My journey to and fro FDR

Conrad · Subject: Re: My journey to and fro FDR Thu Apr 02, 2009 5:37 pm

Quote:

defined as "consistency between reality, ideas and behavior of a person" (which in practice means harmonizing your conscious thought with your sensory input, emotions and even dreams rather than denying them).

andf there are interesting and positive aspects to these ideas, but the way you describe them it sounds very general and vague. the proof is in the pudding as that annoying expression goes. And when I look at the behavior of hardcore FDR'ers I don't see that ideal of harmonization at all, unless you mean that they change their perceptions so that they fit their prejudices.
that was overly harsh, but I liked the phrase! Sorry

also, again I didnt read RTR (I did read On Truth) and so the generalness and vagueness I see in your remark may simply be the result of my ignorance of the RTR approach.

Quote:

It's impossible to actually be manipulated if fully applying this paradigm.

I'm not sure what to say to that. To use Stefan's scientific method: what is your evidence for this? how would this theory be falsified?

Quote:

So even if you (hypothetical you) were genuinely successfully manipulated by anyone, including Stef, it just means you failed at your own integrity and have more about yourself to fix than you have about Stef and others. You can't exactly change them, only yourself.

if that were the case, then yeah

Quote:

conrad wrote:

or they become hard-core FDR'ers so that they can just trust Stef and his message and don't have to think for themselves again.

Which is gonna be extremely hard if you actually practice the above mentioned paradigm. If they actually do turn into stef drones, then they simply failed personally. It's a pretty big leap to use that, however, to conclude that Stef somehow deliberately turned them into his little stefbots. It'd be more likely that they did it to themselves instead and are thus solely responsible for that state.

i think it was a combination of these two (and possible other) aspects: I'm quite sure Stefan did not set out to create what FDR has become now, but I do think he bears significant responsibility for the current state of FDR, as do the FDR'ers around him.

Quote:

But frankly, I don't see it happening on FDR as much as some would like to think. It was exactly due to LiMi that I proceeded cautiously and almost wondered when am I gonna get hit by the manipulative rhetoric. Suffice it to say that fears inspired by LiMi were extremely exaggerated.

have you for example followed the recent free will/determinism debates with PCRS and others (or the older ones), or the discussion with Brainpolice?
re psychology/family stuff: do you think for example Stefan's method of 'Right?' is conducive to an open exploration in such conversations? What weight would you give to the opinion of professional psychologists or psychiatrists who have listened to such sessions?

Quote:

conrad wrote:

also, I think you'd have to say more about how the latter point you make applies to people on LM. Is it for example the case that the intellectual or moral positions taken by people on LM (esp. during their time with FDR) are just plain wrong and thus that there has to be an alternative explanation for those people getting angry with Stefan?

It's more likely their applications of the learned principles, at least those which are true, were imperfect.

or they were exactly applying what they learned from Stefan to Stefan himself... and found the results not very good.

Quote:

So there was still room for misplaced anger. Their integrity failed. You could extend the same courtesy to Stef as well though. Yes he's not perfect either. Yes his integrity can fail as well. So what then?

ha! try pointing it out to him if you see such an example, and see what happens then.
I'd say there is quite a difference with how people respond to criticism here and the way Stefan does. That should count for something.

Quote:

Well, then it becomes pretty clear that the whole animosity that developed was completely irrational and counterproductive.

if the before-mentioned was all correct, then yeah that is a sensible conclusion. but that's at least a medium-sized 'if'.

Quote:

Just a waste of energy. Next step is either peaceful parting ways (no more pot shots or mutual declassification, just drop the negativity) or true reconciliation (reach out). Curiosity and understanding above all else.

Interestingly enough, people have actually kindly and openly reached out to Stef in private when there had not been any animosity between them, but genuine concern from the people who reached out. Didn't work too well though.

To use a Bockmanian, Mr. C.'ian passive-aggressive technique: do you consider yourself to be curious and understanding in your posts here?

