towards me (in the context of me being a trans person) in your posts.

 

Otherwise my interpretation is correct, which means you have supported violations of the NAP. You would either have to admit mistake and revoke this position, or remain a person who supports violations of the NAP.

[MMX2010]

Replace "violated" with "expressed support for the violation of", as you are misrepresenting me here.

 

 

Fine.  I accept the correction. 

 

 

 

 

"The things that I have said" would include that my best-effort interpretation of something which you have said implies support for violations of the NAP (those violations of the NAP being present government initiation of violence against medical professionals if they do not conform to the requirements and dictates of the state with respect to voluntary interactions with and prescription of treatment for transgender patients - government dictates which differ between countries, but in many instances cause much harm to trans individuals, just as forcible government intervention in medicine causes harm to almost everyone and is opposed by adherents to the NAP).

 

Perhaps my interpretation is wrong; perhaps my interpretations of the 20+ other things in your posts in that other thread are also wrong, but so far, nobody has made any effort to challenge them. If my interpretations are proven wrong, I have the commitment to intellectual integrity that I will revoke them, revoke the accusation that you have supported violations of the NAP, and revoke my previous accusation that you were abusive towards me (in the context of me being a trans person) in your posts.

 

 

Not good enough.  You will not merely apologize and revoke the accusation.  You will do more than that. 

 

Since I don't like telling people how to make atonement, (because then I don't know whether their atonement is genuinely derived from a sense of justice and peaceful-living), it's up to you to decide what more you need to do. 

[_LiveFree_]

MMX, thank you very much for this call. I can't give my full reaction right now because it's way passed my bedtime, but I did want to say a couple of things. The MMX that is talking for the first 2/3 of your call is not someone I find interesting in the least. He's irritating, arrogant, short sighted, and immoral. I want to have nothing to do with anyone like that. The MMX that finished out the call is vulnerable, empathetic, questioning, intelligent, honest and well worth anyone's time who has a shred of decency. He's a good man. I really appreciate your vulnerability and the work you've chosen to undertake at this point in your life.

 

I'm so sorry about your breakup. I know exactly what it's like to lose the best person you've ever met. And my deepest sympathies about your relationship with your father. I think he and my father would get along. Anyway, you are already getting in touch with "the good man" you, which means the right woman is just around the corner. I hope you take Stef's suggestion and stop wasting your time with women who aren't worth your time.

 

Thanks again, man.

[PatrickC]

I've been swamped with a bunch of stuff including a very very sick pet.

 

Thanks Mike for the update and sorry to hear about the sick kitty. I hear it might be serious too. Hoping he pulls through for you both.

[MMX2010]

MMX, thank you very much for this call. I can't give my full reaction right now because it's way passed my bedtime, but I did want to say a couple of things. The MMX that is talking for the first 2/3 of your call is not someone I find interesting in the least. He's irritating, arrogant, short sighted, and immoral. I want to have nothing to do with anyone like that. The MMX that finished out the call is vulnerable, empathetic, questioning, intelligent, honest and well worth anyone's time who has a shred of decency. He's a good man. I really appreciate your vulnerability and the work you've chosen to undertake at this point in your life.

 

I'll wait for you to comment further, but this part struck me. 

 

There's a psychological phenomenon known as "splitting", wherein you become emotionally attached to your good qualities and good deeds, defining them as so-essentially-really-you while simultaneously becoming emotionally detached from your bad qualities and bad deeds, defining them as so-essentially-NOT-really-you.

 

Your comment above attempts to "split" me, and I refuse to be split. 

 

The person you witnessed in the first two-thirds of the call is just as much a part of me as the person you witnessed in the last third.

 

Both parts are necessary.  Both parts are who I really am.  Both parts do good deeds and bad deeds.  Both parts have successes and failures. 

 

TheLastPsychiatrist has a wonderful article entitled "Amy Schumer Offers You A Look Insider Of Your Soul", which is three excellent things at once: (1) an extraordinary description of where "splitting" originates, how it persists, its negative consequences, and its ultimate cure, (2) an extraordinary argument against therapy and introspection, and (3) a side-splitting insight into some aspects of male/female interactions. 

 

You should check it out. 

[_LiveFree_]

I'll wait for you to comment further, but this part struck me. 

