Is it just me or is this forum pretty empty nowadays?

[bohemund]

The forum is K-Selected. 

[DaVinci]

15 hours ago, D.D. said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "chess games".  My understanding is that treating a conversation like a chess game would be to engage in a conversation where the other participants are treated as opponent(s) with the purpose of placing said opponent(s) under an inescapable threat of defeat/capture.

Where as, the definition of debate is:

• a contention by words or arguments.  Our polite chat about politics became a heated debate.
• a regulated discussion of a proposition (see ¹proposition 1b) between two matched sides.

The difference would be having an argument using reasoning (the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way) as opposed to having a position regardless of reason and evidence.  What's your thoughts?  Perhaps I've exhibited this "chess game" behaviour.

I would include in that definition that the goal is to "win". That's why many "conversations" have become chess games. There is a difference between going into a conversation to be open minded, to observe, to listen, and perhaps to teach something you know to whoever you are engaging with, and going into a conversation to "win". 

 

15 hours ago, RichardY said:

I wouldn't say Stefan is doing Pro-Trump videos as such, mostly refuting the M.S media.

The mainstream narrative is clearly anti-Trump. It is designed to hurt him. So he is, at least by proxy, defending Trump. You might not categorize the videos as "pro-Trump" but it does benefit Trump. 

My issue with these types of videos is only that it's a case of preaching to the choir to anyone who has been watching Stef for more than a month, and I wonder what other kind of content could be created in its place. 

 

 

 

[M.2]

On ‎2017‎. ‎07‎. ‎06‎. at 6:16 AM, D.D. said:

1. Please do not put words in my mouth - your re-framing is inaccurate.  The prior posts are here for anyone to read.

2. Finally, actual evidence to support your speculation, not just your words - thank you.  Why was that so hard?  Next, we could investigate why there was a delay in the posts.  The best people to help you would be the forum administrators.  If your really curious and want the truth, perhaps contact Michael at [email protected] with the relevant information.

For what it's worth, I've had some posts marked as "hidden" and shown as pink/red after clicking the Submit Reply button.  I don't know why this occurs but I move on with my life as the post eventually goes through.

3. It's great to read that you're trying to present evidence to support your thought...but your ethnicity does not excuse you from others questioning your integrity.

Definition of bullying (source: Merriam-Webster)

1. :  abuse and mistreatment of someone vulnerable by someone stronger, more powerful, etc. :  the actions and behavior of a bully

In the context of this thread, we're not interested in your ethnicity.  We're interested in your ability to provide reason and evidence to this conversation.

1. I was paraphrasing. Apparently both of us misunderstood each other quite a bit. This was what I was highlighting in this sentence which you deemed passive aggression:
There aren't many people on the forums with whom we constantly speak past each other, but you are definitely one of them.

2. This is exactly my point. Many people do not have the patience to wait 2 days to see their posts go up. Which could be why they are leaving. Clearly, I myself am not THAT bothered by it, and therefore I am still here.

3. It was not ethnicity that I was referring to, but it was culture. You do not bully the same way throughout cultures, and I just explained to you what bullying is where I grew up... hence my use of the word (which I think fits the webster definition, since you happen to be a gold donator in this given case.)

I think you haven't had enough cause and evidence to question my integrity, not that I was excused from it. But seeing that you still keep misunderstanding me, I shall drop this issue from here.

 

My manners dictated to finish the discussion, but I genuinely hope this is the last time we encounter each other on the forums, as conversing with you was a was not a pleasant experience. 

 

[Spenc]

On 2017-07-04 at 9:19 PM, DaVinci said:

The answer is they aren't. You already said it. The shit posting disaster comment you made. That's happening here too. Since the push to Trump a lot of the conversations here involve people who shit post. Not people who have done any kind of real work on themselves,or who actually understand or care about peaceful parenting/anarchy.

Naturally, we get callers into the show like that guy a couple weeks ago who talked with Stef for a pretty long time about the virtues of stability in Christian families and then made up a bunch of bullshit about spanking being fine and how the studies were flawed (when he didn't seem to know that there were close to 100 studies collated) and couldn't retrieve his sources, etc.  He also accused Stef of conflating terms in order to tie 'spanking' to 'hitting', when he was doing the exact same thing, trying to conflate it to 'swatting' a fly.

Is this person participating in philosophical discussion, or is he just a right-winger who likes that FDR has been home to criticism of the left?