Quote:

conrad wrote:

Which intellectual and moral positions do you then mean?

I think above covers what I meant. I'm specifically focusing on the methodology described and the idea of integrity application of which can be imperfect and thus cause issues like this.

Conrad wrote:

not thinking UPB is the greates intellectual achievement in the history of the world (as Stefan puts it), criticising UPB,

Hey man, if I wrote it I might say the same thing. Seriously. That doesn't make it so, it just makes for a fact that he still believes in it and is willing to honestly express this belief instead of pretending otherwise for fear that some people may call him having delusions of grandeur). Think about that one for a moment.

yep, I'm thinking about it. i think Stef half-consciously made himself believe this and maintain that belief (in the face of serious criticism by e.g. Danny, Brainpolice and lots of others) because it fits his vision of himself, FDR and the world. it seems to me that it takes too much effort to so dodge and evade questions, misrepresent criticism, ignore criticism no matter how politely and intelligently phrased, and so on. if he truly believes himself then he wouldn't work so hard to avoid criticism.

Quote:

Would you rather he lied about his opinion of UPB?

no, what makes you think that?

Quote:

That said.. I haven't studied moral theory deeply enough to say whether it's THE theory or not. I just think it's best I've encountered so far and that it makes sense from all that I can tell, which is good enough for me.

though you would, I take it, continue to be open to critiques of it?

Quote:

I think the idea that morality CAN be a science alone is revolutionary.

if so, then there have been revolutionaries before Stef.

Quote:

And we all know science never exactly stops revising its theories so all theories, especially those trying to chart previously uncharted territories, are to be assumed as probably imperfect. That's just how science works.

conrad wrote:

Quote:

again, make him into this monstrous cult leader that destroys families (or in case of Tom and Barbara, the latter didn't even have a thinking paradigm to begin with and was biased from the start).

not sue what you mean here re the latter

I think above said also covers it. She didn't quite act in respect towards Tom's decisions and since she wasn't in FDR openly learning the things Tom learned she didn't internalize the methodology of rational thinking

come on dude. FDR is not equivalent to the methodology of rational thinking. I mean, that is a huge statement you make there. Even if you think that there is a whole lot of value in FDR, that Stefan is more right about stuff than everybody else, it simply is, I don't know what it is[/], to equate FDR with rational thinking.

also, you have a point re parents also being able to learn from the good stuff that is out there at FDR, and this has repeatedly been pointed out at LM.

Quote:

and was thus less likely to apply them in Tom's case. Media mud slinging wasn't exactly a rational response, since it could have only served to alienate Tom even further.

fair point, though I think at least in part Barbara did what she did to warn others, to make others aware and so possibly help other families in preventing what happened to her family. The question whether the way she went about doing this was conducive to that end is an open one and several sides of the debate have voiced their opinions about this on LM.

Quote:
conrad wrote:

Quote:
I'm not saying the LiMi discussions of FDR are necessarily all bad, nor that they can't and sometimes don't play a healthy role of a "watchguard". I'm saying it is doing this job badly by overreacting and allowing this board or a lot of people on it to become something slightly more - a launchpad for the corrupt world to abuse to launch a demonization campaign against FDR that goes beyond surgically identifying its imperfections and instead throws the baby out with the bathwater.

I think in part you're right but to a significant extent you are not: there [i]have been exactly those surgically identiifying imperfections episodes, quite a few of them. And most have exactly been careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water, emphasizing time and time again the good stuff about FDR

Alright. It's not all bad, but little bad is bad enough.

not sure what you mean by that

Quote:
For lack of a better place to turn to for some anti-FDR support.. LiMi still remains the best option. It's good if it's also about constructive criticism though.

it is, is it not?

