Why is every single one of his callers a stumbling, bumbling retard who can't get anything right?

why is every single one of his callers a stumbling, bumbling retard who can't get anything right?


Does anyone have any links to a caller that wasn't cringeworthily stupid?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=1TgdLkGwbTw&t=793s
youtube.com/watch?v=hnegoVG22CM
m.youtube.com/watch?v=bICGK065brg
youtube.com/watch?v=7Z6TecVZAhk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

youtube.com/watch?v=1TgdLkGwbTw&t=793s

Guy embarrasses him on his own show. Molyneux's (lack of) knowledge of Marxism and economics in general is laid bare

Not an argument

No no no no no no no hang hang on.....
(awkward chuckle)...
hang on hang on...
Hang on.

Is you sayin...

Not an argument.

Every single conversation with Bill Whittle

He only let's idiots on his because he wants to be the smartest person in the room

I've seen him get laid out a bunch of times.

He only lets those on that won't challenge him so he looks like le ebin philosopher, then talks over them if they aren't completely retarded.

That's why callers get dumber and dumber, so they won't challenge him.

for the new socrates he really does let really stupid people talk on his show
I used to think they didn't screen the calls at all but it turns out they book you for months in advance...kinda weird desu

Cults don't run on integrity

There can be only one Jew in this show.

molymeme gets more absurd when he knows hes getting btfo

He had a smart caller one time and he (Molymeme) actually disconnected in the middle of the conversation because he couldn't handle the discussion and couldn't press him into agreeing with his "arguments", like he does with one of those weak minded morons. Later on they started screening people.

Feel free to call in to his show and make an idiot of yourself. We will watch.

The problem with Molyneux is that he tries to win by dictating the terms of discussion.

In his convo with a communist, he stops the caller every time the he moves out of the specific business framework which Molyneux has established to prove his point, claiming that "that's how philosophy works!"

You might look an idiot by arguing him, but it'll be because he shouts you down and moves the goalposts when he starts losing

Feel free to call into the show and make a structured agrument that all his callers are dumb asses and he shoul'd not run the show the way he wants.

He screens his calls for retards to make sure he looks good

He knows how to pick low fruit.

He's been btfo before. This one caller called him out for constantly harangueing over Clinton's lies, while characterizing the misleading shit trump says as 'truthful hyperbole bringing important conversation to the mainstream'. Stefan just berated the guy and acts like a total cunt. now and then he is a total partisan hack and gets called out for it. Too lazy to dig around for link tho sorry.

He can run his show how he wants, but if he's dictating the rules of discussion then of course he's going to win, you cult retard.

I know which one you're talking about. That caller was fucking stupid, and so are you. He explains how Trump has admitted to hyperbole to trick the media into reporting on things they otherwise ignore, just for the chance to say he was wrong. Pic related.

>He's been btfo before
By this guy? youtube.com/watch?v=hnegoVG22CM
Your joking right.

jesus stefan is acting like a child.

He's not dictating the rules of discussion, he's trying to keep the conversation focused. Last call with a commie he asked a simple question about theft or rape and the caller started going on about the nature of the material universe. That's when he's going to reel back the caller but he doesn't lay any rules besides "don't interrupt each other and be civil." And whenever he interrupts he apologizes and whenever a caller interrupts politely he listens to the caller's objection, he only spergs when the caller keeps interrupting and being rude.

One time he spoke to an Iranian immigrant to Canada, about assimilation and shit, he was pretty articulate iirc m.youtube.com/watch?v=bICGK065brg

At what time?

You don't think I Stefan utterly fails here? U blind son.

How can anything think Stephan is intelligent

If you guys listen to what people say about a philosopher, and you cannot comprehend the actual points that the callers and Stefan make back and forth, then philosophy is not for you. Go do carpentry or something else with your time. Nobody would expect you lads to do physics either, because that is one study with a higher average IQ than philosophy. And yet people think they can do philosophy without studying even though they are 20 years old and he is 50 or whatever. Philosophy meaning a love of wisdom, and you are 20 or whatever, lots of wisdom there. And do you claim to be good at physics without studying it? Do you know how you look to him? Can you even imagine how you look to him? Here's what you need to do, get really fucking good at something, and it isn't going to be philosophy I am sure, then see how people who aren't good at said subject act. Dunning-Kruger effect, you know.

46:45 for example

Can we be a little easier on Stefan?

Again, feel free to call in the show yourself. However, my prediction is you won't do so great, because you think calling someone a 'cult retard' is an argument.

It doesn't matter, this happens all the time. People don't like the show, they don't like philosophy. Not interested in it. It's fine.

No, but hopefully we can bring some arguments instead of just saying "he's wrong" without showing how.

>People don't like the show, they don't like philosophy
So you take for granted that anyone interested in philosophy will automatically subscribe to Molyneux's point of view? Sounds pretty culty to me.