 

There's a psychological phenomenon known as "splitting", wherein you become emotionally attached to your good qualities and good deeds, defining them as so-essentially-really-you while simultaneously becoming emotionally detached from your bad qualities and bad deeds, defining them as so-essentially-NOT-really-you.

 

Your comment above attempts to "split" me, and I refuse to be split. 

 

The person you witnessed in the first two-thirds of the call is just as much a part of me as the person you witnessed in the last third.

 

Both parts are necessary.  Both parts are who I really am.  Both parts do good deeds and bad deeds.  Both parts have successes and failures. 

 

TheLastPsychiatrist has a wonderful article entitled "Amy Schumer Offers You A Look Insider Of Your Soul", which is three excellent things at once: (1) an extraordinary description of where "splitting" originates, how it persists, its negative consequences, and its ultimate cure, (2) an extraordinary argument against therapy and introspection, and (3) a side-splitting insight into some aspects of male/female interactions. 

 

You should check it out. 

 

 

I see. 

 

So this post is mostly for the rest of the forum since, based on the majority of your previous posts here, you will likely look past what's written in order to fight your dad once again. It's interesting that you would look for a way to justify your misbehavior, especially after Stef brought this behavior to your attention in the call (not engaging in what's actually being said). Not once in my post did I say that your misbehavior was "not you". I finally understand why you never submit to correction and never leave what you see as a fight. You are always fighting your dad. That's why every dialogue is an argument that must be won at all costs for you. To fail is too painful. To fail is to die. 

 

I'm not your father. Neither is Stefan. It's also interesting that you hold him in such high regard while ignoring one of his most emphatic suggestions of "get thee to a therapist!". You're right in saying both parts have successes and failures, for sure. But one of those parts is completely blended with the father in your mind. It is dysfunctional. 

 

So here is where I make a healthy decision for me and a moral decision in regards to you. I will no longer interact with you whatsoever. To do so is to provide you with yet another platform from which you will continue to abuse yourself. I refuse to do that. And it is not a burden I wish to place on myself. 

 

Please seriously consider finding a good therapist. 

http://selfleadership.org/practitioners.html

 

I found a great therapist 2 years ago and haven't looked back since. I've listened to every podcast Stef and company have put out. I've read almost 200 books in the last 2.5 years on psychology and philosophy (as well as other topics occasionally). And most importantly, I took to heart the advice Stef gave me when I called into the show 2 years ago. "You be honest!", he told me. When I started trying it out, I realized that I wasn't being honest with myself. That's why my problems wouldn't go away. 

 

I do not hold you in negative or positive esteem. I just wish that if you do one thing it's to find a good therapist. 

 

Best of luck to you.

[MMX2010]

I see. 

 

So this post is mostly for the rest of the forum since, based on the majority of your previous posts here, you will likely look past what's written in order to fight your dad once again. It's interesting that you would look for a way to justify your misbehavior, especially after Stef brought this behavior to your attention in the call (not engaging in what's actually being said).

 

Which misbehavior were you even talking about? 

 

In your original post, you said, "The MMX that is talking for the first 2/3 of your call is not someone I find interesting in the least. He's irritating, arrogant, short sighted, and immoral. I want to have nothing to do with anyone like that."

 

The word "irritating, arrogant, short-sighted, and immoral" aren't Misbehaviors; they're personality traits. 

 

As far as what misbehavior Stefan brought to my attention, this conversation would go much more smoothly if you explained exactly which misbehavior you mean, rather than assuming I know what you mean.

 

 

 

 

I'm not your father. Neither is Stefan. It's also interesting that you hold him in such high regard while ignoring one of his most emphatic suggestions of "get thee to a therapist!". You're right in saying both parts have successes and failures, for sure. But one of those parts is completely blended with the father in your mind. It is dysfunctional.

 

I'm ignoring his suggestion to seek therapy for multiple reasons, none of which you know (because you haven't asked), none of which he knows (because he hasn't asked). 

 

Saying my behavior is dysfunctional, without knowing is reasons is...what?  Helpful and empathetic?  (No.) 

 

 

 

 

 

Please seriously consider finding a good therapist. 

 

Already have, multiple times.  Have rejected it, multiple times. 

 

For many reasons.

 

You'd know some of them, if you had bothered asking.

 

But you preferred leaping to conclusions about me, and then announcing to the world that you'll no longer interact with me, rather than simply asking....and listening. 