 

In 2006-2012, maybe even into 2014, Stefan would argue that you can't change a person's mind with facts and reason when it comes to issues of freedoma nd politics because they are just acting out their family traumas in broader society.  But lately, there's hardly any discussion on personal freedom issues and a whole shit ton of podcasts/videos in "The Truth About..." series detailing an exhaustive chronology and collation of facts and reason. 

So has Stefan recanted his position on that issue in the past couple years?  I've heard him recant about participating in politics and accepted that it could be useful and valuable at this point in time with this particular candidate (Trump).  I have not heard him go back on his claim that facts and reason do not change people's minds though.

If someone is a conservative, and Stef is going to enter the political realm and produce videos to criticize the left, the right will join in and follow.  But they wont be imbued with principles and philosophy, and as soon as the worm turns and criticism is targeted against the right, those people will turn on FDR, Stef and "philosophy".

[Spenc]

On 2017-07-06 at 4:09 PM, DaVinci said:

The mainstream narrative is clearly anti-Trump. It is designed to hurt him. So he is, at least by proxy, defending Trump. You might not categorize the videos as "pro-Trump" but it does benefit Trump. 

My issue with these types of videos is only that it's a case of preaching to the choir to anyone who has been watching Stef for more than a month, and I wonder what other kind of content could be created in its place.

Like I said, if the goal is to equip people with the ammo to defend against the lies of the mainstream media or something like that, it is useless by Stef's own previous core assertion: that people do not determine their sociopolitical ideologies based on reason and evidence adn therefore they cannot be argued out of those beliefs through reason and evidence.

It's like equipping people with NERF ammo.  We may want to fire it off, we may run out and re-stock, but we're going to be forever firing it without significance because it's just NERF and has no capacity to inflict impact on the enemy.

[D.D.]

On 2017-07-07 at 2:52 AM, Mishi2 said:

1. I was paraphrasing. Apparently both of us misunderstood each other quite a bit. This was what I was highlighting in this sentence which you deemed passive aggression:
There aren't many people on the forums with whom we constantly speak past each other, but you are definitely one of them.

No need to paraphrase when you have quotes.  Through your paraphrasing, you have used words that I have not, creating an image of me that suits your claim that I'm bullying you.  I have not agreed to misunderstanding you, only the possibility that I may have misunderstood a previous comment by you as not passive-aggressive on the condition that you comprehend what it is to be passive-aggressive - it does not appear like you have that level of self-knowledge.  Furthermore, I made 2 replies to you before you made that highlighted comment shown above which doesn't build a strong enough case to use absolute language like "constantly" and "definitely".

 

On 2017-07-07 at 2:52 AM, Mishi2 said:

2. This is exactly my point. Many people do not have the patience to wait 2 days to see their posts go up. Which could be why they are leaving. Clearly, I myself am not THAT bothered by it, and therefore I am still here.

How many people don't have the patience?  You say 2 days - Where did you collect this data and how many instances did this occur?  How did you arrive at the conclusion that people are leaving because of your claimed wait time?  Did you contact them?  Please provide your collected data with all sources so that we may, if we choose, review your claim - otherwise, your just saying stuff.  Did you contact Michael to find out if and why your posts are delayed?

It's not the wait time that bothers you - my questioning your guesses is the problem for you.  You prefer to just say stuff without having to go through the difficult and lengthy process of presenting your reasoning and supporting evidence.

 

On 2017-07-07 at 2:52 AM, Mishi2 said:

3. It was not ethnicity...it was culture. You do not bully the same way throughout cultures, and I just explained to you what bullying is where I grew up... hence my use of the word (which I think fits the webster definition, since you happen to be a gold donator in this given case.)

Ethnicity:

• The fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.

Your still trying to use your ethnicity as a way to define board members behaviour as bullying.  Being East-Asian is said to belong to a culture - you keep saying stuff without evidence based reasoning and no, just because I'm a donator does not mean I have power over you thereby allowing you to fit me into the definition that makes you happy.  You're trying to use two different definitions for bullying in an attempt to just win.

I think I'm beginning to understand what this "chess-game" term is, or maybe I'm treating this conversation like a chess-game by not allowing you to just say whatever you want without principles.  Should I step aside and let this forum swell with members who make relativistic posts?  Is that how we can avoid being called a bully?  What about members who make posts that women are dogs that need to put into place, as seen here?  Does that members bigotry, as evidenced, not support a forum banning motion?  Will others speak against bigots or will bigot supporters help them while others remain silent?  Am I making people uncomfortable?
 