Quote:
Maybe more could be done to encourage that and discourage the other type, and move towards reconciliation.

yeah possibly, though I for one have little hope that would actually help in communicating with FDR'ers, though it might help in getting more people to not dismiss LM out of hand and consider the criticism here.
Again, I put all the stickies in the FDR category for this end

Quote:
Wow.. that was a lot said. Thanks for putting up with me. The reason I posted all this is to simply express what I feel might be an alternative point of view, which has frankly been brewing every time I revisit this subject.

and good that you took the plunge and expressed your views. I hope the discussion is being helpful

Quote:
I mean.. do you ever have that feeling when you watch a conflict that if you were either one of them you'd handle things so much better and with so much more diplomacy, harmony etc.? That's how I feel as an outsider watching all this.

ha! yeah, I know that feeling quite well. In Dutch we say 'my hands itch' when I see stuff like that ('they itch out of a desire to do something about it)

Quote:
I have been thinking of starting a site of my own that would basically incorporate and promote a lot of the FDR / voluntaryist ideas while learning from all of the imperfections and mistakes that I think were made at both FDR an LiMi... I wanted to turn it into an art form.

well, that seems like a good goal and it would be helpful for a lot of people. Not to discourage you, but to do something like that takes a whole lot of work

Quote:
Regards

thanks and right back atcha !

_________________
My Blog

nelle · Number of posts: 482 Registration date: 2009-02-09

Pardon me Memeverse,

I am so curious. I wonder if I could trouble you to answer Dylboz's questions. What exactly does the term "corrupt" mean to you, and in what way is Stef the cure?

Thank you so much.

Guest

Conrad wrote:

1. you said 'and I can't even say that he started it since the guardian article came first '. My point challenged that. that was the reason for making the point

Alright.

Conrad wrote:

2. the question of initiation matters imo: the person who insults first seems more culpable than the person who insults back. It also depends on the reasons and how well-founded the insults are

It seems the same to me as well, but on closer inspection something doesn't smell right about such an assertion. Why is being first to insult exactly worse? "Initiation of force" compared to "defensive force" comes to mind, but that is because initiation of force is coercion where the victim isn't left much choice. It's not the same with insults so there's still a rational void left to fill regarding the reasoning beyond opinion or an intuitive hunch.

My resistance to that notion also comes in big part from what I understood from RTR..

Conrad wrote:

there has been significant discussion on LM about the Guardian article and about the question whether Barbara was right or wrong in doing so, again with all sides of the debate stating their opinions. i think that open discussion was quite helpful. And it's significant that it was possible in the first place.

Right. I still need to confirm for myself that it's actually impossible on FDR.

Still, this might sound almost heretical in some sense, but perhaps lack of openness can actually be a good thing in some cases.

When it comes to personal growth, which inevitably must involve psychology, too much discussion and challenges to the premise for better or worse result in distraction from or postponing its application. You may get into a situation in which in constant anticipation for a revision of your theory to a more perfect one you never actually make practical use of the theory and keep postponing the personal growth that may have resulted in applying it earlier.

If the theory was wrong and you actually personally regressed then it's an experience that you learned something from directly. There is no better way to test a theory than through direct experimentation after all.

This may be what is the prevalent goal at FDR. There is a certain set of theories which attract people because they make enough sense to appear valuable and potentially helpful. They are eager to apply them in real life and experience growth and liberation that they hope to gain from it. However if the board was in a constant state of flux where there was never a moment of certainty and theories were constantly revised and re-revised before even being tried in real life by those same people discussing it, personal growth is postponed. It becomes a lot more about debating than about liberating yourself in actuality.

Of course, I'm not trying to say that it is good to accept things on faith, far from it. One must apply some rational reasoning, to the best of his or her abilities before even deciding these theories are worth a shot and openness to differing opinions is to be encouraged. However, FDR specifically may simply not be the place for it, it's not its primary purpose. Its primary purpose is to help people internalize the theories which were already developed, understand them completely and try to apply them if possible.

There clearly were a lot of people for whom it worked and was extremely helpful. And there were some for whom it perhaps didn't. Whether it didn't because they failed to understand or fully apply them or because the theories themselves are invalid is up for debate.... just, maybe.. not on FDR.