[Marlowe]

The behavior I've noticed from MMX on this board is similar to his past behavior at the NYC meetups. This thread and the call in show thread have been very helpful, and I'm now certain that I and other members of the (non-best) meetup made the right choice in deciding to not engage with and ostracize MMX. Thanks all.

 

MMX, I hope you do seek therapy and find a good therapist.

[MysterionMuffles]

The behavior I've noticed from MMX on this board is similar to his past behavior at the NYC meetups. This thread and the call in show thread have been very helpful, and I'm now certain that I and other members of the (non-best) meetup made the right choice in deciding to not engage with and ostracize MMX. Thanks all.

 

MMX, I hope you do seek therapy and find a good therapist.

 

Yeah because even when he's complimented by Nathan and given some comapssion, he STILL has to contest what he says. I don't get him, honestly. 

I see. 

 

So this post is mostly for the rest of the forum since, based on the majority of your previous posts here, you will likely look past what's written in order to fight your dad once again. It's interesting that you would look for a way to justify your misbehavior, especially after Stef brought this behavior to your attention in the call (not engaging in what's actually being said). Not once in my post did I say that your misbehavior was "not you". I finally understand why you never submit to correction and never leave what you see as a fight. You are always fighting your dad. That's why every dialogue is an argument that must be won at all costs for you. To fail is too painful. To fail is to die. 

 

You sir, win 1000 internetz. 

[_LiveFree_]

Yeah because even when he's complimented by Nathan and given some comapssion, he STILL has to contest what he says. I don't get him, honestly. 

 

You sir, win 1000 internetz. 

 

Thanks RJ, but I want to be clear. My last post to MMX is not meant to be a one up on him. He's going through some tough junk right now and I have deep sympathy for that. But just because someone has dysentery doesn't mean I have to get diarrhea on me. I'm not qualified nor in a position to be of any help to him, and by engaging him I can only aid in hurting him more. 

 

No one is winning anything today.

[MMX2010]

Thanks RJ, but I want to be clear. My last post to MMX is not meant to be a one up on him.

 

Asserts (multiple times) that I'm behaving in a dysfunctional manner.

 

Insists that he's not trying to one-up me.

 

*shrugs*

[J. D. Stembal]

I don't recall therapy being discussed in the call, but perhaps I missed it.

 

I can see that Elias is resistant to the idea of therapy, and I can relate to that. I have resisted it because of my past experiences with psychologists, and being drugged against my will. I am making an assumption, but it is likely that there is someone close to Elias that will be harmed by him going to therapy. I can also relate to that feeling of vanishing existence.

 

Cost can be a primary concern, but at the very least, introspective reading and journaling can help you explore and gain insights. I really like Nathaniel Branden's writing style and Alice Miller is great, too, if a little difficult to read. Perhaps her work was translated into English. Doesn't Rainbow Jamz have a blog on journaling, too? I know I saved the link somewhere.

 

Here is the relevant article! http://yourwritetolive.com/2014/07/10/save-20000-on-therapy-by-buying-a-20-journal/

[J. D. Stembal]

I found a great therapist 2 years ago and haven't looked back since. I've listened to every podcast Stef and company have put out. I've read almost 200 books in the last 2.5 years on psychology and philosophy (as well as other topics occasionally). And most importantly, I took to heart the advice Stef gave me when I called into the show 2 years ago. "You be honest!", he told me. When I started trying it out, I realized that I wasn't being honest with myself. That's why my problems wouldn't go away. 

 

Which call in show is yours? I would like to listen to it. It was before I joined up.

[GuzzyBone]

The level of disrespect and trash talk is staggering. The arrogance on display is counter-productive to any kind of truth, wisdom, and is just plain bullying. I see the way MMX is treated and get a very clear idea of the type of propping up oneself higher than someone else that is going on. It's the delusion that can arise when someone gets a little bit of philosophy, self-knowledge, or truth in their life and then starts to assume that every word they speak is truth, and then uses it as a weapon to put others down. It's despicable and disturbing.

MMX is a human being worthy of the same respect you would expect yourself. We all can get carried away but I have never seen him conduct himself in the belittling self-aggrandizing manner that I see direct towards him.
 

MMX, I found a lot of insight and perspective in your conversation with Stefan and appreciate you taking the time and courage to open up like that. I look forward to talking with you 1 on 1 soon...