 

On 2017-07-07 at 2:52 AM, Mishi2 said:

But seeing that you still keep misunderstanding me, I shall drop this issue from here.

The problem is I'm misunderstanding you?

 

On 2017-07-07 at 2:52 AM, Mishi2 said:

My manners dictated to finish the discussion, but I genuinely hope this is the last time we encounter each other on the forums, as conversing with you was a was not a pleasant experience.

You've confused you're unpleasant experience with philosophy for me.

[M.2]

12 hours ago, D.D. said:

No need to paraphrase when you have quotes.  Through your paraphrasing, you have used words that I have not, creating an image of me that suits your claim that I'm bullying you.  I have not agreed to misunderstanding you, only the possibility that I may have misunderstood a previous comment by you as not passive-aggressive on the condition that you comprehend what it is to be passive-aggressive - it does not appear like you have that level of self-knowledge.  Furthermore, I made 2 replies to you before you made that highlighted comment shown above which doesn't build a strong enough case to use absolute language like "constantly" and "definitely".

You are making it extremely hard for my not to be passive-aggressive right now. I was going to reply: "Oh. Look who is not done yet". Does that count as passive aggressive behaviour?

Why do you assume that I was paraphrasing you in order to frame you as a bully? That was not my intention with that. I merely wanted to let you understand how I perceive our most fruitless discussion.

Quote

How many people don't have the patience?  You say 2 days - Where did you collect this data and how many instances did this occur?  How did you arrive at the conclusion that people are leaving because of your claimed wait time?  Did you contact them?  Please provide your collected data with all sources so that we may, if we choose, review your claim - otherwise, your just saying stuff.  Did you contact Michael to find out if and why your posts are delayed?

It's not the wait time that bothers you - my questioning your guesses is the problem for you.  You prefer to just say stuff without having to go through the difficult and lengthy process of presenting your reasoning and supporting evidence.

 In case you haven't realised, my initial post was not a CLAIM, but a QUESTION to the members of the forums. You can check the 2 days claim by seeing when my post went up, and comparing it the time of the notification you received of my post. That simple really. 

No, I did not write to Michael. I am pretty sure he has better things to do. I have had an email exchange with him back in December, and that was when I realised that my trivial issues are not worth his time. If it gets to the point where I am very bothered by this system, I will leave.

Again... I posted the questions in order to get confirmation of whether or not my speculations were true. This very conversation is the lengthy process, at the end of which I was hoping you could give me some helpful info. So far you have only confirmed one thing for me: that indeed posts are being delayed.

Quote

Your still trying to use your ethnicity as a way to define board members behaviour as bullying.  Being East-Asian is said to belong to a culture - you keep saying stuff without evidence based reasoning and no, just because I'm a donator does not mean I have power over you thereby allowing you to fit me into the definition that makes you happy.  You're trying to use two different definitions for bullying in an attempt to just win.

I think I'm beginning to understand what this "chess-game" term is, or maybe I'm treating this conversation like a chess-game by not allowing you to just say whatever you want without principles.  Should I step aside and let this forum swell with members who make relativistic posts?  Is that how we can avoid being called a bully?  What about members who make posts that women are dogs that need to put into place, as seen here?  Does that members bigotry, as evidenced, not support a forum banning motion?  Will others speak against bigots or will bigot supporters help them while others remain silent?  Am I making people uncomfortable?

I am going to ignore your definition of ethnicity, as you probably would as well, since you did not post your source. Japanese is an ethnic group, Chinese is an ethnic group, but they are not the same ethnicity. They do however belong to the same East-Asian culture. I said "culture" very deliberately. Ethnicity is unrelated here in my opinion. But of course, we can disagree on what ethnicity is. Anthropologists still have not agreed on a definition. http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-ethnicity-and-culture

What is this "winning" thing? I keep noticing that you think we are having a competitive debate. I am not using two different definitions, I am using mine. In fact, you do have more power, as you can take away reputation points from me, while I cannot do vice versa.

In my very humble opinion, bullying is part of life, just as bigotry and relativism is as well. I often visit gaming forums, which are very loosely regulated, and they are still the most civilised places on the internet. See here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/ It is not necessary to police the forums in order to keep the forums from going down the path of trolling and unsubstanciated claims. All you need to do is ignore people really.

