Times article by Tom Whipple on defoo, FDR and Molyneux

Flanky · Number of posts: 6 Registration date: 2009-01-16

Quote:

Man, I hope that was taken in the spirit I intended... I was both irritated and amused... Oh well!

Ok, if you want to talk to me like that, great, I’ll won’t engage in any debate with you.

PS the great thing about writing is that you write exactly what you want to write, you can edit etc so I see exactly the things you wanted to say to me.

NonEntity · Number of posts: 2598 Registration date: 2007-11-08

Wow. I have no idea what that was. I just walked in here for a drink. Really. I've never been here before. But man, that sounds like an interesting story. Maybe I'll order another beer and maybe some chips and hang around and see how this plays out! Shocked

- NonE

Dylboz · Number of posts: 2014 Registration date: 2007-09-20

Nice Stef impression... "I've got nothing else to say, so I wont engage." Okeedokee. Well, you have a good time there.

Still didn't tell me if that remark was what set you off. I assume it was. What, are you a DeMuse? LOL!

I really wasn't aware there was any "debate," since you were just telling me how to argue and what to do and now you're telling me how to "talk" to you. You got a whip to crack? Crack-OOW!

We're NOT talking. We're writing on the internet. So, when we're writing online, you can't see what my face looks like. You can't hear my voice. You imagine who I am and what I look like. Then you act like you know.

_________________
Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

Dylboz · Number of posts: 2014 Registration date: 2007-09-20

NonEntity wrote:

Wow. I have no idea what that was. I just walked in here for a drink. Really. I've never been here before. But man, that sounds like an interesting story. Maybe I'll order another beer and maybe some chips and hang around and see how this plays out! Shocked

- NonE

I KNOW huh?

_________________
Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

Conrad

Flanky wrote:

Dylboz wrote:

.or I have to repeat it. She is not trying to "get her son back." She has accepted the loss, and does not expect to see him again any time soon. What she is doing is trying to prevent other parents from experiencing the same loss and damage that happened to her family (she has lost her marriage, too). To do that, you have to tell the media what happened, to whom, when and how.

And that is what I find astounding. Again I refuse to call FDR a cult since there is no evidence of it being a genuine cult(I have expressed my criticisms of Stef and some devoted FDR members in regards to emotional manipulation so I’m not going to repeat it over and over again). However let’s say that my girlfriend went to an open-air painting convention(she’s an artist) in order to improve her drawing and painting skills. It turned out that the organization behind the convention is a cult that convinces everyone to drop their relationships and donate their work and money to the cult. Would you say that I genuinely loved her if I would simply “accept the loss” and only went to the press to tell my story? Because I love her, I would move haven and earth to save her from that destructive situation. In that situation- screw other parents/boyfriends/cult victims etc frankly. That is why I do not understand her actions and I do not accept them as heroic or even remotely decent.

I think you may have a point there, although I would say it is a very difficult and unusual situation to be in so not doing what may be the most sensible thing to do may very well have other causes than lack of decency and love.

I think it is/was simply too soon to assume Tom would never be back and Barbara's subsequent actions likely did not improve the chances of that happening. To the contrary.

Barbara is aware of the trade-off between informing other parents (but see my previous post) and the possiblities of a reunion with Tom. She has decided to go for the former and I have my doubts whether that decision will benefit her in the long run (and I have expressed these doubts to her) I think a better, mutually positive balance could have been struck (although I will immediately add that up until my previous post I have not really given any sensible advice on this matter)

Then again, if one is to go with the words expressed about Barbara and her husband in that podcast (first by Stef, then affirmed by Tom) then it seems that Tom now has a very dehumanized and black impression of them. And right now he may have a lot invested in maintaining that impression. And judging from those words alone, it may be difficult to see how a future relationship could work. Though that is not to say things could not change.

Quote:

I would mention that Tom had donated more than $500 to Stef (while, if I understand correctly) still a high school student. Now those donations were voluntary, but they still seem strangely high, and I am not excluding unhealthy influence of Stef in this respect.

