yeah, so I listened to this one too.

and I kid you not: Stef literally says (by using the prioritzation fallacy) that FDR'ers who criticise him exhibit the slave mentality and only by getting rid of that habit can they bring down the state. I.e. only by stop criticising Stef (and start criticising abusers (which in itself is reasonable)) can we bring down the state. great eh?

again, i kid you not.

of course he has arguments for this, but you can basically listen to my parody podcast and then afterwards to podcast #948 and honestly say that my parody of Steffian reasoning doesnt even come close to what you will hear here.

FDR948 the next thing part2 IN MY PANTS

STEF SAYS:
The default position of a slave class is in any conflict you attack the most reasonable person.
You align with the slave master you ignore the abusive actions of the initiator and attack the defender you attack the most reasonable person in the interaction and you call it morality.

Being right and rational and effective as a communicator does not work
(Stef being the most rational and effective master of slaves)


The frustration being the Molyghost does not see himself as a Slave Master or the hypocrisy of his podcast - he calls that the State however, it is similar to many of our experiences on FDR.

Guys,

You should listen to Stef because he is succesful. Stef embodies succes and happiness. Don't you see that?

Oh, and no questions please or you are to be banned.

I've not listened to any of the new podcasts since the meltdown last summer. It seems I've not missed much. I've great ambivalence about even starting to listen to the new stuff. Its like: "Hmm, frozen pole. I have a tongue. Should I try again?"

I was physically ill with anger at that one. I seriously have to stop even trying. I no longer download them, but sometimes when I work late, and I'm alone in the office, I'll play 'em. I think this one was a mistake.

Huh? Is he saying voluntarists on FDR attack Stef because he reveals that there is a gun in the room? Why would we attack him for revealing this info that we're already aware of?

Yeah, it's not just a prioritzation fallacy, it's a big fat ad hominem. Attacking Stef (actually attacking his ideas) makes you bad (a slave). So don't do it. Ever. Even if he's wrong.

But I will say he has a point near the end. When my dad dissed the hell out of Bush in front of my grandma (who I believe is a Bush fan), it was kind of uncomfortable. Then again, according to Stef, Bush isn't really the problem anyways. Meh, maybe I was just uncomfortable with dad missing the point completely.

So according to Stef we shouldn't attack each other (ok, seems like a good principle). So why then is he attacking someone who is attacking him? How do we solve anger?

I'm not really sure what Stef is trying to tell us. I mean, the principle is good of showing the mechanism of power and obedience and group dynamic, but the way he applies it is really bizarre. He says he doesn't attack his viewers but he clearly does ("Ron Paul lunatics").

And what of the 'board attacks' stuff? Stef says he has a legitimate claim of defending himself against an aggressor. I felt I had the same back then, given that Greg came into a thread that I had started and he became passive aggressive (among other things those days), so my defenses got working and I yelled at him. What followed was the most insane witch hunt to drive me off the boards; obviously intended to hide Greg (and thus Stef) from any scrutiny.

And as others have mentioned, how does Stef not clearly differentiate between attacks and curiosity?

Damn Free Radical, that's pretty damning! Whoooops Stef!

re:948

Wow! Read as Mr C. turns himself inside out trying to justify the "Ron Paul is the most evil candidate!" argument of Stef's. See, the thinking goes, because Ron Paul is a libertarian who wishes to reduce or eliminate most of the state's current functions, but not an anarchist, he is more evil than a bloodthirsty neo-con, because they are consistent in their advocacy of bloodshed, whereas Ron Paul is deceiving you by offereing more freedom, but not total freedom. This is the same line of reasoning that has those wacky FDRers supporting Hillary Clinton over Ron Paul, in an effort to accelerate the collapse of our economy that will magically deliver us Ancapistan, peacefully, orderly and fully functioning. As Stef said before, only economic collapse of the state can give us total liberty.

See, this is the same bullshit that made me leave the LP behind. They were so focused on rooting out factionalism (meaning anyone with new or different ideas) and conforming to orthodoxy that nothing was ever done to advance the cause of liberty, no one ever was ever elected, nor was a single rollback of government achieved. The irony is, this is Stef's exact plan. Purge the unclean! Do nothing but attack those closest to you, until the crucible has formed the most perfectly homogeneous (and tiny) group of lock-step ideological doppelgangers EVAR. If anyone is an enemy of liberty, it's Stefan Molynuex (unless you think freedom is being exactly like him). It's as if he were working for the state, an agent provocateur busily splintering our ranks so we can't get anything done. ARGH!

But, the most important and infuriating thing is, it seems like Mr. C realizes that the train of thought he's riding is about to pull into the "just shoot them!" station. According to that logic, we Ron Paul supporters should be shot along with our candidate because we are more evil than the Nazi's or neo-cons for "distracting" and "deceiving" those who might be free otherwise, if not for the "lie, intended to manipulate" (for the record, I don't think RP is lying about anything, nor does he intend to manipulate, he is simply honest about what he will use the power of the state that is within the control of the POTUS to do, which is far less than anyone else who's running or anyone who has been POTUS, for at least a century, maybe even since Lincoln). At the last moment, he pulls out and simply reverses himself.

Then, there's this:

Rodzilla wrote:

The people who most effectively perpetuate the state with their rhetoric do far, far more damage and evil in the world than a single dude with a gun to your head. If thousands of people who were on the road to anarcho-capitalism are detoured into the Ron Paul cul-de-sac, many lives will be ruined that wouldn't have to be, had they not been distracted by him.

Rod appeals to the collective, and consigns my life to the dustbin, since I'm supposed to be more concerned about all that "evil in the world" rather than the immediate threat to my existence that the armed man (with a gun to my head!!!) represents. And just why they insist on the ridiculous fallacy that we Anarcho-Capitalists who make a principled decision to vote for RP on the basis of our desire to TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE STATE believe that the Ron Paul campaign is either necessary or sufficient to our freedom, as if we'll be taken in by minarchism or the Republican party, never to return, I'll never get, except the likely probability that it's a lie meant to manipulate those readers who might consider voting for RP. Here Rod suggests your life will be ruined if you're detoured in to the Ron Paul "cul-de-sac," as if once you vote, you can never, ever be an AnCapper or do anything else to achieve personal or political freedom and end statism. Should they be shot?