I came here because I wanted to express what I perceive to be severe imbalances in the way a conflict between FDR and its critics (a lot of which are on LiMi) was handled. I believe that the potential of FDR and especially ideas that are promoted there (which aren't necessarily dependent on FDR) is extreme, possibly world changing, like a revolutionary first tiny step towards a better world, but some people appear to have taken quite an exception to this possibility so I've participated in some discussions trying to probe if they may indeed have a point and defend my point of view.

I would judge FDR in three ways: in terms of ideas, in terms of strategy and in terms of application.

Ideas

I remain in around 90% agreement with Stef's ideas and prevalent thought at FDR, given my knowledge and understanding of them so far. One example of a disagreement that I can think of right now, but which I am yet to probe more deeply, is his stance on intellectual property.

About some ideas I still feel close to neutral, such as UPB which I would merely say is "possibly closest thing I know of to objective morality", but on objective morality I have my own somewhat independently developed thinking that still keeps evolving, but generally treats coercion as the ultimate or exclusive "immoral".

Another example of an idea which I view with close to neutrality is DRO's. I think it's brilliant, but I also realize that given that a free society is an emergence rather than a controlled process, it might not necessarily happen exactly as Stef described it. Still, given that it is possible to come up with an idea of anarchic order it is certainly possible to cooperate on its achievement. What man can conceive it can achieve.

Some attempted rebuttals of Stef's ideas on LiMi are largely disappointing to me and I feel reflect more of arguing from conclusion rather than method. A shining example of utter failure to respond adequately is the "analysis" of Stef's video on forgiveness which is called as at the core of his philosophy. I expected more of a challenge than that so when it failed to deliver, it largely confirmed my ongoing suspicions.

Strategy

I have far more disagreement with Stef in terms of strategy than anything. He tends to ramble, be blunt and even if he is in full right and even justified in banning people, I still feel that he would earn a lot more points if he did less of it. I tend to be more of a diplomat. I also disagree with the FDR rule against posting at LiMi, but it hasn't yet been enforced on me.

I would generally describe my stance towards his strategy as that I can understand it, but don't necessarily agree with it. Despite my disagreement, given the ideas and how much sense they have made to me, how helpful they seem in my own life, I find membership and participation in FDR very valuable.

Application

This refers to consistency by which Stef in particular applies his own ideas. I would admit that sometimes he fails to apply his own words to himself. A lot of the other times, however, his ideas actually thoroughly explain his actions, something I think a lot of critics fail to see (failed to fully internalize his ideas and thus understand his actions).

Conclusion

The negatives, or "harm", of deficiencies I perceive in his ideas, their application and especially his strategy are far outweighed by the positive value and potential I find, something I know a lot of people here disagree with quite a bit.

But I feel that accusations of FDR being a cult are close to insanity. I can see no real evidence for them short of controversial nature of his ideas, difference that they make compared to commonly accepted norms and ways of thinking, deficiencies in his strategy in terms of bluntness, bannings and dislike for certain kinds of expressions of disagreement and occasional hypocrisy.

The cult claim pretty much centers around the claim that FDR separates people from their families which strike the cult accusers as too similar to other cults to ignore. However, they fail to investigate further and instead form a bias out of it and proceed to justify it any way they can. The FACT is that separation from families is far from the primary purpose of FDR, that people are encouraged to maintain their relationships if they find them mutually valuable, understanding and non-contradictory. Some existing relationships actually get stronger as a result of ideas at FDR and if they do break up new stronger and better relationships are formed. This is a fact that is far underestimated by cult accusers because it stands in stark contrast with the picture they want to portray: that FDR is a cult that destroys families, as if that's the reason for its existence.

The defooed have a problem with being defooed and so they project much of this dissatisfaction to FDR instead of the ones who defooed or even more importantly instead of themselves. For you ultimately cannot blame anyone else for where you are in life today than yourself, something a lot of people want to forget because it is easier to pick scapegoats. Some have been defooed unjustly where defooed in question never even tried a confrontation and reconciliation before slamming the doors invariably forever. But to then turn to FDR as a scapegoat is to be extremely misled because Stef in his books AND his conversations pretty explicitly encourages and emphasizes confrontation and attempts at reconciliation BEFORE defooing.