See what I'm getting at? At the very least this could change the outlook on FDR's supposed "closedness" as not a malicious trait, but simply a part of what it as a project is, its current purpose.

Conrad wrote:

I haven't read RTR. Also, these may be the slogans or the stated goals, but practice as I've witnessed it is quite different.

Ahh.. man I think RTR is actually a far more important part of Stef's paradigm than UPB and his work on anarchism. If you didn't read an internalize RTR I must honestly say I doubt you actually have much of a basis for fully understanding all that's going on at FDR.

I mean.. before reading FDR I viewed deFOOing with some skepticism as well, and the psychological stuff in general. I was more interested in the market anarchy aspects. That's what attracted me to FDR in the first place.

After reading RTR the rest fell into place, and I realize how huge of a part the ideas in that book actually play in the bulk of what makes FDR community what it is. These people are trying to LIVE RTR (real time relationships) on the board itself, with their parents (if possible, if not then terminate), friends and romantic partners. It may also help understand Stef's call in conversations a little better.

I recommend you give it a chance.

Conrad wrote:

see above re discussions about the Guardian article. Some people expressed strong disapproval of what Barbara did, while others were more positive. Which ones represent LM?

Both I suppose.

Conrad wrote:

what aspect of it do you not find perfect? Have you discussed this on the FDR boards?

To be honest, none yet. I just realize the possibility that there could still be some inconsistencies or imperfections. I've read UPB and it made sense, but didn't go deep into analyzing it. It basically for me boiled down to logical contradictions that seem embedded in everything that is "immoral" given the undeniable urges of all human beings (at the very least to survive and be happy). That squarely puts this idea of universally preferable behavior into my "makes a lot of sense" category which I can live with because it doesn't contradict my already developed voluntaryist views (non-initiation of force), my experiences and common sense.

Another huge part, RTR, I am still internalizing and trying to apply, but so far seems incredibly empowering and "pure" in a sense that I actually perhaps for the first time in my life see and understand just what living with integrity is, what love is etc. It's rare that something makes sense on both the emotional and rational level at the same time, as if it is prompting a unification of disparate factions of myself into one shining person. Smile

We'll see about imperfections along the way and rest assured, if I become bothered about them I WILL express them, even on FDR, as politely and diplomatically as I can. Smile

Conrad wrote:

I'd really urge you to read any introduction textbook on the philosophy of science. if you do, you'll see that Stefan's view on the scientific method is sort of positivist, and you'll also see that fatal criticism have been launched against that position, so much that possibly not a single practicing philosopher of science takes it seriously anymore.
theory-ladenness of observation, incommensurability, Duhem-Quine problems, tacit knowledge, etc, etc.
Stefan has never even heard of these issues, has not even read the most important book in the philosophy of science of the 20th century: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. No offense, but I find it laughable to hear Stefan talk about 'the scientific method', 'empiricism', 'evidence' and so on.

I'll check them out, thanks.

Conrad wrote:

also, again I didnt read RTR (I did read On Truth) and so the generalness and vagueness I see in your remark may simply be the result of my ignorance of the RTR approach.

Yeah I'd agree to that. As said RTR is a very crucial part to the Stef's work.

Conrad wrote:

memeverse wrote:

It's impossible to actually be manipulated if fully applying this paradigm.

I'm not sure what to say to that. To use Stefan's scientific method: what is your evidence for this? how would this theory be falsified?

Well, integrity means being ideally perfectly attuned to reality by being consistently receptive to all sources of information about reality, not just some, and not lie to yourself about what the information you're receiving actually says. These sources of information are our physical senses (smell, touch, hearing etc.) and our emotions or feelings. Both of these cannot be willed or controlled. You can't prevent yourself from feeling cold or warmth or pain nor can you prevent yourself from feeling emotional hurt or happiness. You can merely temporarily suppress them by ignoring them, drugging yourself etc, but they're still there and suppression usually has a sideffect of anxiety.