His lack of understanding of the labour theory of value is demonstrably true in his convo with a communist.
He is entitled to critique Marxism (there is plenty to critique) but its painfully clear that he doesn't understand its theory in the first place.

He's mostly clueless when it comes to economics.

For example he's said multiple times that the us debt isn't serviceable. He doesn't even realized how it's financed. It's laddered but he thinks its variable.

In his universal basic income video he says UBI would cause hyper inflation and turn us into zimbabwe without providing any evidence, theoretical or empericial. inlfation depends on the velocity and money and the overall supply, ubi changes neither.

etc etc.

The key test for me is he has never taken on a serious scientist who believes in global warming to debate him.

>So you take for granted that anyone interested in philosophy will automatically subscribe to Molyneux's point of view? Sounds pretty culty to me.

That is called character assassination. If you are interested in philosophy then one thing you learn early on is to ignore that, because Socrates died from character assassination. If you cannot understand this then it is not for you, just like if you cannot understand basic principles of physics, don't do it. Except people who are bad at physics never claim to be good at it, you only see that in philosophy. Why are there so many dummies on his show? Well, you know what the average IQ is right? Their brains suck, they are bad at it. And this is going to be most people. Now, people who have a critique of any of Stefan's positions get a first position on the show, and people who are critical of philisophical principles established 2000 years ago are not going to be good at it. They are in fact so bad at it that they cannot possibly know how bad at it they are, again, this is the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. Read Aristotle, see if you can comprehend it. Forget about Stefan, see if you are good at philosophy starting from first principles.

>tl;dr: Not an argument
Wow, you're in pretty deep. Good luck, user.

>believes in global warming
Thats not what that debate is about though

>His lack of understanding of the labour theory of value
and you could gave easily gave the correct interpretation, but didnt
hmmmmmmmmmm

You are never going to read Aristotle's work if you cannot read a single paragraph. Humble yourself and find a different interest besides making personal attacks on a guy who studies past philosophical works. You are so stupid to assume that he created all of this work himself. You must think that if you believe you can attack his character, then all those books just don't matter. If Stefan is a cultist, then so are all of his influences. And if you think philosophy in general is a cult, then you are never going to study it and get good at it.

nice, kek branded you a mason slave
so what is the productive infrastructure of more human beings

ok heres another faggot who is more concerned with framing than he is with actual arguments, just like stefan.

Get on a research scientist who believes the co2 in the atmosphere is warming the earth at an untenable pace and it will have very adverse effects for man.

There are lots of them out there, they dominate all major scientific journals and publications, I wonder why he wont talk to one. hmmmmmm

youtube.com/watch?v=7Z6TecVZAhk

Did we ever confirm it was this guy?

It's incredible how people still believe in the labour theory of value.

The customer theory of value is real. Labour has no meaning per se, especially human labor.

I only watch the videos where he has a guest on that he specifically picked. The first time Vox Day came on was good. I haven't watched the one with Jordan Peterson yet but I'm looking forward to it.

tl;dw version.
commies think that paying for labor is the same as killing people for their property.

So to answer my post that his critics say he's wrong without saying how, you tell me he's wrong without saying how. How original.

The labor theory of value is real, I'm a retard who spent days carving away at a soap bar. That's labor right? And the sculpture was a piece of shit that no one values, a real hacked up mess that looks like no object in particular. Labor creates value, not the consumer who pays for the product. I only say this because people don't value MY labor. So I say that labor is inherently valuable.

>anyone who disagrees with me just doesn't get it.

...

I have read Aristotle's metaphysics. Aristotle himself even advocated elsewhere the implementation of what we would call a welfare state. I fail to see what he has to do with Stefan Molyneux.

I study literature and philosophy at University (3rd year) and average a 1st degree. Molyneux is a prime case of the Dunning-Kreuger. He is unwilling to accept other points of view

I call him a cultist not to shut him down, but because he has actually instructed his fans to cut off connection with people who do not subscribe to anarcho-capitalism.

see

Ancaps are autistic

Molyneux has a high verbal IQ but a low visual spatial and mathematical IQ

He's good at talking circles around people but not much else

No, because then you can make counter arguments to arguments that already exist. This is what philosophers do, they criticize each other. However, if you in particular don't get philosophy, like Nietzsche's sister after he died, as the tutor tried to teach her for weeks, then gave up because she didn't get it, then it's a tautology. You don't get it, an empirical observation. That's perfectly fine, go do something else with your time.

Yes I know that is what he has done. You are telling me what he has said in the past, what you are not doing is coming up with a counter argument.

Sorry but Hegel is right, not shitty Marx. Inner value comes from the outer world: only the customer decides what value is. Labor has no inner value, which you proved citing the carved soap. You won't convince anyone that your carved soap has value, thus it won't have any value at all even if you put labor in creating it. This disproves the theory of labor.

