Since you started this thread, I decided to move your comments about Stephan Molyneux (SM from here on out) to this thread. On the other thread, you asserted he is a cult leader and posted some references. I said I would look them over and give you my thoughts. I spent the time and watched the videos. I also read the anti-FDR site, and even watched some videos posted there. But first, your most recent comments regarding SM on the other thread:
Because...while he uses accurate charts, graphs, and statistics, his REASONS for the various trends are pure conjecture. In other words...he’s pulling it out of his ass.
What you are saying above is that you don't agree with his conclusions regarding the statistics. OK - that is fine. What you can't do is say, "I don't agree with him, therefore cult!" You may have noticed that there is a lot of that on this forum lately. Someone posts an anti-Trump post. Said poster gets questioned. Poster then says, "Cult! Just like JWs! Just like JWS!!!" No, you don't get to do that, at least not with me. I'm not having it.
Renember all the Washtowel articles, where a scientist, or scholar is quoted, yet the quote is taken way out of context, or the reference to said quote is of questionable validity? That’s what I’m talking about.
Yes, I remember those. Can you give an example, perhaps with the Crime presentation, on something taken out of context? Can you give an example of a conclusion you disagree with? Again, if you are just going to assert he is taking facts and "pulling things out of his ass" you have to back it up, at least if you want me to pay attention. On the Crime video, there is a link to extensive sources, most of which are government statistics. What exactly is not valid about what he said in the video?
It is fine to say, "Something is wrong in that video, and here it is: <list of all things wrong>". It is not OK to say, "He is doing what the Washtowel used to do and he is a cult!". Or at least if you do say the latter, back it up.
As for name calling, Joe Rogan said that “only dumb people,” buy what Stefan is spouting. Hey man, don’t shoot the messenger.
Yeah, I watched the video with Anna. I heard him say that. More on that later (because I said I would watch your videos).
I guess your right, hybridous. After all, Hitler, JF Rutherford, David Miscavige, Reverend Jim Jones ALL had some good points. Maybe Hitler was kinda right about the Jews.
How does this add to your point? People make points and arguments online. They could be right. You can't dismiss them because some other person or group has also made good points too. If that is the criteria for ignoring someone, then that would mean that you can't listen to anyone.
Now onto the videos you posted. Since Hassan has been referenced here (and praised, and probably rightly so) in relation to JWs and the cult mindset, I was interested in the reasons he listed for SM being a cult leader. For reference, SM did a JRE episode where he explains his positions.
That was JRE #538, linked here:
The Hassan episode is #680, linked here:
For anyone not wanting to wade through the entire episode, the relevant talk about SM begins at 1:39:00 and runs to around 2:00:00. Hassan's only problem seems to be the de-FOOing (Family Of Origin), which, if you watch the video, by the time they get to the end of the talk about SM, both JR and Hassan talk themselves into SM's exact policy regarding cutting contact with Family Of Origin. Hassan starts by taking the stand that you never cut contact at all, because that's cultish. Then JR, siding with SM, pushes back and inquires about abusive family members, mental, emotional, and physical. JR has a hard time accepting that you wouldn't want to cut these types of people off. And, in the end, Hassan basically says that if you had abusive family members you should try to handle it in the context of a competent therapist, and cut off contact if these family members continue to be abusive... which is exactly SM's position as stated in episode #538. *face palm*
One of the highlights is when Hassan said near the beginning of the SM section in JR (around 1:40:00), that listening to SM, he will present arguments and will change your views and thought processes. Yep, and? That's called making an argument. And if that is cultish, then hell, we are all cult leaders. That would also mean, "cult" has lost all relevant meaning, and we are back to why it pisses me off so much when people just scream insult labels.
Another telling exchange between JR and Hassan took place a few minutes into their discussion about SM, in which Hassan cautions against people like SM who might "want your trust fund." JR corrected him and said he gives away everything for free. You donate if you want, and that's it. Hassan basically said that he didn't want to misrepresent, and it could be the case, he didn't know. But there you go, you'd think you should look into those kind of details before labeling someone a cult leader.
Now, Hassan asserted that SM lied about de-FOOing in JRE #538. OK, so I burned some more time looking for audio, documents, video, anything indicating that he was lying, but found none. There were plenty of people that don't like SM, but so what?
At this point, I'm struggling to find evidence to prove a negative, and that really shouldn't be the case. You, or Hassan, or anyone should provide some evidence. I think I'm done searching to prove your case.
Sheesh, and let's say for the sake of argument, that there are videos out there from a long time ago where he advocates cutting off a family member without a therapist, or something like that. Well, that's clearly not his stance now. So, if that is out there, why should he be labeled a cult leader for changing his mind, if in fact, he ever did?
Next you posted Anna's video from the Young Turks. Here is the link:
You are right, Rogan does say that "If you listen to him you're dumb". That's amazing to me. Yet when talking to Hassan he said, "He's got a lot of good ideas about a lot of things." I don't know, definitely no reasons in that video. Plenty of dismissals based on political and economic philosophies. Take a look at the comments on that video. Here is a sample:
Came here as a fan of Stefan open to listening to whatever criticisms of him there are.
Wherein Ana and Joe condescendingly called me stupid for entertaining Stefan's thoughts (basically acting exactly as they claimed he acted and thus lambasted him for) and did not get a single worthwhile argument against him.
Thank you Ana and Joe, you have further cemented my respect and support for Stefan!
Molyneux is too smart for these 2 and I don't even like Molyneux that much.
Let's not be coy - I think you are just trying to smear the guy. "Nothing to see here guys, it's a cult!"