So what happens when someone is trying to manipulate you when you have complete integrity and thus have learned to listen to your senses and emotions without suppression and denial, thus truly knowing whenever something is wrong? How can you be manipulated if your emotions, gut feelings, intuition, whatever, tells you that something's fishy about the way man speaks, looks at you, things he says to you and what that implies etc..

In other words, if you have your eyes wide open how can something be invisible to you? If you have your senses + emotions constantly open and listened to, how can you miss what they tell you? You instantly know when something's wrong, just like you instantly know when you bump your toe at something. The only way to NOT know is to deny yourself this, try to suppress it.. then you practice manipulation over yourself. Of course then that you will be manipulated by others.

Well, that's what I meant by impossibility to be manipulated. If you're successfully manipulated, you failed to sense and feel, or listen to your senses and feelings.

That's the sort of stuff that stems from the RTR theory.

Conrad wrote:

have you for example followed the recent free will/determinism debates with PCRS and others (or the older ones), or the discussion with Brainpolice?
re psychology/family stuff: do you think for example Stefan's method of 'Right?' is conducive to an open exploration in such conversations? What weight would you give to the opinion of professional psychologists or psychiatrists who have listened to such sessions?

No, I'll check them out.

Conrad wrote:

To use a Bockmanian, Mr. C.'ian passive-aggressive technique: do you consider yourself to be curious and understanding in your posts here?

Ah.. that isn't necessarily passive aggressive of him. Maybe he himself is curious or wishes to practice curiosity so he participates and asks questions like those.

Mr. C was already helpful to me in some chats.

Conrad wrote:

no, what makes you think that?

Nothing, it just seemed like you portrayed his expressing UPB as the biggest achievement as something wrong even if it may have been just an honest expression of opinion.

Conrad wrote:

though you would, I take it, continue to be open to critiques of it?

Yes.

Conrad wrote:

and good that you took the plunge and expressed your views. I hope the discussion is being helpful

I am.

Conrad wrote:

well, that seems like a good goal and it would be helpful for a lot of people. Not to discourage you, but to do something like that takes a whole lot of work

Sure, but if you love to do something it's not that hard. But I haven't yet made a commitment to it.

Regards

Guest

nelle wrote:

Pardon me Memeverse,

I am so curious. I wonder if I could trouble you to answer Dylboz's questions. What exactly does the term "corrupt" mean to you, and in what way is Stef the cure?

Thank you so much.

I think I responded in a reply to him above (previous page).

In short:

"corruption" = self-contradiction of all kinds (know one thing, tell yourself and others another, see one thing, believe another.. etc. dishonesty basically)

Science is the cure. I merely see Stef's theories as the best and most complete set of theories for the field of morality that *I* have seen so far, but I'm open to the possibility that they're imperfect or even wrong if someone can prove it to me. So far, my experience, my logical thinking etc. has confirmed them and so I adopt them. What better can I do?

You know guys.. one of my biggest points here when it comes to trying to kind of smoothen up the animosity (or maybe even ambivalence?) towars Stef is that he is NOT and never should have been by anyone taken as some sort of an idealized role model. That will absolutely and inevitably result in disappointment. Some here have experienced that clearly and I feel, then overreacted, as if he's solely guilty for you thinking that he's perfect. Very Happy

I personally don't care for role models. He's not my role model. He just happens to spout ideas which make sense to me and just so happen to be most empowering stuff I've ever heard SO FAR and when I hear things which don't, well I'll inquire about them and if necessary discard. Simple as that. And if a get banned for my inquiry, so be it. He was far too valuable to me so far, however, to make a fuss about the ban. Take that however you will.

Cheers

Conrad · Subject: Re: My journey to and fro FDR Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:38 pm

am going to sleep now, but for now here is an interesting discussion about UPB

_________________
My Blog

Guest

Thanks, have a good night.

sutible4livestok · Subject: Re: My journey to and fro FDR Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:19 pm

nelle wrote:

Pardon me Memeverse,

I am so curious. I wonder if I could trouble you to answer Dylboz's questions. What exactly does the term "corrupt" mean to you, and in what way is Stef the cure?