Regarding manipulation claims, manipulation cannot happen unless there is dishonesty and even then manipulation cannot be successful if you have enough integrity to not be easily manipulated. I don't see much evidence for that Stef doesn't actually believe what he says. He may sometimes fail at personally applying some of his words, but do you really think that someone with stamina to create as much of material as he does in a relatively short span of time does it solely as a fabrication and not because he actually believes in what he does?

So cult accusers you simply do not have much of a case.

Frak.. I didn't know you were on to responding so fast. I deleted the comment you responded to intending to replace it with a better one.

Anyway, just not to look like censoring myself I'll quote it below (since I saved it in a text file just in case):

mmvrs wrote:

Most of what you say either comes down to an agreement with what I said about FDR, but where I said something negative an additional exaggeration, or a disagreement backed by arguments which you've already made unconvincingly. The reason they're unconvincing is because they depend on some sort of a high standard to which you still hold Stef (albeit lesser than what you did when you literally idealized him), conjecture over his motivations, honesty etc. things you can never know with absolute certainty and exaggeration of consequences of what negative things he does. Because of this I don't feel I can make any significant progress with you nor am I willing to concede more than I did. I feel that I've honestly identified the negatives and the positives from my perspective and that's that. If you wanna continue obsess over your perception of Stef and FDR, continuing with your hyperbolic accusations, be my guest, but you're not convincing me. A crucial clarification to make, however, since this is what you'll likely think of my unwillingness to continue running in circles with you is that I do not see things in an "FDR against the world" configuration. When I question the "expert" and "professional" labels and platitudes or the content of the philosophy of science books etc. I am not doing so because I immediately assume they're wrong because they are "the world". I assume nothing except what's the actual truth: that I have not come to evaluate the specific ideas of these people and thus cannot come to any sort of conclusions. I take myself to be the measure of all things primarily, not because I think that I am some sort of an all knowing entity (as some may hyperbolically assume), but because it is only through MY senses, MY emotions and MY rational thought that I can learn the truths about the world. Thus I will evaluate ideas for what they are, be honest to my experience and come to the truth this way. People far too often appeal to various authorities or proxy expressions of biased opinion claimed as backed by these authorities to be persuaded without actually employing the entirety of their thinking,sensing and feeling facilities, the only thing they've ultimately got as the means of finding the truth. And I perceive YOU as biased and thus do not take your appeals to such authorities for much. I take your book recommendations, but not what you infer from the ideas you claim to have found in those books. In short, I don't trust you. You haven't earned my trust. From my point of view you're too obsessed, biased and hyperbolic to do so. As a word of advice, if you go and accuse someone who found great value in interacting with certain people, as participating in a cult and being manipulated when all they could see as potential evidence for that are some humanly reasonable imperfections that apply quite possibly to your own self just as they do to them - well you aren't gonna earn their trust and friendship. You may have raised an intrigue and level of questioning here and there, but that's all. So thanks for all the scrutiny you put on FDR, but taking a look at it myself I will not judge FDR any more negatively than I did in my original post here, despite how badly you may want me to do so. Sayonara!

Alright.

Now just one bit to respond to which I think wraps things up:

Conrad wrote:

I'm not asking you to trust me. I'm suggesting you read sources outside of FDR about some of the things Stefan talks about, and then evaluate your FDR beliefs in the light of those readings. Our methodology here does not differ.

If that's all that you're asking of me, then have no fear. I'm on it. FDR certainly is not an end all be all.

Regards

Cool.

Go read the stuff boy, who knows you stop sucking Molyneux's fat cock

: D

that seemed uncalled for

And not even grammatically coherent...what's going on, man?

Whats up Bigus?

aach... sorry guys, but someone had to say it.

Why? What has he done that would deserve a response like that? I mean, no other person who also posts on FDR and is largely sympathetic to FDR has engaged in such a detailed and open and by and large mutually respectful discussion about Stef and FDR so far in the history of LM. That's quite something, I'd say.

Seconded. We've disagreed a lot, but he seems like a good, honest person, and I think we've all benefitted from his contributions.

btw, Memeverse, have you listened to this podcast of mine? Might be fun or annoying or boring for you.

The thing is this... this has been going on for days. Danny, did he at least read your critique? I guess not, because he seems to still see UPB as the bees knees. And on top of that his general insults to the people in this forum -of course with no cursing, which I find worse. I prefer to um, put it out there in the open.