Yes, you do make me uncomfortable, and you damn well should be able to. Meanwhile, others should be able to speak out against you, or downvote you, or even bully you for all I care.

Quote

You've confused you're unpleasant experience with philosophy for me.

Maybe. Could it be that philosophy is generally unpleasant?

See what I did there? Another speculation. Fear my unsubstanciated guesses! 

One last thing: If you doubt my data sourcing abilities, please check out my other posts. Here, I'll give you my favourite one (I sourced the ship out of this topic, you're gonna love it): https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/48784-the-truth-about-the-migrant-crisis-and-hungary/#comment-443921

 

[RichardY]

I wonder if some forums have a football/soccer like a league/clan system. Looking for concentrated knowledge the easiest way possible.

Could be a way of mitigating concern trolling(and other forms ie Flaming) and more importantly match people to depth of knowledge, skill and awareness.

[RichardY]

Ah cool, you play Total War, Mishi? I liked the original Medieval and Shogun(The AI is Better).

I added flamer(just seeing your post) was just thinking of a kind of league system was originally just going to put concern troll thinking of (D.D. just now). Concern trolling is a right pain, best to ignore or snipe imho (had that a lot on the forum originally when I joined).

[DaVinci]

23 minutes ago, RichardY said:

I wonder if some forums have a football/soccer like a league/clan system. Looking for concentrated knowledge the easiest way possible.

Could be a way of mitigating concern trolling(and other forms ie Flaming) and more importantly match people to depth of knowledge, skill and awareness.

Even though I don't think the trolling is a great thing, I can't deny that having opposition provides an opportunity to learn. We need less trolls and more teachers, which is why I'lll take trolls in the absence of teachers because my desire to learn doesn't ever go away. I like the idea of matching people who are near each other's level, to "compete" in order to learn, but actually figuring that out would be hard. It would be more complicated than just an I.Q. score. 

7 hours ago, Spenc said:

Naturally, we get callers into the show like that guy a couple weeks ago who talked with Stef for a pretty long time about the virtues of stability in Christian families and then made up a bunch of bullshit about spanking being fine and how the studies were flawed (when he didn't seem to know that there were close to 100 studies collated) and couldn't retrieve his sources, etc.  He also accused Stef of conflating terms in order to tie 'spanking' to 'hitting', when he was doing the exact same thing, trying to conflate it to 'swatting' a fly.

Is this person participating in philosophical discussion, or is he just a right-winger who likes that FDR has been home to criticism of the left?

 

In 2006-2012, maybe even into 2014, Stefan would argue that you can't change a person's mind with facts and reason when it comes to issues of freedoma nd politics because they are just acting out their family traumas in broader society.  But lately, there's hardly any discussion on personal freedom issues and a whole shit ton of podcasts/videos in "The Truth About..." series detailing an exhaustive chronology and collation of facts and reason. 

So has Stefan recanted his position on that issue in the past couple years?  I've heard him recant about participating in politics and accepted that it could be useful and valuable at this point in time with this particular candidate (Trump).  I have not heard him go back on his claim that facts and reason do not change people's minds though.

If someone is a conservative, and Stef is going to enter the political realm and produce videos to criticize the left, the right will join in and follow.  But they wont be imbued with principles and philosophy, and as soon as the worm turns and criticism is targeted against the right, those people will turn on FDR, Stef and "philosophy".

I would say yes, there are absolutely right wingers here because of the criticism of the left who don't care about peaceful parenting, or anarchy, etc. I was already a non-conformist when I found this place and was already heading out of politics, and so these messages hit me at just the right time. Now you have people who align themselves with the right who are here just for that. Hence someone calling in to the show who hits his kids and tried to justify it. 

I have no idea if Stef has changed his position on changing minds with facts/reason. I generally don't watch the show anymore because it is 90% taking apart the mainstream narrative, which I already said was singing to the choir to me. So maybe, he has changed? 

Most of my time recently has been spent watching Jordan B. Peterson. Most of his videos are of his lectures, or interviews, which are varied and cover a much wider range of topics than Stef is hitting these days. 

[Spenc]

On 2017-07-09 at 7:07 PM, RichardY said:

I wonder if some forums have a football/soccer like a league/clan system. Looking for concentrated knowledge the easiest way possible.

Could be a way of mitigating concern trolling(and other forms ie Flaming) and more importantly match people to depth of knowledge, skill and awareness.

