How does it feel to know that Stefan Molyneux will go down as the most prominent philosopher of the 21st century?

How does it feel to know that Stefan Molyneux will go down as the most prominent philosopher of the 21st century?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=vNxZBoRv6VY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I want to a see a philosophical hardcore porn movie with Molyneux and Zizek.

No m8 it's obviously going to be Sargon or Aurini.

Was his debate with Chomsky worth watching?

Pretty good famalam

It makes me feel like that's an actual argument.

Idk what would be more embarrassing of our generation; Him, or Harris being considered a great Philosopher of our times

Most of his shit is the thought equivalent of clickbait, he's hardcore trying to capitalize on this new counterculture trend of right wing shit and shit. Some of his stuff I can stand and he occasionaly does cause my synapses to fire.

Breddy good

A fucking Jew?

When will he officially renounce libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism?

>it's real
Jesus fuck, what a time to be alive.

He's not even a philosopher. He has no original ideas about philosophy.

Not bad familia

probably one of the overrated "thinkers" of the youtube era.

i wanted to watch his videos but don't dare to since he asked everyone not paying to fuck off

you aint missing much

He changes his ideas with the popular trends on the right

You've heard 99% of his shit before someplace else

...

He won't be. Even if you agree with everything he says his major contribution is proselytisation of AnCap philosophy rather than any significant original contributions to it.

It's pretty crazy how he went from being an anarcho-capitalist into an ultra-nationalist authoritarian.

His video on atheism is probably the greatest example of just how sharply his modern views contrast to his earlier, more libertarian views. He straight up called all atheists out for being Social Justice Warriors who would be first to face his personal firing squad.

It wasn't really a debate. Chomsky just straight up shat on everything Molyneux believes, and Stef just sat there nodding and didn't even attempt to dispute what he was saying. It was honestly one of the more pathetic things I've seen.

Are you fucking serious? Jesus christ.

NOT

INCORRECT

youtube.com/watch?v=vNxZBoRv6VY
Here is the full trainwreck

>When the arguments keep coming but you've already nutted

I know the Rothbard quote is taken out of context, dont know about the others.

How does it feel to know that Anthony "Alex "icycalm" Kierkegaard" Zyrmpas will go down as the most prominent philosopher of human and even subhuman civilization, if only in the latter case as the ultimate exterminator?

...

>no Moldbug
>no Taleb

pls

>google Richard D. Wolff
>Richard David Wolff is an American Marxian economist

HAHAHAHA

>marxian """"economist""""

(((Moldbug)))

>hating on based logorrheic nrx founder

>"Hey I like being a wageslave, being exploited for massive profits, having stagnant wages, having literally no power yet continually fooling myself into thinking I have a voice, and worshiping corporation CEOs for being 'job creators' despite at every opportunity they continually outsource labor to shittier countries rather than employ American citizens, all while dodging any forms of taxation. Perhaps if I work hard enough at my cubicle, I'll be just like them someday. "

Not an argument.

NRx is utter faggotry, literally a bunch of Jewish lolbergtardians and autistic programmer nerds who daydream of some cyberpunk world where they would be the new nobility. Pic related is written by a secular leftist yet even he got it right, the fact they claim to be "reactionary" at all is an insult to actual reactionaries.

t. CRx

>you have to be either a cuckpitalist or a marxist
Get lost.

But I'm not a "wageslave", user.
Also, your whole "philosophy" rests on faulty premises that are 2 centuries old and that basically nobody in the field of economics accept.

>BUT ACADEMIA IS PAYED BY BIG CORPORATIONS

literally alex jones tier

Which is why they're not called reactionary, they're callled neo-reactionary. Neo-classicism isn't the same thing as classicism.

I firmly believe that any movement that uses the prefix "neo" to describe themselves is just cringeworthy autism of the highest order.

I firmly believe anyone who uses the word "autism" to describe anything other than actual autism has nothing interesting to say.

>nothing interesting to say
That sums up NRx pretty well.

That's just uncharitable.

>Marxist
>economist

Scenario A:
You're a worker under socialism. You get 100% of the labor value of what you produce (set aside for a moment that the LTV is wrong). However, you're all dirt poor.

Scenario B:
Capitalism. You get 50% of what you produce. However, that 50% is 4 times what you have under socialism. Also, you don't find this alienating at all like every single worker who hasn't heard marxist rhetoric.

Which one is better?

is being "woke" the leftists version of being "redpilled"?

The problem with scenario B is that it is a misrepresentation of capitalism. 50% of what you produce coming back to you is a gross overestimation. Secondly that 50% being four times as much as you would make under socialism doesn't even mathematically make sense, unless of course there are proportionally many more people who will simply have nothing due exploitation, which is clearly observable in our capitalist system, albeit those who suffer the most often are also swept under the rug and kept out of sight and out of mind.

Scenario A is obviously another overblown caricature.

No, it's the ghetto version of it, which leftist white cucks nonironiclly, but actually ironically, use it

Look, it's irrelevant, make up whatever percentage you want, as long as the latter is significantly greater than the former you have no reason to prefer the socialist scenario.

>many more people who will simply have nothing due exploitation, which is clearly observable in our capitalist syste

Barely anyone in first world countries. Also, it's not because of "exploitation" lol

I don't operate purely out of self-interest and so i prefer the scenario that guarantees nobody dies on the street.

>Capitalism. You get 50% of what you produce. However, that 50% is 4 times what you have under socialism.

I'm not sure how to break this to you.

So, socialdemocracy? Which is still capitalism as marxists like you tirelessly repeat.

Also, in the socialist scenario plenty of people will be guaranteed to die on the street, just for other reasons like political persecution or government enforced robberies.

See Also, why should the borderline retarded people who do those jobs get anything more than a borderline retarded-tier pay?

I'm not the original guy you were arguing with and I'm not a marxist.
>plenty of people will be guaranteed to die on the street, just for other reasons like political persecution or government enforced robberies.
That's not at all guaranteed- I don't see Scandinavians shooting each other in the streets over political differences and they're all very close to being what I hold as ideal.
>inb4 something about refugees

>I don't see Scandinavians

That's not socialism, it's social democracy, it's still capitalism.

>implying social democracy isn't meant to slowly bring socialism in

Social democracy =/= Democratic Socialism

If anything, it's meant to stop any pretense. Who the fuck wants a revolution if you have decent pay + decent safety nets?
Nobody.
Well, except college-aged awkward middle class kids.

It's like you stopped reading before you got to the part where I acknowledged that. My point still stands- counter to the claim that socialism requires violent repression and upheaval is the fact that there are a number of societies peacefully transitioning towards socialism.

Not really disagreeing with me
Social democracy is a reformist strategy with the idea that you slowly reform instead of having a revolution. But yea it is a double edge sword

>there are a number of societies peacefully transitioning towards socialism.

There are no such countries, social democracy is in decline if anything.

You're still confusing SocDem and DemSoc. The former is an end goal, the latter is the supposed stepping stone to socialism.

>implying commies are smart
>no :David-Wynn: Miller