I didn’t know that, and if it’s true, then I would agree, that is a large sum of money for that age and might indicate an unhealthy relationship. However, that would be jumping to a conclusion.

he was a "Philosopher King" and that title is usually reserved for people who donate $500+

Quote:

What I missed in the articles (and I didnt realize this until now) was actual advice for parents what to do. That would be the truly helpful part. So for example 'Listen to your child's concerns. Don't start defending (not right away anyway), but just listen. Be open and take his concerns seriously even when you are inclined to (strongly) disagree with what he says. Be willing to (jointly) talk to a therapist about the situation. Doing this will likely only improve your relationship and communication and even your understanding of yourself, and it is the best thing you can do not to lose your child and to come closer together instead.

I couldn’t agree more.

try though... ;-)

Quote:

There are quite a few very valuable ideas about relationships, family and parenting in what Stef says (one of the probems, as you also indicated, is Stef's hypocrisy in this respect, not necessarily (some of) the ideas themselves) and these can be used to improve relationships.

Yeah, that is why I don’t want to judge both FDR and LiMi. Stef has some great ideas about relationships and those ideas helped me a lot to improve mine. For example my girlfriend confirmed that our relationship has improved enormously thanks to some of the principles and advice he gives.

and if it wasn't for her visceral hatred for Stef, my girlfriend might say the same thing ;-)

Quote:

On the other hand, I think that some people here have some valid criticisms about Stef’s methods, about his methods of debating, and the devotion of some of the FDR members. What I dislike is the label “cult” which in my opinion is meant only to offend instead of work out the issues,

I disagree with you there. Yes, the term can be used mostly as something to offend, but it can also be used as a more technical term that provides a fruitful perspective on the activities of Stef and FDR.

The list at FACTnet does seem to fit FDR at least to a significant extent on a majority of points

Quote:

The cult is authoritarian in its power structure. The leader is regarded as the supreme authority. He or she may delegate certain power to a few subordinates for the purpose of seeing that members adhere to the leader's wishes and roles. There is no appeal outside of his or her system to greater systems of justice. For example, if a school teacher
feels unjustly treated by a principal, appeals can be made. In a cult, the leader claims to have the only and final ruling on all matters.

The cult's leaders tend to be charismatic, determined, and
domineering. They persuade followers to drop their families, jobs, careers, and friends to follow them. They (not the individual) then take over control of their followers' possessions, money, lives.

The cult's leaders are self-appointed, messianic persons who claim to have a special mission in life. For example, the flying saucer cult leaders claim that people from outer space have commissioned them to lead people to special places to await a space ship.

The cult's leaders center the veneration of members upon themselves. Priests, rabbis, ministers, democratic leaders, and leaders of genuinely altruistic movements keep the veneration of adherents focused on God, abstract principles, and group purposes. Cult leaders, in contrast, keep the focus of love, devotion, and allegiance on themselves.

The cult tends to be totalitarian in its control of the behavior of its members. Cults are likely to dictate in great detail what members wear, eat, when and where they work, sleep, and bathe-as well as what to believe, think, and say.

The cult tends to have a double set of ethics. Members are urged to be open and honest within the group, and confess all to the leaders. On the other hand, they are encouraged to deceive and manipulate outsiders or nonmembers. Established religions teach members to be honest and truthful to all, and to abide by one set of ethics.

The cult has basically only two purposes, recruiting new members and fund-raising. Established religions and altruistic movements may also recruit and raise funds. However, their sole purpose is not to grow larger; such groups have the goals to better the lives of their members
and mankind in general. The cults may claim to make social
contributions, but in actuality these remain mere claims, or gestures. Their focus is always dominated by recruiting new members and fund-raising.

The cult appears to be innovative and exclusive. The leader claims to be breaking with tradition, offering something novel, and instituting the only viable system for change that will solve life's problems or the world's ills. While claiming this, the cult then surreptitiously uses systems of psychological coercion on its members to inhibit their
ability to examine the actual validity of the claims of the leader and the cult.

