Immediately after receiving acclaim from another poster on FDR, Stefan Molyneux (or some subsidiary person or program at the forum) banned me because I posted here. I'm not upset, I'm not ever surprised. I had a big analysis of my thoughts on this, but I decided that it was too tenuous an analysis based on the limited scope of the situation. I know of no reason, I have tried to maintain positive relations with members of the board, chat and Molyneux himself and I have generally found the posters receptive to it.

Although I think my conduct was civil and positive, I am not in a position to decide for Molyneux. Whether he had any other reasons in my case is for him to decide, and not important. But I think it would suit the spirit of the board if Stef employed a less blanket policy, especially since account and IP bans for disruptions actually caused on an individual basis are already under moderator control; the uniquely targeted but collective ban prevents people who have no qualm with him, who may have come here by accident and who could be valuable contributors. Especially since LiMi and FDR, whatever the differences had by some, is likely to involve people highly sympathetic and possibly highly informative posters.

A carpet bombing tactic, for that matter, is just as easy to subvert as an individual ban. Anyone who is likely to be disruptive, especially if they have a personal problem with Stefan, is in fact most likely to recognize and bypass the ban, while the person who simply logged into the wrong forum may be lost forever and perhaps develop hostility at being dismissed so arbitrarily.

Molyneux perhaps has other considerations in mind when making his judgment on these matters, and for my own part I do not feel it is even enough of my business to critique his motives or practice. But I do hope that he is aware of the fact that LiMi and FDR attract very similar individuals, and I can think of no reason for the presumption of hostility nor see it being any more effective than selective banning.

That's all,
- Vichy

Their loss...

Unbelievable. I read your post not too long after you wrote it, I think. It was the thread where the guy was trying to make a case for agnosticism? Molyneux was probably angry that the guy was trying to make a case. M has such certitude in his beliefs. As I was reading your post (which was thoughtful and cordial as always), I was wondering if you'd be banned for posting here as well. I was hoping you wouldn't be, for his sake. It smacks of paranoia.

That means they literally have someone keeping a list of all names here that they crosscheck against all posters there. I can't see a reason for the global presumption of hostility, either.

Let's all get fake accounts there and tell him to eat one.

Kidding.

P.S.

http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/freedomainradio-f26/freedomainers-cult-excommunicated-google-map-t128.htm

It is a collective punishment for individual actions. He is acting like a petty, statist dictator. That kind of "zero tolerance" B.S. is not appropriate to a libertarian of any stripe. We are all individuals who deserve to be treated as such and not lumped into a group. Sorry, vichy, but we like you (despite the whole spanner to the cranium thing ), so stick around.

Oh, and another thing...

vichy wrote:

Molyneux perhaps has other considerations in mind when making his judgment on these matters,

Yeah, that "consideration" is the tight control of his members' access to contrary opinion and criticism of himself. He cannot make any exceptions, either. He is in command, and it needs to be clear to his followers that he will brook no dissent or fraternizing with "The Enemy!"

_________________
Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

hey Dylboz, after Stef's public announcement re banning people who post on LM. did that Shaw guy from that other forum ever get back to you?

He made up a story about how I was a liar, because according to him, I said if he even visited the site, he would be banned. I clearly stated that if he should open an account here and make a post, it would result in his banning. At first, he said he would do that, then log into chat with Stef and ask him about it. Then, later, he picked out the part where I said that Stef was now banning some people just for visiting LiMi by tracking IP referals to FDR, and after context dropping (he learned it from you, Stef) he said I was a liar. He actually quoted you, Conrad, saying I had backtracked:

John Shaw wrote:

They already backtracked on the liberatingminds forum and have created a circular logic scenario where no matter how I come in and post, I'm still wrong anyway. Quote: but the FDR'ers can just tell him that he won't be banned because he is just doing this experiment or because they know he is a good guy, etc. and so he won't be banned and then you have to apologize, and for what? There's no way to win the argument at this point, because if I post and don't get banned, it's only gonna be "Manipulation" anyway. Nevertheless, no one gave a shit at the FDR forum about me posting or reading the liberatingminds forum. Some people asked why I'd bother. That was it. Fuck it. I'm not gonna waste any more time fighting battles on other people's behalf.

So, yeah, Conrad, you were right. But there's more...

John Shaw wrote:

Quote If you are a member of FDR, your account will be deactivated if you visit LiMi That is your exact quote, and what I responded to. The fact that you have since softened your stance is irrelevant. That statement is a flat out fucking lie. Period. You are a liar. I'm done.

You cannot post at both forums. Stef will ban you for even having an account here. It is his stated policy and Shaw knows it, so why he weaseled out of this particular challenge is obvious. He clearly wants needs to be able to post at FDR, I guess. He rarely participates there, but for whatever reason, feels the need to identify with and defend Stefan on the FTL bbs all the time.

His family was pretty fucked up (I know from stories he freely tells over at the FTL bbs), and to his credit, he did follow through on the attempt to communicate, but he says he's not received a response from his family, so he wont initiate contact with them until such time as they respond to his request to talk about their issues. He is also a subscriber to the FDR podcasts and a regular donator, so the threat of getting cut off from Stef and the deFOO cheerleading squad, expecially as his deFOO is still sort of in process and unresolved, is obviously too much to risk. I really don't blame him, but it was exceedingly peevish of him to call me a liar, when he's the one who backed off his initial claim, then failed to follow through on the "experiment" he proposed.

Anyway, as vichy's experience demonstrates, posting on both forums gets you IP banned and your account deactivated from FDR. Everyone knows that.

