Potential suicide cults

Where did I suggest that you were obliged to know about the School of Life?
Was it with this sentence?
'You don't know what the School of Life is?'
It was not my intention to suggest that you are foolish for not knowing about them.
There was no need for you to get so defensive about this, I wasn't even attacking you.

It was that sentence.
>I wasn't even attacking you
I'm honestly tired of the culture surrounding digital media. "oh, you should watch this, I liked it." "Oh, you should watch this, it's informative." I'm taking it out on you because you said
>You don't know what the School of Life is?
The tone of the question irritated me. You could have just linked a video. Instead, you implied that my lack of knowledge was unusual or undesirable. As I said, I don't care about the School of Life. I'm not interested in watching this video. I'm not very interested in this thread, either.

If I had shared the link with no sentence accompanying it wouldn't I be implying the same thing - 'check this out'?

Your lack of knowledge in regards to the School of Life would be undesirable if you want to contribute to a thread where the School of Life is one of the things being discussed.

fucking autist why are you even in the thread if you don't know who they are and don't want to know?

You could have simply posted the link, or not replied at all. Either wouldn't have resulted in this conversation.

kek you're such a butthurt faggot

You could have not been so fucking autistic.

I don't understand how if I had posted the link on its own it'd be fine but when I put the question 'You don't know what the School of Life is?' before it I made my comment an aggressive attack that implied that you were disgustingly ignorant. You're talking no sense, mate.

You're being ridiculous, his posts were polite and reasonable.

I've never heard of the School of Life either btw.

...

I hate this board, I really do.

Now now lads, calling him an autist is not an argument.

You responded to a thread not knowing what it was about an refusing to look it up when linked. Why would you bother if you have nothing to say? You are completely unreasonable.

I think you have some issues, pal.
You've gotten unreasonably angry, of course people will start teasing you - you're on Veeky Forums for Christ's sake.
I'd suggest taking a few minutes to chill out and reflect on how you're behaving.

No one was making 'an argument'. They were commenting on his strange behaviour.

All right, I suppose on the scale from ad hominem attacks to mere observations these comments fell more on the latter end of the scale.

Stefan got called out numerous times by Thunderf00t and The School of Life makes good content. Won't mind joining that "cult".

There wasn't even an argument being had for "ad hom" to exist.

Some guy politely said "If you don't know [what is being discussed] here have a link to a trailer as an example" and he blew his top.

>this thread

annon 1: I don't know what *subject* is
annon 2: You should know what it is *posts reference to subject
annon 1: I don't want to know about *subject* I don't even like to talk about *subject*
annon 2: Why are you in a thread about *subject*?
annon 1: *proceeds to invent problems to be upset about and respond to annon 2, ensuring that the thread will not talk about *subject* but is instead big pissing contest to feed annon 1's addiction to pointless internet banter

I quite like (some of) Thunderf00t's output and I think Molyneux is a moron but in fairness Thunderf00t's 'critique' consisted of mainly mocking 'defooing' and playing clips of Molyneux saying "wants you shot" again and again.

It was mildly funny but it was hardly a solid deconstruction of Molyneux.

Yeah, the thread's been derailed a bit.
Here's a School of Life video that gives me the shivers, perhaps by talking about it we can get the thread back on track.
youtu.be/TeM-O-kgXD4

NOT

AN

ARGUMENT

Molyneux being a cult leader is a meme forced by a Finn on /pol/ who really hates anarchists. The thinking being that cults force people to abandon their families, ergo Stefan advising people to cut off abusive family members means he's a cult leader

Check out their shop as well, it's Scientology-tier extortion. Okay, it's not really that bad, but £1000 to get 'enrolled', bloody hell.
theschooloflife.com/shop/all/?price=200-

I'm more concerned about Molyeux than the school of life.

School of life just seems like some overpriced self-help program. So far they lack some of the key features of a cult such as telling members to leave their family/friends, a utopian future that will emerge if the cult is followed, or a distopian reality if the cult is not empowered enough. Their primary concern seems to be money.