...hmm but maybe I shouldn't though because I might get "diarrhea" all over me [sarcasm]

That kind of crap is pathetic and childish. Nathan, I see the dishonor and disrespect you do to yourself and others with this kind of talk. I see the way your peers encourage and exacerbate it. I will call it out when I see it, because it is destructive to all parties and is exactly what MMX originally wanted to talk about with Stefan.

Stefan backed away from discussing it. It could've been addressed without names and keeping anonymity. The people involved have equal opportunity to call in and talk about it. I get why Stefan wanted to stay out of a potential dispute within the community that he helped to create, but that doesn't mean there isn't a real issue that needs to be addressed.

[MagnumPI]

Torches and pitchforks. Every forums got a favorite punching bag. As was said there's an ignore function but rather than use it or even the backup, auto-hide, they open the post, downvotes it, respond rinse and repeat.

[thebeardslastcall]

MMX is a human being worthy of the same respect you would expect yourself.

 

The way I tend to think about it is sympathizing with my former self. When I come into a new life habit I try to remember I used to have different ways that weren't up to the same standards and it took time and learning to get where I am today. I try to remember that we are all in different places in our learning and development on various paths and we should always be considerate to our younger selves to give ourselves a chance to learn and grow and not discount all those "below" ourselves simply because we've gotten here now. If others had treated us with the same disdain or disregard we wouldn't have grown to our current levels. When we decide how to act to ourselves we have to be sympathetic to our future selves, but when interacting with ourselves we must remember to be kind to our less wise selves (assuming we are wiser in some particular or specific category).

 

For example I eat much healthier than I used to, but I have to remember I had to learn and accept healthier choices first and I ate quite unhealthy at times before. So I need to be considerate of people who still eat unhealthy and not disregard or disrespect people who still eat unhealthy, as many of them can still learn and are willing to learn to live healthier life styles if they're just shown kindness and a good example of how to do it. Everyone has their own levels of resistance to new information in various categories for various reasons. Some accept some changes quite readily while being heavily resistant to others. Sometimes that's a good thing when the changes aren't really going to help, but many times it's harmful as most people come from unhealthy and unhappy life styles. Not just food wise, but behavioral and psychological habits as well, given the high level of abuse and unkindness in today's society.

[NumberSix]

MMX, I hope you do seek therapy and find a good therapist.

 

Are you a psychiatrist?  What qualifies you to make that statement?  If you think MMX2010 needs therapy, is calling him out in public the best way to motivate him to go?  Why not send a private message? Or is it an insult disguised as concern?

[Marlowe]

Are you a psychiatrist?  What qualifies you to make that statement?

 

I don't understand this comment at all... I need to be a psychiatrist to want someone to seek therapy? o_O

[jpahmad]

 

Here's a good test to long term listeners of the show - ask them if they have been to therapy.  If the answer is no, then you know how seriously they take the ideas talked about on the show.

 

Therapy for what?

[jpahmad]

I don't understand this comment at all... I need to be a psychiatrist to want someone to seek therapy? o_O

 

My first response to the whole "I hope you get a therapist" line is that it is belittling, patronizing and arrogant.  If there was real concern, it could definitely be conveyed in private.  I would never consider saying that to someone in public.  Yuk.

[J. D. Stembal]

I don't understand this comment at all... I need to be a psychiatrist to want someone to seek therapy? o_O

 

It's concern trolling.

 

He pulled a similar move with me in this thread: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/44446-podcast-fdr3004-pickup-artists-hypergamy-and-ostracism-call-in-show-june-17th-2015/?p=406181

[MMX2010]

My first response to the whole "I hope you get a therapist" line is that it is belittling, patronizing and arrogant.  If there was real concern, it could definitely be conveyed in private.  I would never consider saying that to someone in public.  Yuk.

 

I agree with you, but Pick-Up Artistry taught me how to Agree and Amplify, just to see what happens. 

 

Marlowe is a member of the original FDR NYC Meet-Up group, and I've narrowed it down to one of four individuals.  I won't say which one I think he is, but based on my experience, if I walked up to him, or the other three FDR NYC individuals, or MMD, or Nate Diehl, or Rainbow Jamz, and said, "That's great.  Thanks.  I hope you get a ten times better, no thirty times better, therapist." they wouldn't take it as genuine concern for their welfare.  They would get angry, or downvote, or amygdala freeze - because their original line, "I hope you find a good therapist." wasn't stated out of genuine concern.  It was said to belittle, berate, and poison the well. 