Thank you so much.

FDR---
roight there

Danny Shahar · Number of posts: 948 Registration date: 2007-12-30

Hi memeverse and welcome. I haven't had time to read all the way through this thread, but two things popped out to me while skimming over the beginning parts -- if they've already been discussed just let me know and I'll go back.

First, it almost sounds like you think that our reservations about Stefan's capacities as a philosopher stem only from our distaste for him as a person. If that interpretation is correct, then I'm not sure you're being completely fair. I know that personally, I have no deep seeded negative feelings towards Stefan as a person, though I don't think he always conducts himself in a particularly admirable manner, particularly when it comes to actually considering other people's views and taking criticism. My main issues with Stefan have to do with his views, which I don't think are very well thought out and some of which I think are downright dangerous. Obviously, that's not to say that Stefan or anyone else is not entitled to hold their views, but it does seem that there's a place in the world for voicing one's opinion that someone else is wrong in a way that has the potential to make people's lives substantially worse.

Second, it seems to me that there's a slight difficulty with the project that you've undertaken here. Let me explain what I mean. It seems clear to me that FDR is a "collective" in an important sense. It has extremely strong internal unity and homogeneity of interests, relatively strict standards of conduct, and a mechanism for directing activity on the site (that is, Stefan). It can be coherent, then, to talk about what "the people on FDR" do or say, so that your statement can more or less characterize the general sentiment on that board.

Liberating Minds, on the other hand, is less like a collective and more like a collection. There isn't really all that much that unites everyone here except for a general tendency towards some kind of libertarianism (though the varieties of libertarians present on this board vary widely) and usually some sort of contact with Stefan at one point or another (but again, the kind of contact varies; my main involvement was through my analysis of his book on UPB, and I was never really one of Stefan's "followers"). Beyond that, it's really hard to characterize the people of Liberating Minds in any coherent way, since everyone is coming from really different places and there are very deep, wide disagreements between us on almost every issue. If there's anything that's distinctly "Liberating Minds," it's the idea that there shouldn't be "a Liberating Minds" position on anything. People's opinions are their own on this site.

Accordingly, I'm not sure it makes the most sense to divide this whole thing into camps, with Liberating Minds on one side and Freedomain Radio on the other. It's somewhat coherent to talk about how FDR handled the episode involving the newspaper article, for example; it's not really coherent to talk about how LiMi handled it. If you read through those threads closely, you'll see a bunch of people expressing a variety of opinions coming from many different points of view. You might detect a general theme of condemnation, skepticism towards Stefan, or discomfort in some places. But if you read closely you'll see that different people were uncomfortable with different things, and some people (including me) pushed back on a number of issues and defended Stefan and his community against others here.

Could leaders here have tried to stifle certain kinds of discussions and demanded the highest virtue from all of the members? Perhaps. But that's not how we do things around here.

So I guess my point is that if you want to criticize the way that people did things, you should take exception with individuals, not with "Liberating Minds." There's nothing you can say that would apply to all of us, and trying to make blanket generalizations is therefore sure to make it so everyone here thinks you've said something that is blatantly untrue of them.

One final thought: you mentioned that you were interested in trying to start your own site to promote your own understanding of these issues, but what about something a little less ambitious first? Why not a blog? Why not actually reading some of the other thinkers out there? Why not getting involved with some of the other intellectual communities out there? Philosophy isn't about proselytizing; it's a conversation. I know Stefan's ideas may seem brilliant and True to you, but as you learn more, you may find reason to doubt your current positions. It seems like a much better idea to approach these things as a student rather than as a teacher, at least at first. As Plato once said, "You are young, my son, and, as the years go by, time will change and even reverse many of your present opinions. Refrain therefore awhile from setting yourself up as a judge of the highest matters."