Could you clarify this?  I have no idea what you're referring to.

[shirgall]

4 hours ago, Spenc said:

Could you clarify this?  I have no idea what you're referring to.

Concern trolling is raising a "concern" as if you are trying to help but are actually weighing down a discussion group with negativity and casting the subject in a bad light. A notorious use is raising emotional concerns about issues of logic.

[RichardY]

On 7/10/2017 at 0:44 AM, DaVinci said:

Even though I don't think the trolling is a great thing, I can't deny that having opposition provides an opportunity to learn. We need less trolls and more teachers, which is why I'lll take trolls in the absence of teachers because my desire to learn doesn't ever go away. I like the idea of matching people who are near each other's level, to "compete" in order to learn, but actually figuring that out would be hard. It would be more complicated than just an I.Q. score. 

Trolling provides no benefit whatsoever, zero trolls would be the ideal, there can be uncertainty ascertaining who is a troll and who is not and whether they are even aware that they are doing it. Occasionally it may lead to greater awareness as an indirect consequence or it may reinforce existing beliefs.  The only way to deal with trolls is to stab em or knock them off the bridge....

Teachers imo are rare(Providing practical benefits in the Real World) and require a degree of acceptance, the best that can be hoped for are students of great teachers, i.e they are studying and reporting on and of their work. What great artist would spend their time on a forum? 

There are lots of examples of Clan and League setups, just think of the massive online gaming community, isn't it estimated to be worth billions of dollars. A weighted-democratic system.

Is there a cultural taboo not covered by FDR? "Generals without armies are naked indeed."

[D.D.]

On 2017-07-09 at 6:57 PM, Mishi2 said:

You are making it extremely hard for my not to be passive-aggressive right now. I was going to reply: "Oh. Look who is not done yet". Does that count as passive aggressive behaviour?

Yes, that would be a passive-aggressive response.  I'll assume your question is your way of joking.

I must apologize for claiming that you, Mishi, have been passive-aggressive with me in this thread.  You have said that you were not and so I must treat you and others with a presumption of innocence...again, I apologize for misunderstanding your text as passive-aggressive.  I will be making sure that I don't treat others in future interactions without a presumption of innocence.

As for this thread, the OP wanted "theories".  My participation in this thread has been to give voice to FDR's guideline statement:

Quote

Reasoning from first principles, in accordance with empirical evidence, is the central methodology of our approach to truth.

however, this is in conflict with theorizing and so my participation has only been a disruption to contemplations, speculations, conjectures, and guesses.  I'm not saying these things are wrong under the context of this thread, since that's what the OP wants, and there is room within this forum for such conversations.  Therefore, correct me if I'm wrong, but I must also apologize to everyone in this thread for derailing this thread.

 

On 2017-07-09 at 7:22 PM, RichardY said:

Ah cool, you play Total War, Mishi? I liked the original Medieval and Shogun(The AI is Better).

I added flamer(just seeing your post) was just thinking of a kind of league system was originally just going to put concern troll thinking of (D.D. just now). Concern trolling is a right pain, best to ignore or snipe imho (had that a lot on the forum originally when I joined).

You're going to need to provide an argument to support your claim that I'm a "concern troll".  I would also appreciate it as a sign of respect if you could direct your argument to myself, on this thread, instead of through a passing comment to Mishi or anyone else here.  I've looked up concern trolling but fail to understand how I fit this term.

Quote

Concern Troll

A concern troll visits sites of an opposing ideology and offers advice on how they could "improve" things, either in their tactical use of rhetoric, site rules, or with more philosophical consistency. The "improvements" are almost exclusively intended to be less effective.

A typical formulation might involve the troll's invocation of a site's espoused ideals alongside a perceived example of hypocrisy (such as contrasting "we value free speech" with the banning of a "dissenter"), and with a call for some relevant reform by the troll. This reform will frequently be burdensome or silly - the concern troll's message is: "I have some concerns about your methods. If you did these things to make your message less effective, it would be more effective."

 

Edited July 12, 2017 by D.D.
Included a definition for concern troll

[Spenc]

On 2017-07-09 at 7:07 PM, RichardY said:

I wonder if some forums have a football/soccer like a league/clan system. Looking for concentrated knowledge the easiest way possible.

Could be a way of mitigating concern trolling(and other forms ie Flaming) and more importantly match people to depth of knowledge, skill and awareness.