Molyeux has a lot more warning signs though. People that do not hold his axioms are "immoral" or "unlogical" just generally bad people, there's no compromise here. I remember someone showed a youtube video where he outright said that all pro-state people want to see him killed, he tried to make it sound with his kangaroo logic but there was definitly an element of paranoia. He's talked about how the great liberian utopia will be delayed for another thousand years if he 'fails in his mission', so your stuck between the secular heaven and the secular hell of statism.

What is it that makes a group a cult?
Is it when a religious group cuts itself off from mainstream society under a charismatic leader?
If that's what a cult is then with Stefan Molyneux we already have a charismatic leader who has a following of people who feel disdain towards the rest of the world.
All Stefan needs to do now if he wants to form that kind of cult is set up a commune and encourage people to join him.
The problem with that definition of cult is that it ignores the religious side of cults.

>abusive
he advised them to cut off family members who "wanted them to get shot" as in believing in conventional ideas about government

Shit, some of the stuff you just said about Molyneux is pretty creepy, the lack of compromise etc. If you find any of those videos where he says that kind of stuff please share them in this thread.

this is a meme. Fuck off Pekka

He's really culty

youtube.com/watch?v=CUoZBfz7r0U

Also check this for keks
youtube.com/watch?v=8CM_--di7L8

>this is a meme. Fuck off Pekka
It's not a meme he literally says that people who aren't ancaps want him shot, and that hanging out with them is degrading and "sick"

in this video here

It's true. See

Haha, nice, thanks for the links.
I'll make sure to watch these, need my dose of crazy eyes.

Stefan Molyneux admits to being jewish
youtu.be/edtWe759KIw?t=57s

Stefan Molyneux runs a cult where he convinces vulnerable people who had a decent childhood that they were abused by their parents
theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/nov/15/family-relationships-fdr-defoo-cult
youtu.be/Spe9JbmDOms?t=52m

Here's what happens when you give Stefan Molyneux money but not as much money as he wants
youtube.com/watch?v=8CM_--di7L8
youtube.com/watch?v=4znWSgJfsho

Stefan Molyneux Claims 'No War from 1815-1914 in Western Europe'
youtube.com/watch?v=K3T-SMoqc_M

Stefan Molyneux and defoo, defined (ignore the libertarian claptrap)
youtube.com/watch?v=-TPwjUmS7Vw

Stefan debates Stefan on whether or not concepts exist and contradicts himself left and right
youtube.com/watch?v=4I1JdbGBFRs

Stefan Molyneux: "Fuck physics, make iPhones."
youtube.com/watch?v=gDoIilJ-_Z0

Stefan Molyneux: "Nothing I say is original"
youtube.com/watch?v=kEq--iEm5oI

Stefan Molyneux tells followers to cut off all family that disagrees with his ideology
youtube.com/watch?v=SZASruN-mIA

Stefan Molyneux believes the world needs his show for its survival
youtube.com/watch?v=wVa8VtsSQZY

Stefan Molyneux forgives his mother by not killing her
youtube.com/watch?v=3jIMLKBVt00
Stefan Molyneux caims he doesn't think about his mother any more
youtube.com/watch?v=0HvUE5Odb9s

Stefan Molyneux initiates force, proving all of his moral arguments invalid
youtube.com/watch?v=ZxT24kBnHD0

Joe Rogan, Stefan Molyneux Lied To You About DeFOO!
youtube.com/watch?v=KqCXpDFm4N0

Stefan Molyneux: A lot of people in my head are desperate for me to fail
youtube.com/watch?v=bstVtJVItf4

Adventures in Stefan Molyneux's parenting:
youtube.com/watch?v=y2Aby3fpY8Y
youtube.com/watch?v=GXAxAxQ4HeQ
youtube.com/watch?v=AQvxz6gg4HA

>that second video
never get's old

His argument in this 'Against Me' video is like so, right?
1. I am paying taxes.
2. These taxes are being spent on the War in Iraq.
3. Since I don't support the War in Iraq I don't want to pay taxes.
4. The government can use violence to force me to pay taxes.
5. If you support the War in Iraq but don't want violence against me then you should support me not paying taxes.
6. If you support the War in Iraq but think I should pay taxes then you support violence against me.

Then the more odd part...
7. Statists want me shot.

Perhaps I'm being stupid, but what's wrong with this argument?
It isn't super clear what's incorrect about what he's saying here.
The weird bit is how he's using this logic to construct a dichotomy of 'us libertarians, the good guys' are wanted dead by 'those statists, the bad guys' who want us dead.
Obviously most people that supported he War in Iraq didn't want libertarians to be killed.

I'm not saying you anti-Moly folks are wrong, but I don't see arguments ITT. I'm not even joking.

>Stefan Molyneux admits to being jewish

It's nice that you have built up a useful collection of links but if you could stop being such a retarded /pol/tard that would be great as well.

50% of this thread was wasted because of some autist sperging out.

Wait, make that 100%.

well this is really a thread intended to refute him, it's just discussing how crazy he potentially is

>youtube trash

Can you eceleb faggots just fuck off?

*isn't

Reality isn't a playground where you get to do whatever you want. Molyx is still thinking like he's a fucking child. He thinks if he screams "unfair" loud enough it means something. His tantrum is "I don't want it!"

Your will is always tethered to some external force, both material and ideological forces. The whole of reality is different items in the universe exerting force on each other: weather, disease, gravity, ideology, social standings, cultural forces, etc.

The reason he has this us vs them thing is because, despite all his claims to logic, Molyx's entire thinking process is based off nothing more than childish emotions. He FEELS threatened by people that disagree with him, that laugh at his theories, so he expresses this feeling in a sentiment that gives him the moral high-ground, disagreeing with him means you want to kill him. He is constantly looking for a way to be morally outraged, to be offended, to be in the right, so that he can be "morally right" and feel good about his opinions.

There is no logical reason why the government cannot take money from people (money that they them-self printed) and do all sorts of things you personally disapprove with it. The objection to this is based on emotion, as all moral systems are.

I think the war in Iraq is incidental. I think what he's saying is

>I don't want to pay taxes
>If I don't pay taxes I will go to jail or "be shot"
>If you support taxes then you support me being shot.

He asked for examples and they have been provided. Nobody asked for an argument

>Perhaps I'm being stupid, but what's wrong with this argument?

Nothing, it's just that everyone over the age of 16 knows that society is largely build around violence, and that most people will seldom to never encounter it. Molyneux however treats this like some kind of divine revelation, despite that anyone with a mild interest in anthropology and the philosophy of economics knows and accepts this

His point is that "everyone who isn't a fundamentalist Ancap wants me to be shot". The Iraq War is largely just an incidental example.

Are you joking?

Do you really think even after you have been rekt to pieces that just saying "everything I don't like is not an argument" is a serious point?

That really is not an argument.

Using this logic we can put the blame for all civilian deaths in war on anyone citizen that payed taxes willingly.

Logically my grandparents murdered Japanese children.

>There is no logical reason why the government cannot take money from people (money that they them-self printed) and do all sorts of things you personally disapprove with it.
apart from the fact that their power stems from the will of the people in a democratic nation
or do you live in some sort of Absolute Monarchy of a state?
lick dast boot

...

And now we realize that sophistry is a meme.

Aristophanes was right

...and the will of the people is for you to pay taxes for government programs

That is the fundamental idea behind Total War isn't it? That every single citizen and entity in a state is contributing to the ongoing survival of that state, so are therefore legitimate targets when trying to destroy that state.

...

hory shit

And an Ancap society would rapidly disintegrate into feudalism with Mafia gangs and neo-monarchies ruling the roost.

Or to put it into Molyneux style simplicity.

"Do Ancaps want me shot?". Why would I listen to people that want me shot?

You sure he wasn't being sarcastic?

>finns
>sarcasm

That's why there is the meme of "just don't call it government". Totalitarian corporations owning massive amounts of land are okay according to AnCaps simply because they're not called states etc.

In fact if you look at some AnCap authors like Hoppe they are basically crypto-fascists, complete with "free speech cannot be allowed, deport all democrats/commies/homosexuals/degenerates".

>Claiming that pointing out sophistry is wrong
>Not knowing that not an argument is not an argument,but just pointing out none arguments
>Claiming he was shreded into pieces with no evidence

>apart from the fact that their power stems from the will of the people in a democratic nation
>Democrashits believe this.

>commies
>democratic

You seem to be missing the evidence that was posted.

>And an Ancap society would rapidly disintegrate into feudalism with Mafia gangs and neo-monarchies ruling the roost.
Nothing wrong with this. Feudalism and monarchy were more stable and based,and didnt manipulate currency as much.

>In fact if you look at some AnCap authors like Hoppe
You are manipulating stuff. Hoppe believes in private borders,and apply to them the peincipñes of private property,meaning that in ones borders/property,people could be discriminated and expelled on arbitrary basis,like skin color or sexual orientiation.

This is ludicrous. Molyneux's dogmatism is closer to Marxism that pretty much anyone on the political spectrum.

Marx imagined that democratic governments would die and that some sort of weird Anarchism would be the norm as well.

first post is best post

Which ones? They were mostly ad hominems,despite the fact that Molyneux is a meme,that should be easy to debunk.

It's easy enough to point out when the school of life is pretty full of shit.

The wilder the claim, the more desperately the guy pushes it as some truth that he's unveiling that's really profound.

Are you seriously suggesting that an absolute monarchy wouldn't manipulate currency?

What are the mechanisms you are suggesting would stop this?

>Molyneux's own videos are now ad hom

You can do that in a state too, you know.

Never said the opposite. Just refuting the crap that Hoppe wanted to deport fucking everyone,because that is nonesense. He just defends free association to the fullest extend,which you may agree or not with,but is a totally different argument

Depends on the size of the monarchy. If ancap happened the monarchies wpuld be pretty small,and they wpuldnt be able to manipulate currency. If they grow bigger,they would start doing it,as China or Spain did.
The Taifas period in Spain was kind of like that,really small kingdoms with mercenary armies,that grew very prosperous,and had the strongest currency in Europe

Monarchs can do literally nothing wrong

t. Tiger Rider

>Stefan Molyneux admits to being jewish
Oh no! What a travesty. Ignore this man's opinion at once!

Pretty much.

People are just jelly

>wanting to talk to a PSYCHOtheRAPIST

made that mistake m8, would not recommend it to others. also yeah I got the feeling this School of Life could to descend into cultish ideologies... maybe

>If ancap happened the monarchies wpuld be pretty small

Until one grew dominant and took over the others.

>Until one grew dominant and took over the others
That took thousands of years in Europe. Unless,ancap just happened in a concrete area,and an outsider invaded it,but if it happened globally,that process would take lots of years.

>That took thousands of years in Europe.
What? How long do you think the Taifas period lasted?

Are you suggesting going back to a hunter gather society?

The appeals to history you are making are ludicrous.

>Are you suggesting going back to a hunter gather society?

Kek those were comunist

>That took thousands of years in Europe.
not really, but in any case they were limited by technology, logistics, communications etc. Unless the technology and infrastructure drops to pre-roman levels there's nothing to stop them expanding besides other powers.

Because foreing powers came,that is what I adressed in the comment.

But after a period of anarchy the first sorts of goverment would be pretty small,and you are assuming that it would be easy to conquer other goverments,or that inner conflict would be none existant. Most warfare would be guerrillas or skirmishes,as it happens in kurdistan. It is easier to just trade with others than to conquer them,usually. Monarchies in Europe were pretty decentralized until the XV century,as feudal lords have lots of powers,that is the other thing,that the power resulted in agricultural areas wpuld be different than the cosmopolitan ones. I really dont see a massive movement of conquest happen if the world was splitted in tiny bits.