I'll start this post by making an excuse for my soon-to-be-revelaed hypocracy. I have said that I no longer listen to or read FDR/Stef, but I still do. I have also said that I have reconciled and overcome the negative emotions I had regarding Stef/FDR; I have only *mostly* done so. I currently subscribe to the FDR forum's RSS feeds (the RSS only broadcasts new threads, not new posts) and the podcats in iTunes, and I skim the titles and descriptions for something that interests me (I usually avoid "ask a therapist" episodes, dream interpretations, listener conversations, Sunday call-in shows, and try to only read/listen to philosophy - no psychology or emotion). The recent Podcast #888 has the following description:

Quote:

The UPB Book is out! Using the real-time relationship idea, and losing self-consciousness!

I am a little interested in learning what "real-time relationship" and "losing self-consciousness" were, so I started this podcast, ready to do a lot of fast-forwarding. The first 20 minutes, however (from 3:00 until 22:10) were about Stef's relationship with Liberating Minds, and this interested me. It turned out to be the lowest I've heard Stef go. He describes the situation ("as I see it," he says), but these 20 minutes are a voluminous mass of lies, defenses, contradictions, projections, mischaracterizations, straw men, and other defense mechanisms! I was astounded at how many flaws I could recognize, and I'm not as good at recognizing them as some of you are!

I wanted to title this post "Warning to new FDR listeners or those uncertain about Stef's methods." I thought that would be draw in new, curious readers. And I was going to ask Conrad to change the post to a "sticky" or "announcement" so it would remain on the top of the list of posts, for new LM readers in the future. But twice during the process, I've gotten sick of Stef: I got sick of thinking about it after I listened this afternoon, so I waited about 6 hours to start my post; then, I started transcribing the 20 minutes and got sick of it again!

I am now not in the mood to post comments. But I will post the transcription because I would like to hear you thoughts (any of you who care to read and post - I certainly understand if you don't want to bother). I will post some comments tomorrow night, I think. Actually, I'll summarize a few of my issues in a reply to this post, and I'll post more thoughts tomorrow and the coming days.

Here is a transcript of those 20 minutes:

Quote:

...What it's caused I would sort of say is some problems with people who were you know - I sort of fail to understand the drama of all this, but that could just be me. So there have been people who have been on the boards and I found them to be difficult and destructive and obstructive and toxic in one way or another and distracting and you know screwing up the conversation and retarding the progress and you know that's sort of my perspective and my opinion of what was going on and I think there was good reason. And so I hand out an "unvitation" right? I sort of say to people, "please don't come and post on this board anymore because you're not contributing to the conversation" and it's sort of my job to make sure the conversation moves forward. That's sort of what I'm committed to and I'm not going to let anything stand in that way...People who have left, um, I mean of course people leave of their own accord, it's been a completely voluntary situation. And the board is not Freedomain Radio. the board is not Freedomain Radio. Freedomain Radio is the books and podcasts and the back and forth that goes on sometimes in emails. The board is not Freedomain Radio. It's not even a core part of Freedomain Radio. It's a nice bit of lemon in the icing on the cake.The people who think they've messed that up and they've done something about the conversation fundamentally sort of miss the point. But people who leave get mad. They get mad and they don't call me up and talk to me about it, right? So when I say look there are problems and so on and then people can call me up and then - it's not like I'm hard to get ahold of. I sit in front of the computer 14 hours a day doing philosophy lately because it's been the book plus FDR - regular FDR. But they don't they don't call me up. They just kind of get mad, they go off and they sort of start spreading negative things and have negativity and so on. And so some board, I can't even remember the name of it, some board has gone up with a bunch of people who are no longer part of this conversation here. And I guess they are disliking me and what it is that I do and they're having problems and they feel that I'm, oh, a cult leader - the worst cult leader in the history of the planet, but - I am a cult leader and I am intolerant and I am censorious and you know all this kind of stuff. So I will tell you what I think is really going on and then we can drop it and move on to more pleasant topics. But this is a microcosm of the challenges we face in bringing the truth to the world, so it's worth spending a little bit of time on it. So, when two people end up with a conflict which is not resolvable within the framework of the relationship, then there's one of two possibilities: The first possibility is that one person is acting badly and the other person is acting well. The other possibility is that both people are acting badly. Right? Now, the people who have, who i've banned from the board have acted in a way subsequent to the banning that completely justified you know what it is that I did. Right? Because you know if you and I were to go out on a date...then we would sort of evaluate each other and if at some point we didn't decide that we were attracted to each other then we'd just not - you know, we just wouldn't go out any more. Right? And the mature response to somebody who doesn't want to go out with you is like "well yeah it stings a little but blah blah blah" but you sort of say OK well not to my taste, didn't work out, and then you move on. Right? What you don't do is put up a website and start trashing the person who didn't want to go out with you and calling them a slut and calling them crazy and - right? that's just a really sick response to a non-preference for a relationship. Right? Everybody's free to leave the board, people I'm sure come by and drop their - you know I don't send emails to the people who haven't logged in in 60 days saying "where the hell are you? You're supposed to be part of this community. Act like it." Of course not, right? People can leave. And I can ask them to leave. Right? It's a free and voluntary society and there are no unchosen positive obligations. So when a relationship deteriorates to the point where there's a break, where one person says like "I don't want to spend time with you any more, I don't want you to come to my house, I don't want you to come to my parties," or whatever, the person who's being rejected has to either say "we're both acting badly" or they have to say "I'm acting badly and the other person, Stef, is acting well," or...they say "Stef is acting badly and I am acting well." That's sort of the only three possibilities. We're both acting badly; we'll call him Bob is acting badly, or Stef is acting badly. Now, the people who I've banned have never said - have never called me up and said "Gee, you know, let's talk about it - it's not so bad or I didn't realize I was being so negative or so difficult" or whatever, right? I would have those conversations and I've offered those conversations to people before - I don't offer then now, but I did offer them to many people at the time of these sorts of problems. So here's what happens, is that basically Bob, Bob The Bannee, goes off and is embittered and does not say "I acted badly and Stef acted well." They don't say "we both acted badly." Or if they do then it's just a way of sort of dragging me down, too. They say "I acted really well and Stef acted really badly, Stef's a hypocrite, you know, he says 'oh we've got such an open society' and then he makes up these arbitrary rules and bans people and they get all mad. Mad mad mad at this kind of situation. Now, the problem with that approach, like if you leave a relationship or somebody dumps you, let's say, and you go sailing off into the sunset and you never have any particular contact with that person again, then you can, basically until the day you die, maintain an illusion that you acted well and the other person acted badly. Unfortunately though, if there's a board running and there are podcasts and there are books, then people have a glimpse into my state of mind and where I am as a human being. Now if I am a bad guy, right, because we have this equation, right? Rationality = virtue = happiness. Rationality = virtue = happiness. And it's as old as Socrates - this is nothing that's new or culty, it's the old equation. I think we're just taking it 12 steps further, so to speak. So, if you say "well Stef is a bad guy" then what you're saying is "Stef is irrational or hypocritical" or whatever, right? In which case, Stef is immoral or corrupt in some manner, in which case Stef, by definition, must be unhappy, right? So if you get dumped, then if you say "I acted well, the other person acted badly" then the way that you confirm that diagnosis is, you say "Is the person who dumped me happy or unhappy?" Now if they're happy, you have a problem. Because if you're dumped by a happy person, and reason = virtue = happiness, then you've been dumped by a rational person, which makes you an irrational person, and thus not a particularly good guy. Right? So that's the mythology that's set up. Stef is corrupt, Stef must be unhappy, Stef must, you know - pride goeth before a fall, it's all gone to his head, he's become crazy, the success, and blah blah blah. So the problem is that what happens is...that when I released "On Truth" and particularly when I released "UPB" which was this week, which was simultaneous to this particular flair-up - and I *knew* ahead of time that this book was gong to cause problems - the book is a sheer act of joy for me.

Here is a summary list of some of my issues in Stef's 20 mintues. I noticed much more and will post them later. What else did you notice?

• Stef says that we voluntarily left the board *and* that he banned us. (some of us did leave, but he is grouping us together so his banning of some isn't an issue).
  
• He says he can't remember the name of "the other forum" (Liberating Minds), but I think he's lying. However, I don't blame him for not giving free advertising to your perceived adversary, especially if they are better than you.
  