 

21 hours ago, Spenc said:

Could you clarify this?  I have no idea what you're referring to.

 

16 hours ago, shirgall said:

Concern trolling is raising a "concern" as if you are trying to help but are actually weighing down a discussion group with negativity and casting the subject in a bad light. A notorious use is raising emotional concerns about issues of logic.

Sorry I think the bold lettering caused a confusion as to what information I was seeking.   It was RichardY who bolded "concern trolling" and that was not the part I was asking for clarification on. 

I was actually wanting him to clarify the first part of the post about having a footbal/soccer league/clan system.  I have no idea what he's talking about with that comment.

[RichardY]

16 hours ago, D.D. said:

You're going to need to provide an argument to support your claim that I'm a "concern troll".  I would also appreciate it as a sign of respect if you could direct your argument to myself, on this thread, instead of through a passing comment to Mishi or anyone else here.  I've looked up concern trolling but fail to understand how I fit this term.

No, go kiss my hairy arse.

Also from RationalWiki( The Site you used for the Concern Troll Definition)

Steve Stefan Molyneux (born 1966) is a British Irish-Canadian political activist, amateur philosopher and Internet pundit. Since 2005, Molyneux is the host of Freedomain Radio,[2] a podcast where he discusses his philosophy, politics, religion, science, and relationships. He also writes regularly for anarcho-capitalist websites and has self-published several books.

Molyneux has a group of very ardent fans, even though he is only questionably an ancap at this point, and is hated by a large portion of them: he defends cops, is a "racial realist", says weird red pill things about women, and is a hawk on Mid East relations. He presents a crank magnetism chimera of men's rights crybaby, white rights crybaby and some sort of fedora-lover's Glenn Beck[3] (or a thinking man's RooshV) who is known for mistreating his guests.

 

12 hours ago, Spenc said:

I was actually wanting him to clarify the first part of the post about having a footbal/soccer league/clan system.  I have no idea what he's talking about with that comment.

Have various clans, select or ban members, based on a weighted Democratic system, like any local football team. Way of filtering for discussions for better or worse, but more competitive/orientation and level based, silly having a Grandmasters vs  Novices for example. Just doing a search of the forum for various philosophical jargon can see that people with a decent level of intelligence like computer scientists often quit or have lower rep for being misunderstood. Out of self-interest I'd like to drain the knowledge of the best. A clan system could be a way of doing this, maybe there is a system already in existence, there is for gaming. Easier said then done, though as I said, perhaps there are systems in existence.

 

[M.2]

On ‎2017‎. ‎07‎. ‎10‎. at 1:22 AM, RichardY said:

Ah cool, you play Total War, Mishi? I liked the original Medieval and Shogun(The AI is Better).

I added flamer(just seeing your post) was just thinking of a kind of league system was originally just going to put concern troll thinking of (D.D. just now). Concern trolling is a right pain, best to ignore or snipe imho (had that a lot on the forum originally when I joined).

Hi, RichardY !
Yes, Total War is my favourite genre, and my favourite game is also Medieval2, however I mod it heavily with Stainless Steel. It's been a while since I played, but it's truly the best game ever.
I have found, to my great surprise, that gamers were some of the most agreeable people on the internet, which is quite contrary to popular belief. There is a lot we could learn from their forums. Trolling is indeed very hard to police, yet it is essentially non-existent on gaming forums, quite simply because gamers are the kings of trolling themselves, and therefore know not to feed the trolls.

I never wanted to believe that D.D. was being malicious. But even if I did believe so, I still would have given him a lot of chances to conduct a civilised discussion, which I think we eventually came to do.

17 hours ago, D.D. said:

Yes, that would be a passive-aggressive response.  I'll assume your question is your way of joking.

I must apologize for claiming that you, Mishi, have been passive-aggressive with me in this thread.  You have said that you were not and so I must treat you and others with a presumption of innocence...again, I apologize for misunderstanding your text as passive-aggressive.  I will be making sure that I don't treat others in future interactions without a presumption of innocence.

As for this thread, the OP wanted "theories".  My participation in this thread has been to give voice to FDR's guideline statement:

however, this is in conflict with theorizing and so my participation has only been a disruption to contemplations, speculations, conjectures, and guesses.  I'm not saying these things are wrong under the context of this thread, since that's what the OP wants, and there is room within this forum for such conversations.  Therefore, correct me if I'm wrong, but I must also apologize to everyone in this thread for derailing this thread.