_________________
Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

It is a collective punishment for individual actions. He is acting like a petty, statist dictator. That kind of "zero tolerance" B.S. is not appropriate to a libertarian of any stripe.
Whatever its accuracy in a general sociological sense, we must remember that most people, even supposed rationalists, have a lot of trouble remaining as fair as they'd like to be if they sense something is threatening or uncomfortable to them, and it is not always easy to discern (especially after the fact) what motives are real and what motives are simply ascribed. People do not walk around aware of every sneaking hypocrisy and disrespectful remark they have made. Supposing your worst scenario that he were all sorts of bad tendencies he has nonetheless contributed something and taken nothing I would have had without him.

I don't think that it's enough of my business to make evaluations of this sort, he is under no obligation to conform to my preferences nor to order his values in any particular way; it is quite reasonable to ban anyone he pleases and any pretext whatsoever. Though I might estimate such a forum's value as low, that's got nothing to do with Stefan Molyneux' life and values.

I can not expect to find his procedures and preferences as mere variations of my own. I can not claim that, even if he shares values, he should stack them precisely as I do. I do not have any special insight as to what his general or specific aims are, I gain nothing by depricating him in accordance with my personal standards. If a person has cut off contact with me in such a situation I find it rather petty to analyze his 'flaws', which is nothing more than to say that such a person should value and do as I prefer; its rather like gossiping about your husband because he divorced you.

Even if someone were insulting and dismissive of my views and values (Stef was not), what can I reasonably say of them? Complain that they are different people? That I find their personality as unworkable? But they can say the same of me. Critical understanding of personality and social dynamics has many uses, but we can only decide what is correct for ourselves, the actual facts of our mental and physical life; we can not disprove that someone ought not shout at others or assert that certain modes of social interaction are objectively superior. We can only express our reasons for thinking so and hope to convince someone else; even those whom we are certain disrupt their own happiness obviously must then have a higher value, and who is to say that happiness should trump independence, a sense of security or anything else? There are many motivating forces in mankind.

Stefan Molyneux basically is a dude on a website, he has no power, compels no one, lives a life voluntarily with others. One might disagree with some of what occurs. But the man is no dictator, if his advice is bad those who take it have no one to blame but themselves, if they can not or will not learn one can not blame Molyneux for a whit of it. Whatever reasons you may have for personally objecting to FDR and its crew all most of this is accomplishing is pestering what you claim to be an emotionally insecure man because others choose to listen to him.

I won't belabor the point anymore, I am not saying you should not be critical or examinative of him but this is like whining because the Dungeon Master is a dick in your opinion; it's a purely voluntary social situation based on personal objectives and perspectives. Once he kicks you out of the group, I find writing pamphlets on his psychological inadequecies and bad personal relationships is petty and a bit vindictive as well as pointless; if these things are true you should simply not deal with him/them. There are a lot of people who have all sorts of internal difficulties, and interpersonal difficulties. Every person ever influenced by Molyneux did so of their own free will, including all those who left their families, have done nothing worse than making choices you don't like about their own lives.

I don't wish to say you have no basis for your evaluations, and certainly not to shame you about anything. But, as Dennis Miller said, if you want to inject gasoline into your dick and piss fire it's your own damn business; I have no authority or responsibility and I'm frankly happy whenever people aren't going about punching each other. This last I consider the essential element of 'libertarianism', and unless Molyneux abducts someone I will grant him the same good grace I do to Christian libertarians who spread the gospel to whomever they can. Antagonism will certainly do us no good.

Hehe unstoppable force meets immovable object

(That is, Nietzscheian elitist egoism meets Socratic humanitarianism...*grabs popcorn*)

But I'm making choices too. You don't like them? OK. But, I think that within the context of his website and libertarianism as a larger community (I know you use that 'there's no forest, only trees' argument, but this is a movement) I really don't like what he is doing. He is speaking to people about ideas that have deep meaning and value to me, and I don't want him, his followers, or his particular brand of ideology to be the public face of those deeply cherished ideas.

So, in accordance with my values as a voluntarist, I am speaking out against him in order to effect his reputation, to caution others so they can make an informed choice about whether or not they wish to voluntarily associate with a guy who behaves as he does, a guy who is deceitful, manipulative and ultimately dishonest. A guy who has a specifically anti-family agenda and will, in most cases, council you reject your current friends and family, confine your relationships to him and his followers, and give him money.

It is all voluntary. You can choose to do or not do whatever you want. So can I. Whether you approve or not, or think its silly or pointless is not really relevant, and you have already gone through the entire Molyneux trajectory anyway. Others have not, and I hope only to save them the time, money and grief he causes so many others, again, as a service to my fellow man undertaken voluntarily.

Let me try to preempt:

The core of what I anticipate to be Vichy's argument:
"If weak people are led happily into an obviously compromising situation which later proves to be their downfall, who cares? They brought it upon themselves."

The core of what I anticipate will be the principle objection:
"But we owe it to each other to watch out for danger and try to stop people from making decisions that will seriously harm them. If they don't listen at first, it's important to keep trying."

Repeat ad infinitum.

ha!

I'll probably respond in more detail tomorrow or something. For me it's mostly about the thorough hypocrisy and what emotions that provokes in me, and about following it like a soap opera/football team with the bonus (and downside) of being able to get involved.

Hehe I admit I'm sort of in the "soap opera devotee" boat... My added bonus is that I have publicly demonstrated that Stefan's ethical system is inherently flawed, and in large part, the world turns like it never happened. It makes the whole show a lot more amusing.

Instead of "Watch the libertarians froth and rage in defense of this one thinker and his ideas!," it's "Watch the libertarians froth and rage in defense of this one thinker and his fatally flawed ideas!" Much more entertaining/tragic.