• He says that FDR is a "free and voluntary society" and that he doesn't email people who don't participate in 6 months, urging them to participate; thus, he is lumping LM people's lack of participation (we're banned!) with those who chose not to participate, hence there is nothing wrong with our lack of participation (again, we were banned!)
  
• Stef euphemizes his banning of people as "sending them an 'unvitation.'"
  
• He says that LM people "grab" FDR members and intentionally get them angry, and then send them back to FDR to post angry and inaccurate info about Stef!
  
• He says it totally doesn't matter to him that LM people are calling him names and calling FDR a cult, *and* he says that calling FDR a cult is like calling his wife a whore and "we are going to have problems, you and I." These are contradictory statements. He then throws in some rare profanity (later, too) to stress the point (even if he doesn't know it) that it matters a lot more to him than he realizes.
  
• He points out that no LM people "called me up to talk about it like a man." Never mind that he IP banned them so they could not contact him via the forum where they *were* contacting him moments before. Also, what about Gabe, who did log back onto FDR and politely and calmly and logicially urged Stef to reconsider his banning, to no avail.
  
• He spews this irrational syllogism: "Since Stef is happy, he can't be irrational, therefor the people he banned must be irrational, and therefor wrong."
  
• He says LM people became embittered, without acknolwegding how many of us had reason to, or that our reason was Stef's irrational behavior! He banned people for asking questions whose answers Stef did not want known (or did not want to know himself?). He banned some oh us simply for participating in another forum. Of course some of us were bitter about that.
  
• He says " I feel sad, particularly when they manipulate and use people who are young and very vulnerable to sort of act out this mythology and this anger. I think that's very sad. In fact I think that's completely horrible." This is exactly what he does, and exactly what we do not do. I would guess that Stef has not read a single post here, but even if he had I think he is avoiding reality now.
  
• He says "cults are very specific entities with very specific characteristics, and we conform to *none* of them. Right? So if you're going to come over and call this a cult, I am going to react to you - I mean unless you found some magical proof, which case let me know and I'll try to make it less culty, right? - but if you come over and just say "wow, you know, it just seems kind of culty," well then you might as well just be calling my wife a whore." No one here acted the way he portrays, this is a straw man Stef is setting up. Everyone here who mentioned or suggested "cult" in any way, asked or provided a very stable argument - no one breezed in and accused FDR of being a cult without having thought about it and having at least some evidence. Even if the evidence was wrong, it existed and Stef is denying that fact.
  

Some people here have or had strong negative emotions towards Stef (I did), and whether or not they are rational, some of us acted on them and called him names and maybe behaved poorly in other ways. But I think that was all after being banned by Stef. Was anyone here banned for actually being a troublemaker on FDR? For calling FDR a cult (not asking in honest curiosity or concern, but just calling it a cult without providing any evidence or arguments)? For "grabbing" FDR members and sending them back to post negative and incorrect info on FDR? Was anyone here banned for any reason that Stef claims he banned people?

In fact, Stef says "the people who have, who i've banned from the board have acted in a way subsequent to the banning that completely justified you know what it is that I did." (my emphasis) He makes a point of claiming that those banned acted badly after being banned, but not before!

Thanks for the excellent transcript...nice typing skilz!

And as for Stef...well, wow. Nice to know that we matter so little he only has to dedicate 20 minutes to ranting about us!

And for goodness sake, happy people are always rational? Well, I know a lot of Christians who are pretty happy with their illusions...

just a few thoughts before I go to sleep:

• For sure, Molyneux makes some good points re the possibilities when there is a conflict. I would add one more: that neither party was acting badly, and there was a genuine dispute fueled by real miscommunication.
  
• Genuine miscommunications can lead to one or both sides behaving badly, in response to legitimate perceptions.
  
• I think that this is what happened to some extent on both sides. I think speculations by both sides about the "real" happiness of the other, at least beyond a certain point, are unfortunate and wasteful.
  
• For example, I thought a lot of the stuff about Stefan initiating "virtual" aggression against board members was ridiculous. I extend that argument on these forums in my criticisms of the argument that board members or even donors had property rights in their posts. Of course, that position may be very sincerely held. But to Stefan, hearing that, it's understandable that he's going to think that's a vicious accusation, as his view is he hasn't assaulted anyone.
  