Guest

Thanks Danny. I understand Liberating Minds is a different kind of place (I had a similar open ended type of site). I've been mostly having specifics in my mind (though maybe not most efficiently expressed) that I voiced concerns over, but I realize not all people on this board share them. The worst of them is the characterization of FDR as a cult (which I think is the least rational of all) and even if I ever get banned from FDR or discover some genuine manipulation and significant flaws in their logic, I would still think going as far as calling it as a cult to be quite ridiculous and over the top.

And really, I think that without that one characterization alone (which is most emotionally connoted) a lot of what Stef said about certain LiMi individuals or generalizations he may have made about LiMi as a whole would not be said or made. That accusation truly escalated things beyond what was necessary. I mean, a guy decides to cut contact with a mother, some people get banned.. and they then go so mad to actively pronounce FDR as a cult? Come on..

The result for me is that as much as those who call FDR a cult feel there's something fishy about FDR I also feel there's something fishy about those individuals too, because I am convinced that there was a much more rational and civil way to express their distaste and disagreements, yes even after a ban, on this site. If the cult accusation didn't sprung up chances of reconciliation would've also been much higher.

So yeah, as asserted (and Conrad for one agreed), there was overreaction on both parts, mutually fueled escalation and consequently much less understanding and much more common animosity. Kudos to those members of LiMi who didn't buy this whole "cult" propaganda and tried to remain calm and reasonable. Kudos also to those who could take a ban without going all ballistic about it.

Danny Shakar wrote:

One final thought: you mentioned that you were interested in trying to start your own site to promote your own understanding of these issues, but what about something a little less ambitious first? Why not a blog?

I already blog on memeverse.com and have been making some posts on FDR. This web site idea is actually around a year old, though the concept has been evolving and morphing as I learned more, and I'm still exploring. I'm still not sure if or when am I gonna take on that new project, but likelihood is that I will make it open ended enough to allow for continuous evolution while still having a solid foundation to build on. The idea is to find some sort of a compromise between fully open approach of LiMi and consolidation and coherence of FDR, best of both worlds.. and perhaps some innovation of my own. I do have some experience running community sites. Smile

But yes, I'll keep exploring. I'm quite curious. I just wish I didn't need to sleep and time flew more slowly. Very Happy

Cheers

Danny Shahar · Number of posts: 948 Registration date: 2007-12-30

Yea, I wasn't a big fan of the cult language either. But as one of the people here who openly objected to it the entire time that conversation was going on, I guess it's just another instance where it's going to be tough for people to take blanket statements as applying to themselves Razz

But look, let's face it: you can't understand the accusation without understanding the perspectives of the people who made the accusation. If I remember, the argument was basically this:

1) If there is an ideologically-driven organization that pushes people to cut off ties with their loved ones and others outside of the organization by convincing them that the outsiders are harmful them or corrupt, and if those things aren't actually true, then that organization is possibly a cult.
2) There appears to be a pattern at FDR where people are convinced that outsiders are harmful to them or corrupt, and where cutting off ties with those people is recommended as the solution. In at least some of those situations, it's not clear that those characterizations are reasonable.
3) Therefore, there may be reason to believe that FDR could be a cult.

I personally think the term "cult" is more emotionally charged and pejorative than useful, but I don't think that the above argument was so obviously and flagrantly in the wrong that it would make sense to treat it as an escalation of hostilities. Again, I'm not saying it was right; you could object to either of the first two premises, and I expressed my reservations about both at times. But as I said at the time, I think the appropriate response for Stefan to have taken would be to try to address the situation in a constructive way that would ensure that the issue couldn't be raised again because people were being protected, rather than lashing out at the people here who were speaking their minds.

Thanks for the link to your site; I'll check it out when I get a chance!

EMC · Subject: Re: My journey to and fro FDR Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:01 pm

Quick question - I'm confused.

Is posting here no longer an offense that leads to an FDR ban?

