Can someone give me the 411 on this guy's opinions? I see him being spammed around here a lot, and I know he's a meme-tier philosopher, but what exactly does he stand for?
I tried watching a few of his videos, but all I got out of it was that he was just a typical libertarian status-quo man, nothing particularly noteworthy. What makes him so memed? What are these NAPs and UBP or things like that?
I would take this to /pol/ but I think you'll forgive me for not wanting the opinion of those mouthbreathers.
As far as I know, he is an anarcho-capitalist who now espouses some reactionary ideas.
Jayden Carter
This, roughly.
I remember going on Veeky Forums once to talk about dealing with the symptoms of ADHD, which I have been diagnosed with. Whether or not ADHD is an inherent disorder, I do believe the series of related symptoms are linked together and to certain causes and I was just wanting to speak about other peoples dealings with and naturally overcoming these symptoms.
I was just spammed with some video where Stefan Molyneux said it was not real and that I was being a little bitch. That's the extent of my knowledge, I do not know if this implies he is in someway associated with psychiatric medicine.
Luke Harris
Hes a philosopher who cant grasp the irony of calling those on welfare leeches while himself relying on the charity of his listeners and complaining if they dont donate enough.
that's not really irony though, he's providing a service that's funded by donations
Henry Harris
Thanks, this is perfect. Reading now.
Christian Morgan
I think technically that is still following free market principles, not directly, but a lecturer is a real profession and the demand for their speeches and lectures is what allows them to make money. It is just that they do not provide a single packaged product that can be sold and understood to have an individual value. Essentially, he himself is the product and people donate to him based upon their desire for his speaking.
It isn't like people are donating because they feel sorry for him.
Zachary Collins
> Bussiness revenue is the same thing as welfare. Spotted the welfare quee,
Alexander Lewis
I'll just post what I posted in the other thread:
Dumb as fuck Ancap Stefan Molyneux.
Like all alt-right figure heads, fucking terrible at debate, has no reading comprehension, every point they make is a logical fallacy and in general an all round pretentious fuckhead who the alt-right loves because he tells them what they want to hear.
>See: Thunderf00t, Sargon of Akkad, Davis Aruni, Jordan Owen, Mundane Matt, Milo Yanniopolis, Christina Hoff Sommers etc etc
What makes Stefan a bit unique though is he literally runs an actual cult, as in "If people don't agree with your ideas, cut them from your lives, even your own family and come join us" cult tier. He's destroyed entire peoples families.
www.molyneuxrevealed.com
Also I can't actually explain how bad he is at debating, like Sargon, he thinks he wins a debate when he completely ignores the debate rules, spouts alt-right bullshit and fallacies and completely ignores the points and rebuttles of the other side while continuing to spout misinformation, then will complain the debate wasn't fair afterwards when it was obvious they just got their ass handed to them.
Aiden Myers
Cite some specific examples.
>I can't actually explain Ok... I'll take your word for it then...
Bentley Price
There's a difference between someone volunteering their money to someone they get a service out of than welfare leeches.
Robert Lee
>Literally runs a cult
Can you prove this user?
Samuel Brown
Milo is at least well spoken; if not a vainglorious, elitist poof.
His ex members can draw you a lot of similarities. There's pressure within his clique to only be friends with certain people. Insiders are often cut off from outsiders.
I've watched a few of his videos before and never got a cult vibe from them, maybe I haven't seen the specific ones you're referencing.
Asher Turner
On a very basic level it is the same thing
Ayden Martinez
Not at all, there's a very big difference.
If you choose to gie your money to an individual or group without the threat of violence that is completely voluntary.
Welfare is money taken at the point of a gun, just try not submitting your tax returns and see what the government does.
Wyatt Jackson
>follower pays him >told his follower to defoo
Evan Nguyen
As I said I've only seen a few of his videos and I haven't seen that, maybe I haven't seen the specific examples.
He just came across as a AnCap sort of guy who's gone a bit more reactionary.
Juan Watson
>Giving a service,in which people voluntarily buy a product >Is the same as leeching money for tax payers that didnt even want you to recieve the money Welfare queens,when will they learn?
Jaxson Kelly
Fair points but Sargon isn't alt-right. He's just a liberal who dislikes SJWs.
Julian Turner
Rarely from him, his youtube channel is his most public face anyways. He'll be on his best behavior there. But keep in mind that he's selling salvation on an ideal, if only we could reach it, anyways though. It's a salvation narrative nonetheless.
Which aren't really uncommon whatsoever in ideology. But what makes his following like a cult are a few things: He specifically tends to click with emotionally unstable people, in the same way Leo from Actualized.org does. He offers salvation, it's simple, it's easy as he puts it. Things are drawn in simple terms, and the result is freedom and self ownership. Think about the kind of people that this kind of spiel might appeal to.
If those people seek validation through his personal AnCap community, they'll get it for sure. But the catch is that they have to be ideologically homogeneous, making it a conditional hugbox with conditional validation that attracts people who need it badly. (again, personal freedoms and salvation offered in simple cause-effect relationship. If only we did x and x, y would happen.)
But within the community, there's a lot of interpersonal control of who talks to who and who is friends with who; according to ex-members. There's a sort of sense in this co-dependency and need for ideological homogeneity that creates a mob.
And most important is that conditionality. You can be a part of the group, but you'll be encouraged to cut people out(for further acceptance) on the condition that they don't share your ideology. The mob wants you to prioritize it at all times, and they will convince you that the people in your life don't care about you like the mob does, if they don't share your ideology. I've seen this logic pushed by the big guy himself, and it's no doubt prevalent in the mob if you pay attention to ex-member testemonials. If after this point, you get cut for crossing a line; you have nobody.
Chase Cooper
So I won't say he's Charlie Manson. The guy is way more harmless than that, and it's definitely not a full blown koolaid kult.
But it still behaves like one as a social group, which is reason for concern.
Isaiah Nelson
Not a philosopher.
Sommers is an academic as well as a second-wave feminist. Even if she does say things alt-right faggotstains (and Goobers) want to hear, she comes across as decent, unlike most of the listed.
He says he isn't alt-right. He just happens to agree with them on a lot of things and have a fanbase consisting entirely of alt-righters.
Ian Jackson
Not this shit again... having a small portion of your audience be more vocal than every other one doesn't mean that they are in fact a majority.
Caleb Davis
>Like all alt-right figure heads, fucking terrible at debate >Also I can't actually explain how bad he is at debating This is why nobody takes the left seriously anymore just fyi