• That said, I did stop posting on FDR for a reason. I had a long podcast debate with Stefan over a member I thought was unfairly banned. I thought the discussion went quite well and civil.
  
  There was also another discussion in which I criticized him for confidentiality and ad-hominems against that same board-member, and he (at the time) made a convincing argument that there was no confidentiality breach; upon re-listening, though, I thought it was still borderline. But he still had a point where I could understand how he saw it that way.
  
• The other thing that put me off from FDR was the general board culture there, which was for me -- contrary to Stefan's claim -- a major part if FDR. It had to do with frequent mis-quotings, psychologizing in place of arguments, deceitful use of the universalization argument, and misrepresentation. Although this experience was not with Stefan directly, it was with long-time board members close to him, and he fosters the FDR culture. I was criticized for an angry response to this (I did apologize) while the other parties were not. This kind of asymmetry, when done systematically, creates a certain kind of culture.
  
• After months of inactivity, I saw an FDR link to this board, which I followed. I was afterwards banned from FDR for joining this board, which is really puzzling to me, as my conduct on FDR had been exemplatory. This is despite me frequently defending Stefan, and was immediately after my defending his UPB argument and him on another forum.
  
• That does seem quite cult-like to me, and everyone I've talked with about it seems to think the same thing. Several of my very good friends had been predicting this trend for a while (I was worried but hopeful). Banned people, or ex-members, are often talked about in podcasts. This is something that Churches do not do.
  
• It does seem that strongly disagreeing with, or challenging, Stefan is a likely path to being banned, despite respectful interactions. To my knowledge, no-one has been banned over incidents where they agreed with Stef but acted inappropriately (which would be several long-time members).
  
• Of course, there is a continuum. Every organization has some cult-like characteristics, and when it becomes bothersome for some people is subjective (short of IOF, as in Scientology, where it's clear-cut). In other ways, FDR is not like a cult; no-one is discouraged from leaving, for example.
  
• There are also no "layers of knowledge" type secrets, and many other characteristics that are non cult-like.
  
• So, is FDR a cult? You decide. It helps if you know matters precisely before going in; i.e., if the Stefan said, "ideological differences will be kept to a minimum" I would completely understand; every organization needs to do that to some extent (e.g., the MI doesn't let socialists give talks).
  
• I can certainly understand Stefan's anger and being upset at the cult stuff. After all, "cult" has very negative connotations. People think of the Church of Scientology, or that UFO guy (Koresh). No-one wants to be associated with that. Yet, it is true that all organizations have certain cult-like characteristics...
  
• Perhaps we can think of a more polite phrase, without those connotations. When you notice a friend's wife wearing a strapless dress at a black-tie event, you don't tell him, "Your wife is dressed like a slut, whore, prostitute, to a certain extent," even though it's true given the context; you use the word inappropriate. So, perhaps instead of cult-like, we could say clique-like, or like an old-boy's-club.
  
• I really find his explanation of what people are doing here as silly. People here aren't miserable.
  
• Nor does anyone need to say Stefan is miserable / unhappy to say he acted unethically at times. I don't think the argument is that he's a totally unethical, thus totally unhappy person. People have criticized certain aspects of his behavior, thus at most the argument is that he's not happy in those particular instances.
  
• There has been some overarching arguments about narcissism, masks, being unhappy; which may be partly true; but which I think are over-reaching. Even to the extent that they are true, that doesn't mean one can't be happy elsewhere.
  
• It seems kind of paranoid that at FDR, Stefan and others have this conspiracy view of LM. It was here before Stefan's new book. And people here have a number of substantial disagreements with Stefan, which are worth pursuing, and building on top of his accomplishments.
  
• Of course he should be proud of his new book, and have reason for rejoicing; especially if it's so many years in the making. I am happy for him, and hope the book does well. I like his UPB arguments, and see them as being part of the larger edifice of natural law and argumentation ethics and estoppel. I'm also interested in Knot's praxeology of coercion. I think all of these, as well as my action ethics and Long's Aristotlean ethics, share common ground and support the NAP.
  

I hope this post has been fair and useful.