It's all good, D.D. . At least from my part. I never thought you had bad intentions. Your donator status made it undisputable that you are very much committed to reason and evidence. If I have made a mistake in my arguments, don't hesitate to point it out.

If I may, I think you and I have served a good example of what to do and not to do in order to create a better place for interaction on the forums. So in my opinion, we were very much on topic.

[D.D.]

5 hours ago, RichardY said:

No, go kiss my hairy arse.

No reason to take you serious.

[shirgall]

Concern trolls are people that raise issues in the guise of helping but actually detract from a forum or a conversation by wasting time and increasing frustration.

[D.D.]

13 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

If I have made a mistake in my arguments, don't hesitate to point it out.

I did.  You only want a conversation using speculation.  There's nothing wrong for wanting that kind of conversation because that's exactly what the OP wants as well.  In fact, there's a shift on this forum away from the following:

Quote

Freedomain Radio is a rational and empirical philosophy show. Reasoning from first principles, in accordance with empirical evidence, is the central methodology of our approach to truth.  Think of Freedomain Radio as a class for advanced students of physics — if you do not understand the scientific method and some contemporary theories before joining a debate, you will almost certainly derail it, and it will not be much fun for you or others.

This was why I apologize for my participation in this thread - I'm applying a philosophical methodology using reason and evidence as per the original purpose of this forum.  The market (members of this forum) do not want this.  I've been involved in several conversations, I use that term loosely, where some people are offended when asked for reason and evidence to the point where they are clearly abusive and nobody appears to be held accountable for their actions here. 

How can this group enforce the social contract, law of the land, or an implementation of DROs (Dispute Resolution Organization) in society when this group cannot do so in their own backyard (this forum) where it is more manageable?  This is a rhetorical question.

[Tyler H]

 

On 6/28/2017 at 7:05 PM, Ferssitar said:

When I first started reading this forum (2013) the activity on here was much more intense. There were a lot more high-post and high-reputation members who were involved into the threads. 

Nowadays, to me it feels like you could count on your fingers the number of regular posters. Also, with a handful of exceptions all of the early listeners and/or reputable folks have vanished from the boards. 

Lately, I found myself often contemplating how is this possible given that the show has grown probably tenfold in listenership from back then and instead of increasing the forum involvement has decreased. 

What are your theories on this?

 

Has the FDR conversation moved somewhere I am not aware of? 

In a world filled with anti-philosophical lemmings the popularity of a philosophy show has an inverse relationship to it's quality.  The show grew because it rode the Trump wave and put a pause on offending people's sensibilities.  More conservative pandering and less philosophical exposure of the state, the family, and the church.  The people who like the show before and the people who like the show after are not going to be the same people.  I think there has been a slow reemergence of prior content to slowly introduce conservative listeners to the original principles without losing them, but we'll see if we're actually headed back to the car or if we're having too much fun at the gas station (reference to the we got a flat tire[immigration/leftism] and we have to detour[push Trump, court Christians] to fix it analogy).

 

On 7/6/2017 at 4:09 PM, DaVinci said:

The mainstream narrative is clearly anti-Trump. It is designed to hurt him. So he is, at least by proxy, defending Trump. You might not categorize the videos as "pro-Trump" but it does benefit Trump. 

My issue with these types of videos is only that it's a case of preaching to the choir to anyone who has been watching Stef for more than a month, and I wonder what other kind of content could be created in its place. 

Yes, there are plenty of people to defend Trump and rail against the decline of society, but when Stef left the "Ivory Tower" who was left to speak true philosophy?  He often would posit prior to his shift to full time podcasting "does the world need another software programmer or does it need philosophy"; well tell me, does the world need another conservative pundit, or do they need someone to show the way to a free society through truth and reason? This is a thought I sometimes have, but I hope I'm wrong about that and right about the detour - i.e. we buy time and gain some eyeballs to try and convince later.  

 

 

[DaVinci]

28 minutes ago, Tyler H said:

Yes, there are plenty of people to defend Trump and rail against the decline of society, but when Stef left the "Ivory Tower" who was left to speak true philosophy?  He often would posit prior to his shift to full time podcasting "does the world need another software programmer or does it need philosophy"; well tell me, does the world need another conservative pundit, or do they need someone to show the way to a free society through truth and reason? This is a thought I sometimes have, but I hope I'm wrong about that and right about the detour - i.e. we buy time and gain some eyeballs to try and convince later.  