 

A chick, on the other hand, who was saying, "I hope you find a good therapist." in a joking way, would find the Agree & Amplify response hilarious. 

[NumberSix]

It's concern trolling.

 

He pulled a similar move with me in this thread: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/44446-podcast-fdr3004-pickup-artists-hypergamy-and-ostracism-call-in-show-june-17th-2015/?p=406181

 

Cyber Bully!!!  See, I can insult people from the safety of my keyboard too.

[J. D. Stembal]

Cyber Bully!!!  See, I can insult people from the safety of my keyboard too.

 

How come you never responded to me in the thread that I linked? How am I insulting you now?

 

As far as I can tell, you are a concern troll. Why ask me why I am playing at amateur psychologist if you don't care to hear my response, and respond to it in kind?

 

To be clear, I happen to agree with you that the comment about therapy should have been made in private and the post MMD made was in fairly poor taste. I'm not offended, though. He also thinks you need to work out two hours a day to get abs.

[GuzzyBone]

thebeardslastcall, what you are not getting is that human development of self-awareness, mental and physical health is not necessarily a linear path. You are assuming that you are better or further along this path based on what? A few text interactions on a message board? A phone call to Stefan's show?

Stefan has a way of painting a person's position how he desires. I don't know if he does it consciously or not, but he can be an intimidating presence and has a way of portraying things negatively or extremely without giving the person the chance to fully communicate what they mean. He has years of experience in debate and argument and can frame your argument how he so chooses. It's a power to be used with restraint, but I'm not sure to what degree he realizes he does this.

I talked with MMX personally through video chat it was very clear that MMX was not portrayed accurately at all by Stefan. Stefan used extreme terms and positions to categorize and characterize MMX very differently than where he is actually coming from.

After talking with him I realized that MMX is a lot healthier than me as far as self-knowledge, sound judgement, and physical fitness are concerned. This was not the perception I received from the phone call with Stefan. It was very eye-opening in how we can characterize a person's arguments and frame them anyway we choose.

How do you know when you don't need therapy? When you don't need therapy. It's that simple. It's a personal choice, and there are many ways to better oneself and introspect without whatever traditional route is being imposed by others.

It is very much an attempt at humiliation and false concern to publicly tell someone to go see a therapist and pass judgement on how far along they are in their development of a truly healthy and self-aware philosophical mind. It is said with feigned sympathy and little discretion. As has been stated here, you could have made your suggestion through private message.

MMX is not your past or future self. It extremely presumptuous to act like you know a person from miniscule interaction. Empathy requires people to see themselves in the other persons position, but it can be taken it to an extreme when you start assuming they are just like you.

[thebeardslastcall]

thebeardslastcall, what you are not getting is that human development of self-awareness, mental and physical health is not necessarily a linear path. You are assuming that you are better or further along this path based on what? A few text interactions on a message board? A phone call to Stefan's show?

I wasn't assuming either person was further along than the other. I was comparing myself to my former self for the purposes of showing how to unfairly judge someone. I also wasn't talking about or suggesting therapy for anyone, you might note I actually challenged MMD on his therapy assertions. I was merely suggesting judgemental restraint for people in a different position than you, which you may view as "below you" or "before you", in some specific category; to be considerate and not unkind to them, simply because they don't agree with you on a particular point. IE, if a vegan, who ate meat for most of their life, suddenly gets super harsh critical on all non-vegans for eating meat that wouldn't be fair, since they'd be hostile to their former self before they changed to a vegan diet, and thus this type of attitude can lead to a sort of "murder of self", in that some people practically advocate they should have been killed, but aren't willing to kill themselves now once they're past the "offensive period" of their life, which I was classifying as unfair. This also applies to me in that I don't want to be judged too harshly for being in an "inferior" position, when I can still learn why what I'm saying is wrong.

 

I also think, in agreement with you I think, that people who call in to Stefan's show have a distinct disadvantage since he controls and frames all the conversations, as it is his show. He's also highly experienced at debating and dealing with callers, which even someone with a more truthful stance and a reasonable ability to explain the topic would have difficulty going up against. MMX has a great many posts on this board, including some specifically with me, which I can use to judge him for myself and for him to judge me. I've made no comment specifically on his call in show with Stefan. Also I was trying to defend MMX from others, not talk down to him. Meaning that message was more for everyone else.

 

If you think I have said anything to humiliate anyone I'd appreciate it if you pointed it out to me.