I sent him the following message:

[...]
I just saw your video on laser criticism and I agree to some extent with some of your points about carpet bombing and pettiness on LM.

I don't think your characterization of LM as welcoming *any* kind of criticism of Stefan is correct though. it happens quite a lot that people come in and make weird accusations against Stefan, want to take certain actions against Stefan, say things that are factually incorrect about him, etc. and most of the time LM'ers point out the errors in those posts. I for one have made it a point (esp. since Blackacidlizzard pointed out some things we had said about certain aspects of Stefan's behavior in a thread were incorrect or at the very least not the only reasonable interpretation) to correct factual errors, offer alternative viewpoints etc.

You also said that if somebody who would really try to defend Stefan were to come to LM then people on LM would (paraphrasing) feel akward or not knowing how to respond. Well, this happened a couple of times, for example with Blackacidlizzard and I think that went pretty well and in a productive and open way. Much earlier two other FDR'ers came to Lm to discuss things (Ianlippert and Chewgarus) and I think people on LM were quite respectful and intelligent then too. i for one would very much welcome more FDR'ers who want to discuss their and our views.

that said, yeah there is quite a bit of pettiness on LM, also from myself, and at times this is problematic and unhealthy but at other times I think it can help people (esp. 'newcomers') to vent their frustration re Stefan and to exactly 'shake off' their idealized picture of Stefan. But it's a tough balance to reach and keep and often on LM there is an imbalance.

Let me add though that I do think there is a lot of intelligent criticism of Stefan and FDR on LM as well and I know that quite a few people who were posting on FDR read such things on LM which helped them to 'de-FDR'. it would be a good thing if we could organize the intelligent and useful threads so that they're concentrated somewhere and one doesnt have to wade through the more petty stuff. [...]

I think he was pretty repectful and your reply was too. Both seemed to be acurate from the different levels of depth you have of LM.

Aaron has a good point about laser criticism. I've criticized Stef a lot without giving him credit for anything.

Stef is successful at what he does on FDR.

I couldn't find anything else to praise him for.

What? I wouldn't criticize Stef so much if I thought he was total shit. It's precisely because he is such a talented communicator of libertarian thought, and that his potential is so great; that his shortcomings become that much more visible.

It is a fair assessment of criticisms as a whole.

Laser criticism as applied in his thought might be more apt to be put on Stefan and his laser criticism of Christians, Parents and Ron Paul etc.

We have been far more open minded and appreciative of others outside of this rule of thought. Stefan criticisms are far more exacting, cutting and dehumanizing.

What I gathered from Aarons critique is that as long as it is something he is interested was attached to (his choir mates and ex girlfriends in this instance) or believes in it then deserves more thought, sensitivity and objective criticism.

Simply put it was laser criticism of LiMi as exact as "a bad environment." edit:(I also surmise Limi was used to give credibility to him (he mentions all the mail he receives from angry Stef fans) in that he does not participate in this environment and there for he is giving fair and accurate criticism.)

Though I can't deny the criticisms here of Stef are often less than objective. They are no less exacting as his final criticism - the use of force with his laser ban hammer.

Well, some accusations made against Stef have been dismissed right away (like when someone asked if Stef is a pedophile). And many have expressed rejection to the idea of suing Stef and getting the government involved in taking him down.

Yeah, there is definitely negativity towards Stef here (or rather towards his deFOOing ideas). But is it automatically a bad thing to be negative to someone or something? If so, then Lew Rockwell should change his motto to "Not convinced that a state is very good, not a big fan of war, but pro-market."

This is my first ... and possibly only post on LiMi. This is Aaron.

"Yeah, there is definitely negativity towards Stef here (or rather towards his deFOOing ideas)."

While i am very highly critical of Stefan (I am sure there are few people more visibly critical than I) ... One thing I have never, and will likely never criticize is his ideas on defooing. I have not heard any rational argument against his ideas. It is fully built off the premise that people should seek good and positive relationships. I have never seen a relationship between child and parent that I found to be good.

This is actually one thing that greatly irritated me glancing through the LiMi forums. A general support of defoo'ed parents. I am sure this could be the product of a long debate, but I only wished to make sure my attacks go to the right places. My largest contention is FDR's support and propagation of an intimidating, and (as a result) conformist atmosphere.

"Sorry girlfriend (our loss) - the boy's on FDR now and we know how that rolls."

yeah ... Aaron is surely going to become an FDR convert now. Or were you inferring I would be banned? well ... I am as surprised as anyone else that I haven't been.

It's odd, but for some reason, the most important relationship for most of humanity for the greatest expanse of history up until the last few decades, the source of education, nurturing and material wealth, as well as protection and status in the surounding society, and you've "never seen a relationship between child and parent that [you] found to be good." Perhaps babies should be left on the side of the mountain (or just eaten?) to avoid abuse at the hands of their parents? Perhaps Huxley's formulation at the beginning of "A Brave New World" strikes your fancy?

Families are how human beings work, dude. You may find it sub-optimal as an institution, and certainly many, many examples of very bad ones can be found, but as a basic fact of human life, it isn't going away anytime soon. So, perhaps you might want to re-think that blanket statement. And why, exactly is you subjective valuation of other people's relationships superior to their own? Where, oh where is your empathy and curiosity for parents, who are, I'm sure you'll admit, people too?

The state has been busy supplanting the duties and usurping the moral authority and destroying the bonds between and perverting the gender roles of the family for so long, you'd be hard pressed to find a person who understood what they really can be (and once were), and how integral they are to the survival of the human race. You should be lamenting that fact, rather than cheering the institution of family's demise, because it only empowers the state to greater heights of alienation and enslavement.

I'll tell you what. When the shit goes down and the state falls apart, I think you'd be better off associating with humans who at least share the common drive to maintain your shared genetic stock. Whatever you may think of your own relatives, there are certain things about family relationships, especially the parent/child one, that makes them fundamentally different from, and therefore more significant, than the kind of voluntary interactions between friends and even romantic partners.

I have yet to hear Stefan make a logical case for what a post-family world would look like, and just as he is about to have a baby, too. I think I can say with some degree of certainty that having a child will change your perspective.

I wonder if you realize that Stefan is just recapitulating the Marxist critique of the bourgeois family? Marx saw the family as an impediment to the achievement of true liberty, which would be realized by the attainment of communism. He wanted to start early transferring the natural allegiance a young person would have to their family toward the collective. I suppose Stef chooses FDR instead, but the result is pretty much the same.

Fortunately, despite all the various attacks from every quarter of the corporate-state-educational alliance, the nuclear family remains largely intact (though the traditional extended one is virtually dead except in very rural areas or extremely religious communities), but it is quite a challenge for parents to resist the messages from the government to abdicate their responsibilities to them, and go work to earn more money for stuff (and to be taxed), and as the elite's social engineering project churns on, more and more give in and are ground up. Much of the most meaningful resistance to the state occurs within home-schooling and religious families, and that is really sad to me, because it seems that the secular among us have swallowed the Marxist anti-family line, bait and all.

Anyway, this is an incoherent rant pieced together over a few hours at work. I'll come back and tidy up my thoughts, but for the time being, well, there you go...