Mike wrote:

I am now not in the mood to post comments. But I will post the transcription because I would like to hear you thoughts (any of you who care to read and post - I certainly understand if you don't want to bother). I will post some comments tomorrow night, I think. Actually, I'll summarize a few of my issues in a reply to this post, and I'll post more thoughts tomorrow and the coming days.

thanks a million for the transcript dude! That must have been one hell of an unpleasant experience. I remember a couple of days ago I had to look up some quotes from a podcast and it was taking me some time and re-winding and stuff and it just felt awful to 'have to' listen to him go on and on... but I sacrificed myself for the greater good!

[quote="Mike"]Here is a transcript of those 20 minutes:

Quote:

...What it's caused I would sort of say is some problems with people who were you know - I sort of fail to understand the drama of all this, but that could just be me.

no, he doesnt fail to see that. quite a number of board members quit FDR and came to LM, and everybody who wants to get acquainted with Stef's flawed and disingenuous debating techniques and immoral behaviour has now had a chance to.
He did the podcast before he was brought down on the Libertarian Forum and he must have experienced the drama for sure since then.

Quote:

So there have been people who have been on the boards and I found them to be difficult and destructive and obstructive and toxic in one way or another and distracting and you know screwing up the conversation

he means 'they were questioning and then criticising me which I found intolerable'

Quote:

and retarding the progress

yes, cause scientific and philosophical progress works best when people don't question things

Quote:

and you know that's sort of my perspective and my opinion of what was going on and I think there was good reason. And so I hand out an "unvitation" right? I sort of say to people, "please don't come and post on this board anymore because you're not contributing to the conversation" and it's sort of my job to make sure the conversation moves forward.

forward into total worship of Stef

Quote:

That's sort of what I'm committed to and I'm not going to let anything stand in that way...

I hear that!

Quote:

People who have left, um, I mean of course people leave of their own accord, it's been a completely voluntary situation. And the board is not Freedomain Radio. the board is not Freedomain Radio. Freedomain Radio is the books and podcasts and the back and forth that goes on sometimes in emails. The board is not Freedomain Radio. It's not even a core part of Freedomain Radio. It's a nice bit of lemon in the icing on the cake.

at a lot of other times he has said that the board is the most important part of FreeDomainRadio, because, wait for it... there it is a conversation

Quote:

The people who think they've messed that up and they've done something about the conversation fundamentally sort of miss the point. But people who leave get mad. They get mad and they don't call me up and talk to me about it, right? So when I say look there are problems and so on and then people can call me up and then - it's not like I'm hard to get ahold of. I sit in front of the computer 14 hours a day doing philosophy lately because it's been the book plus FDR - regular FDR. But they don't they don't call me up.

before I got banned as Conrad I PM'ed him and Greg and Nathan to talk about the problems I had with the behaviour on the board. I had a Skype call with Greg which went wonderfully well (but after it he degenerated once again), and Stef insted played dumb and tried to make it seem as if my concern was about Ron Paul rather than board behaviour.
some time after i got banned I sent him an e-mail explaining my concerns in an open, friendly and accomodating way, asking whether it would not be a good thing if we could talk (in private) about the things I saw happening with him, and that if he didnt feel comfortable or was unwilling to talk to me that I could set up conversations with other people who he respects or likes more and who share my concerns over Stef. Stef never responded.
When I was LiMi Stef PM'ed me saying that I was getting aggressive on the board and asking me to cool it down a bit (this was pure projection out of fear cuz I was quite gentle but persistent), I continued that PM conversation and he was the one who escalated it

Another friend tried to do similar things in private correspondence with Stef and Stef just flipped out.

What Stef is saying here is pretty much complete BS, it's propaganda he spreads for the faithful

Quote:

They just kind of get mad, they go off and they sort of start spreading negative things and have negativity and so on.

and Stef of course has no intimate knowledge of negativity. The difference is that on LM it is substantiated 'negativity' backed up with lots of evidence and analysis. His on the other hand tends to just be defensive in nature.

Quote:

And so some board, I can't even remember the name of it,

I am 100 percent sure that is a lie, trying to belittle LM. I mean, I can imagine his not saying the name in the podcast and I respect that but saying he doesnt remember the name is a lie (or, could be, a very deep form of repression/denial)

Quote:

some board has gone up with a bunch of people who are no longer part of this conversation here. And I guess they are disliking me and what it is that I do and they're having problems and they feel that I'm, oh, a cult leader - the worst cult leader in the history of the planet,

straw man

Quote:

but - I am a cult leader and I am intolerant and I am censorious and you know all this kind of stuff.

correct

Quote:

So I will tell you what I think is really going on and then we can drop it and move on to more pleasant topics. But this is a microcosm of the challenges we face in bringing the truth to the world, so it's worth spending a little bit of time on it. So, when two people end up with a conflict which is not resolvable within the framework of the relationship, then there's one of two possibilities: The first possibility is that one person is acting badly and the other person is acting well. The other possibility is that both people are acting badly. Right? Now, the people who have, who i've banned from the board have acted in a way subsequent to the banning that completely justified you know what it is that I did. Right?

debating technique #10

Quote:

Because you know if you and I were to go out on a date...then we would sort of evaluate each other and if at some point we didn't decide that we were attracted to each other then we'd just not - you know, we just wouldn't go out any more. Right? And the mature response to somebody who doesn't want to go out with you is like "well yeah it stings a little but blah blah blah" but you sort of say OK well not to my taste, didn't work out, and then you move on. Right? What you don't do is put up a website and start trashing the person who didn't want to go out with you and calling them a slut and calling them crazy and - right? that's just a really sick response to a non-preference for a relationship. Right?

seems sensible. Then why did Stef do 5 podcasts wherein he trashed and insulted and misrepresented me?

the difference in the analogy with the date is that Stef is and aims to be a public figure who moreover has a podium to say what he says and claim great virtue and where he can trash others, and where he likely is doing serious damage to people who follow him. Warning others for that is not analogous to the date example. It would be like the person A who went on the date experienced the other person B she was on the date with trashtalking, badmouthing her, trying to get her to become emotionally dependent on him and then verbally abusing her, and so on, and then person A spreading the word about B's behaviour in order to warn others cuz B seems so nice at first.

Quote:

Everybody's free to leave the board, people I'm sure come by and drop their - you know I don't send emails to the people who haven't logged in in 60 days saying "where the hell are you? You're supposed to be part of this community. Act like it." Of course not, right? People can leave. And I can ask them to leave. Right?

yes, but Stef has several times laid out his banning policy and that by no means included the reasons he used to ban a a lot of the people he banned and who are now on LM.
other than that: agreed

Quote:

It's a free and voluntary society and there are no unchosen positive obligations. So when a relationship deteriorates to the point where there's a break, where one person says like "I don't want to spend time with you any more, I don't want you to come to my house, I don't want you to come to my parties," or whatever, the person who's being rejected has to either say "we're both acting badly" or they have to say "I'm acting badly and the other person, Stef, is acting well," or...they say "Stef is acting badly and I am acting well." That's sort of the only three possibilities. We're both acting badly; we'll call him Bob is acting badly, or Stef is acting badly. Now, the people who I've banned have never said - have never called me up and said "Gee, you know, let's talk about it - it's not so bad or I didn't realize I was being so negative or so difficult" or whatever, right?

not very subtle technique in the last sentence cuz it assumes that the problem was with the people other than Stef. Besides, it is a lie because I have approached him in private and on the board that way, on the board even quite literally as he now lays out.

Quote:

I would have those conversations and I've offered those conversations to people before - I don't offer then now, but I did offer them to many people at the time of these sorts of problems.

yes. and then used that knowledge to try and direct people in their lives towards situations (breaking off ties with family and friends) that may not at all be good for them.
but yeah, Stef has helped a lot of people in very good ways, including myself and that I am thankful of

Quote:

So here's what happens, is that basically Bob, Bob The Bannee, goes off and is embittered and does not say "I acted badly and Stef acted well." They don't say "we both acted badly."

because often that is either untrue or if it is true then the other's behaviour was retaliatory.