Quote:

and the sort of praise for DeFOO parents, since there are a lot of parents who really deserved this(again with all understanding that it is not universal here). And remember that I would consider DeFOOing from good parents, to be wrong(it’s true that a good person likes the company of other good people).

Okay, and more people have said this, but what would help me out here is some examples of what you have in mind. I've talked before about the difficult balance re interacting with defooed parents because we can't know to what extent their being defooed was the result of Stef's influence or of abusive behavior on their parts.

re Lloyd deMause: can you say more what you value in his work? At this point, and I'll be frank with you, what I've read from him seems quackery pseudo-science.

Deep Purple · Number of posts: 127 Registration date: 2008-05-10

Stewart wrote:

Deep Purple wrote:

The church threatens you with hell if you don't [donate]

I am no friend of religion, but obviously-hyperbolic statements like this make atheism look bad.

Maybe we've just heard different sermons, but I've heard pastors say that if you aren't giving when you're able, you're stealing from God, and that's a sin. And no saved person would steal from God, so you better check your salvation and get right with God, before you die and he puts you in with the goats and says, "When I was cold, you did not clothe me; when I was hungry, you did not feed me; for whatever you did not do for the least among your brothers on earth, you did not do for me. Be gone! I know ye not!" If you don't give to the church to help us, as God's servants, spread the word and feed the poor, Jesus knows ye not.

Deep Purple · Number of posts: 127 Registration date: 2008-05-10

eye2i2 wrote:

Deep Purple wrote:

And Ian doesn't call you names if you don't AMP. [...] He doesn't harp on AMPing as a moral duty, something owed for the product he delivers. Ian doesn't say you're not dedicated to freedom if you don't AMP. In short, Ian doesn't use "moral coercion" (a stretch of the word coercion, there's probably a better way to say it) to get people to AMP.

This isn't quite fair IMO. While Ian doesn't do such, he does bombard (yes, bombard* =IMO) one with (repetitive) ads

I understand why you might not like the advertising model they use (especially if Mark still reads the copy, and does it as poorly as he did the last time I listened a few years ago). My main problem with the way Stef does things surrounding donations isn't so much the time he spends on it. Most podcasts (at least when I listened about a year ago), it's just a quick throwaway line at the end of the podcast: "visit the website, listen to more podcasts, hop on the boards, leave a donation, they've been coming in kinda slow, give if you can." But the main push is a moral push for Stef. Do we agree on that at least? That's the difference between Ian's AMP and Stef's donation model -- Ian says "donate and help spread freedom," Stef says "donate or you're a bad man with psychological problems." Hyperbole, for sure, but it cuts to the bones.

Dylboz · Number of posts: 2014 Registration date: 2007-09-20

Mark CANNOT do ads. He really sucks at it. He gets all nervous and then tries to deliver it conversationally and invariably fucks it up, gets flustered, starts over and just ruins it by trying to squeeze it into the time left. Ian does ads better. I think they should record them ahead of time instead of trying to do them live.

_________________
Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

Dylboz · Number of posts: 2014 Registration date: 2007-09-20

Deep Purple wrote:

Stewart wrote:

Deep Purple wrote:

The church threatens you with hell if you don't [donate]

I am no friend of religion, but obviously-hyperbolic statements like this make atheism look bad.

Maybe we've just heard different sermons, but I've heard pastors say that if you aren't giving when you're able, you're stealing from God, and that's a sin. And no saved person would steal from God, so you better check your salvation and get right with God, before you die and he puts you in with the goats and says, "When I was cold, you did not clothe me; when I was hungry, you did not feed me; for whatever you did not do for the least among your brothers on earth, you did not do for me. Be gone! I know ye not!" If you don't give to the church to help us, as God's servants, spread the word and feed the poor, Jesus knows ye not.

Yeah, even as a 7 year old, I was pressured to give 10% of my allowance (we're talking like 25¢) every Sunday I went to Mormon Church, and I was regularly threatened with Hell for not doing so. The Tithe was serious business.

_________________
Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia