Interesting thread.

It started off with a number of the uncomfortable joke posts about Stefan's taste in music and clothing, and then there were some posts about Stefan's position on vegetarianism, drugs, and sex. Disagreement on these topics seems not only to be tolerated, but to be held up by some as evidence of how open Stefan is to criticism. Which is true. He's open to criticism in some areas, and completely closed to it in others. Evidence of Stefan being open to criticism does not equal evidence of Stefan not being closed to criticism.

When a couple of new members posted observations about the lack of critical feedback at FDR, the gloves came off pretty quickly. Little did they know, they had stepped on one of those landmines, that Stefan likes to pretend don't exist in FDR land.

Stefan Molyneux wrote:

Ah OK, so two people who joined the site exactly a day or two ago have noticed significant and long-time intellectually dishonest and manipulative behavior – that is quite a charge to level against an entire community, please provide objective evidence for your assertions.

Notice how Stefan quickly escalated the issue. Neither of the posters used terms like "intellectually dishonest and manipulative behavior." I wouldn't say they "leveled any charges," either. What they took issue with was more the general tone of the forum than any particular post. I'm not sure how they could be expected to provide "objective evidence" without dragging a bunch of people's names through the mud.

In any case, the only person I fault in this is Stefan himself (and perhaps to a lesser extent some of the philosopher kings). And for evidence, you need look no further than the above post. He's completely closed to exploring this issue, even though it has come up time and again, and tons of outside, impartial (as objective as you'll get) observers have picked up on the high level of deference at FDR in an instant. Stefan displays manipulative, intellectually dishonest behaviour by putting words in these posters' mouths and escalating the issue higher than either of them probably intended. If only they knew how deep the rabbit hole goes.

The apparent lack of concern about the potentially negative effects his site may be having on listeners -- such as further shutting down critical thinking faculties, and bringing them to a higher level of bigotry than ever before (bigotry based on philosophy and unshakable first principles), not to mention distorting memories and enabling (if not encouraging) antisocial behaviour and financial ruin -- is my number one issue with Stefan. True, Stefan may not be at fault for his listeners' reactions to his podcasts, but if he truly wants to help them achieve personal freedom like he says he does, there are a number of issues regarding their reactions to his message that he should be exploring (or at least encouraging them to explore) rather than shutting down discussion of.

some have heard this story from me before, but maybe worth repeating on this string. My son was just barely short of a straight A grade average. He was in the middle of his third year ( a junior) so he had three semesters remaining to get his degree in Accounting. He told me his goal was to get the highest grade poing average in his major so he would be guaranteed a job with a major accounting firm that had a triadition of hiring the student who graduated with that distinction.

But he got deeply involved with Moly. Ultimately, as a component of his defoo, he also dropped out of college. He seems to have a reasonably good job now. He may end up doing fine in his financial life. But statistics are not on his side. No matter what he does or where he goes in his life, having a degree will help. Of all the dissapointment associated with his leaving, this is the one thing that sticks with me. Almost anything can be repaired over time. But the damage done by dropping out may be life long.