Guest

Danny Shahar wrote:

1) If there is an ideologically-driven organization that pushes people to cut off ties with their loved ones and others outside of the organization by convincing them that the outsiders are harmful them or corrupt, and if those things aren't actually true, then that organization is possibly a cult.

They aren't loved ones. If they were no termination would occur and anyone who says that Stefan actually pressures people to cut ties even when their relationship with parents IS a loving one is simply lying or being ignorant, but unfortunately that is the myth that was spread around like wildfire.

And that's what's most enraging, how people form arguments which include assertions they never actually checked themselves. Here Conrad said he didn't even read RTR, which is THE context for all of the deFOOing and relationship business.

An just now I've read another article which contains the same kinds of unproven assumptions. People who have been introduced to FDR through this controversy do a cursory look of some of FDR content, already packed with biases, and then just conclude the "worst" as defined by their cultural upbringing. There is no true curiosity, no true understanding and most sadly this can't even be expected from them, which is PRECISELY the problem that RTR tackles and which they remain utterly oblivious to.

So actually I don't really feel quite benevolent to the reasoning behind their cult accusations. Yes I can understand it in terms of them being made out of sheer ignorance and bias, but I cannot justify it in any way.

FDR and Stef in particular do have some issues, but frankly the ignorance of some of these people match up pretty well. They simply cannot claim a higher ground of any sort. And much of the issues were largely exaggerated.

EMC wrote:

Is posting here no longer an offense that leads to an FDR ban?

Who was banned for actually posting here? I don't expect to get banned. If I do, well so freaking what. I'm not here to earn anyone's approval. Ban or not Stef's ideas, at the very least RTR, have already changed my life. So who cares about his personal deficiencies. I've got my money's worth, and so far it costed me $0 and only some time I chose to invest myself and don't regret.

But that's not the attitude a lot of people here have.. They somehow feel empowered to launch some sort of a vendetta. And THAT says a lot on many levels.

ExyPhylo · Number of posts: 1180 Registration date: 2007-12-12

memeverse wrote:

But that's not the attitude a lot of people here have.. They somehow feel empowered to launch some sort of a vendetta. And THAT says a lot on many levels.

What exactly does THAT say? How is your drawing that conclusion by simple observation any different, any less caustic than that which you impose your judgment on? I dig what your saying fundamentally and I even agree on many points, however, you invalidate your perspective by making claims as though you rise above "IT" in regard to Fdr and dig right n' dish out "THAT" here on Limi.

Conrad · Subject: Re: My journey to and fro FDR Fri Apr 03, 2009 7:20 am

memeverse wrote:

EMC wrote:

Is posting here no longer an offense that leads to an FDR ban?

Who was banned for actually posting here?

it's Stefan's official policy. I'm trying to find the thread where somebody got Rick-rolled and Stefan explicitly states this policy. it is also on his new Guidelines for the FDR board.

anyhoo, Vichy, Eye2i2, Blackacidlizzard, and quite a few more got banned for this reason and this reason alone

_________________
My Blog

Stewart · Subject: Re: My journey to and fro FDR Fri Apr 03, 2009 7:39 am

memeverse wrote:

Ban or not Stef's ideas, at the very least RTR, have already changed my life. So who cares about his personal deficiencies.

Insofar as they affected us (as former participants of FDR) we care about them. You don't seem comfortable with that, and it's not clear to me why that is.

memeverse wrote:

I've got my money's worth, and so far it costed me $0 and only some time I chose to invest myself and don't regret.

It sounds like it was worth every penny. If you're so pleased with your experience at FDR, why are you so interested in having an argument about its merits here at LiMi?

You don't seem legitimately interested in anyone's opinions of Molyneux's behavior and philosophy. I say that because you're mostly making arguments in favor of FDR, and not simply asking questions about why we believe what we do. Statements like, "So who cares..." suggest the a lack of consideration for our thoughts anyway. It seems more likely that either you're just picking a fight, or you're uncomfortable with the idea that a group of strangers thinks one of your favorite Internet-philosophers is a cult-leader and a crank.