[quote] Or if they do then it's just a way of sort of dragging me down, too. They say "I acted really well and Stef acted really badly, Stef's a hypocrite, you know, he says 'oh we've got such an open society' and then he makes up these arbitrary rules and bans people and they get all mad.
he does seem to have read LM (need not mean that, but on LM we have talked quite a bit about his abitrariness)

Quote:

Mad mad mad at this kind of situation. Now, the problem with that approach, like if you leave a relationship or somebody dumps you, let's say, and you go sailing off into the sunset and you never have any particular contact with that person again, then you can, basically until the day you die, maintain an illusion that you acted well and the other person acted badly.

in order not to maintain such illusions, we [i]talk and analyze the experience on LM. granted, we are with like-minded people here and so group-think is a stroing possiblity, but there have also been people who generally have very positive feelings about Stef on the board and we have discussed things with them quite openly and rationally, and I for one would very much welcome more 'pro-Steffers' to discuss things with

Quote:

Unfortunately though, if there's a board running and there are podcasts and there are books, then people have a glimpse into my state of mind and where I am as a human being. Now if I am a bad guy, right, because we have this equation, right? Rationality = virtue = happiness. Rationality = virtue = happiness. And it's as old as Socrates - this is nothing that's new or culty,

I think the equation is probably true in an important way. It's just that it can be used against Stef and not for him: Stef is not happy, he acts happiness. If Stef were truly happy he wouldnt behave the way he behaves, he wouldnt have this Great Wall of defenses.

Quote:

it's the old equation. I think we're just taking it 12 steps further, so to speak.

kudos for the modesty

Quote:

So, if you say "well Stef is a bad guy" then what you're saying is "Stef is irrational or hypocritical" or whatever, right?

yes. and 'unhappy'.

Quote:

In which case, Stef is immoral or corrupt in some manner, in which case Stef, by definition, must be unhappy, right?

ah, yeah, see above

Quote:

So if you get dumped, then if you say "I acted well, the other person acted badly" then the way that you confirm that diagnosis is, you say "Is the person who dumped me happy or unhappy?" Now if they're happy, you have a problem. Because if you're dumped by a happy person, and reason = virtue = happiness, then you've been dumped by a rational person, which makes you an irrational person, and thus not a particularly good guy. Right? So that's the mythology that's set up. Stef is corrupt, Stef must be unhappy, Stef must, you know - pride goeth before a fall, it's all gone to his head, he's become crazy, the success, and blah blah blah. So the problem is that what happens is...that when I released "On Truth" and particularly when I released "UPB" which was this week, which was simultaneous to this particular flair-up - and I *knew* ahead of time that this book was gong to cause problems - the book is a sheer act of joy for me.

so interesting that he tries to tie LM to the release of his book. Somebody on the board, I think Rod, tried to do that too. But LM was started quite some time ago, and admittedly the PMs sent to FDR members sort of occured at the time his book was released, but I dont see any connection (if others do in some way please talk about it). His theory is that we can't stand to see him happy because that would mean we are irrational and not virtuous and not happy. But I dont see Stef as happy, instead I see him as delusional.


I mean, if he is happy about the book then he would very much be willing to discuss possible questions, comments and criticism about it openly. So we'll have to see whether that happens. Since now FDR is pretty much the only venue he has left and he wont try to publish the gist of it in an academic journal or anything, it is not too likely that he will have to discuss and back up his positions in some detail. On FDR itself people will be unlikely or incapable or unwilling to do that. he seems absolutely convinced that he has done what thousands of years of philosophy has not succeeded in, just like he feels he has solved the free will/determinism question once and for all. In the latter case at least this is not true as I and a lot of others have argued, so I am not too optimistic about his new book either.

The only premium podcasts that weren't boring as hell, IMO, were the Objectivism series. Interesting that his criticisms of Objectivism were directly applicable to his own little movement.

I, too, found the framework he set out ("rationality = virtue = happiness") absurd and objectionable. It effectively blocks any and all criticism of his ideas by redefining such criticism as a 'personal attack'. Under this premise, we cannot disagree with Stefan on an intellectual level without attacking him on a personal.

Stefan often manipulates language in this way. How many times have you heard him (and his supporters) describe FDR, its goals and its principles, with words like "virtue", "freedom", "truth", "courage", "honor", "happiness", etc. By defining all-things-FDR as such, one cannot criticize Stefan without, by default, standing opposed to all these things; if Stefan loves kittens, and you criticize Stefan, then you must hate kittens, right?

If he is everything in this world that is good, then we, his disputants, must be everything that is corrupt.