 

 

I think buying time makes sense, but then that time has to be spent wisely. I don't think that's happening. I think the right is out of ammo. Or they are using handgun ammo against a tank. The post-modern monster is recruiting at lighting speed and all we've bought time for is to time to hold hands before we're all murdered by the mob.

 

I'm serious. 

 

If the right keeps proceeding the way they are, then the right is actually contributing to digging the grave for the West. There was no point in buying time if it that time was going to be squandered. 

[Eudaimonic]

The arguing above is the reason this board suffers.

There's no longer a cohesiveness or bother hood and it can be majorly negative and frustrating to post here.

How many people left on the board live the principles laid down in the first 200 podcasts?

[ofd]

Quote

How many people left on the board live the principles laid down in the first 200 podcasts?

I don't. I follow the principles laid down in the last 200 podcasts.

[Spenc]

2 hours ago, ofd said:

I don't. I follow the principles laid down in the last 200 podcasts.

which are those, and how are they distinct from the principles of the first 200?

[ofd]

Nationalism as an alternative to globalism.
The argument for closed and guarded borders.
Arguments from effect for gnon.
Political action to prevent future disasters.
Race realism.

[shirgall]

57 minutes ago, ofd said:

Nationalism as an alternative to globalism.
The argument for closed and guarded borders.
Arguments from effect for gnon.
Political action to prevent future disasters.
Race realism.

More local control is preferable to more collective control. Thus, nationalism is better than globallism and states' rights are better than federalism... until we finally get down to individuals.

Since you can have either open borders or a welfare state but not both, you have to pick which one you can shut down most effectively.

Who's making arguments from effect?

Political action, if effective, is preferable to violent action.

I don't even know what you are talking about with the last one.

So... did you have an argument or just a kitchen sink?

[Tyler H]

53 minutes ago, shirgall said:

Political action, if effective, is preferable to violent action.

Given the current state of politics, what is the difference? Taxation instead of theft, quantitative easing instead of counterfeiting, education instead of indoctrination, politics instead of coercive enforcement of the will of the majority....

[shirgall]

1 hour ago, Tyler H said:

Given the current state of politics, what is the difference? Taxation instead of theft, quantitative easing instead of counterfeiting, education instead of indoctrination, politics instead of coercive enforcement of the will of the majority....

To answer your question, when was the last time you heard about a shootout over sales tax or the inclusion of SJW crap in High School Economics? What's is the case is that collectivists overreached and the backlash led to Trump, which was an opportunity for voluntarists. Ron Paul might have been an opportunity too, but he was unable to work against the GOP establishment.

[ofd]

Quote

Who's making arguments from effect?

Stefan is an atheist, but he appreciates the effect that Christianity brings.
 

Quote

Race realism.

Noticing differences between human races and talking about them.

[Eudaimonic]

Anarcho-Capitalism > JQ aware Ethnic Nationalism > Civic Nationalism > Republican Egalitarianism > Communism/Socialism > Islam

We're currently trying to fight off the last of these.

[shirgall]

9 hours ago, ofd said:

Stefan is an atheist, but he appreciates the effect that Christianity brings.

He's not telling people to become Christians but to appreciate the teaching of values and the urge to take action.

[ofd]

Quote

He's not telling people to become Christians but to appreciate the teaching of values and the urge to take action.

That's what I meant with gnon.

 

[shirgall]

1 hour ago, ofd said:

That's what I meant with gnon.

I didn't mean the "god of nature" and neither did Stefan, by my interpretation.

[powder]

On 6/29/2017 at 2:03 PM, Mishi2 said:

Could it be that the forum is too strictly regulated? There have plenty of posts of mine that were not allowed for some reason. I even checked the community guidelines to see what I did wrong, and couldn't figure it out. That is what is most off-putting for me. Maybe that is why the unofficial forums were created. Maybe the unrestricted free market of ideas should be applied to the forums.

Other than that, there are certain members on the forum who go out of their way to bully others for "making a bad argument". I can take a punch or two, but I can understand those who quit because of it. This may be just my experience.

Anyhow, the forums were given a decent upgrade a couple months ago, so that makes me think the admins have noticed the decline of activity here.

This.  I found it increasingly difficult to have an engaging discussion because of the lag time for moderation and the posts that were getting nixed by the mods and have all but stopped coming around.