Alex Jones should be way lower on the chart, I think Jordan is currently top brain tier

I was being sarcastic. I believe that people love the labor theory of value because labor is easy, but creating a product that people value is much more difficult. It's the ideology for people who are good at no particular thing.

Molyneux really BTFO then!

>He is unwilling to accept other points of view
Which is why he's ditched racial egalitarianism, open borders, and feminism. as well as mellow and open up to Christians.

My bad, didn't grasp the irony. Commies worship the laborer because they think he's the source of value. This is also why commies completely disregard the customer, who's the central figure in post-Marxian, modern business theory.

Can't speak on the US debt but for Ubi I'm pretty sure he does say how it leads to hyperinflation. First off changed incentives lead to changed behavior and if you pay people to not work without the hassle of having to deal with various welfare and benefits bureaus it'll lead to more people on welfare/UBI, and you can't tax people on welfare to pay said welfare so it needs increased taxes on the productive which leads to capital flight then the only answer is money printing which leads to inflation and possibly hyperinflation if it goes too fast. But Ubi was tried in England back in the 1800's at a local township level but it was instead of pure UBI people had their employment guaranteed and if the employer paid under a limit the public purse would pay the difference up to that limit and before hyperinflation or capital flight, first thing that happened was decreased productivity and quality of work, they couldn't just get on welfare like modern UBI so they had to work but they didn't have to please their employer or clients since they'd get paid anyway so productivity just fell through, I wish I could find the link again.

And this can be empirically verified without having to reason it out like we are doing, though I enjoy doing so. In a centrally planned economy you have breadlines, you never get that with a consumer economy.

labor is the source of value.

Nobody wants what you are selling user, you might as well not do the labor of typing this shit.

Think about this: suppose you were a listener to an Internet radio show that's obscure enough that you kind-of already have to be into what the host is talking about before you call. And you listen for some days or weeks or months. So you basically know his philosophy and approach to things. But then you still feel you have to call him up and ask him for advice after all that. You see what I'm getting at?

Why are you thinking the same things that I was thinking about a few days ago?

That's the joke you retarded fucking monkey

Not an argument.

The government doesn't even print money.

The central bank does. The central bank is autonomous from the government.

If the government wants to take on additional debt is sells BONDS to domestic or foreign investors. If they are financing a lot of debt, they may need to offer a higher rate to bring the yield curve and bond demand into equilibrium.

That may raise interest rates, but inflation as you know isn't uniquely determined by the nominal rate, it is the real rate minus the nominal rate, and as long as the central bank brings the real rate in line with that nominal rate, we have no inflation.

he just lacks a very basic cursory understanding of the issues, saying things like the government prints money

Nope. Customer decides value, thus labor certainly is not the source of value.
Labor does not create value per se; this can be easily proved by trying to sell something no one is interested in. The labor put into it created zero value. As a consequence the labor theory is inaccurate and false.

Why is it that every time I see a stefan thread, the first thought that crosses my mind is that stefan created it to promote himself?

but by that argument, couldn't we say the people in power create value, by manipulating the proles to "want" their product?

You think anyone would buy the shake weight without a huge advertising campaign?

So get rid of the central banks

Just watched the whole thing intensively, the communist was even given his own platform for half of the last 10 mins and he said nothing of value.

Stefan understood and politely argued each point to its own.

I have no idea what ur talking about when saying stefan was owned or whatever, did we watch the same video?

But it takes labor to create shake weights, therefore shake weights are in fact valuable. And pushing my car up and down the street, yes, up and down the street over and over again, that takes labor, and labor is valuable inherently. so I should get paid for it. And I should get paid for lifting too.

That is an argument and you didn't invalidate it, you only clarified (not even refuted) one statement.
I didn't say government prints money, and saying central banks are autonomous is true (for most countries) in the same sense the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government are independent but they still generally work together for a common goal and seldom work against each other. You pointing out that government can get itself into trouble by simply getting into debt without paying it by increasing the money supply is another way for government to get income to pay for UBI which would result in a failure of the system.

but you wouldn't do that unless that labor had some value to you.

Doesn't matter how many people want a smoothie made out of me, I'm never going to provide that labor. Hence, the value really comes from the laborer.

I like Molymeme.
He's about the same age as me (I'm 49) and values family.
I don't agree with him about many things.
I really like his historical shows. The truth about the crusades for example.
He's a good lad.

That's too far fetched. People have agency by definition of the law.

Customer theory is way better than labor theory in explaining what it value in a product. This is also why we moved on from the commie days when the worker thought he was the center of the world.

I agree it lowers it. I was just telling the 'muh hyperinflation' guy that even if his scenario WAS possible and rates increased from this government debt spree, that still doesnt uniquely determine inflation.

*leans into mic*

WRONG

And what differentiates labor that results in value from labor that doesn't have any value? I can lift, and in return I get bigger muscles and I get stronger, more healthier and a longer life. Or I could make a product that people value, and get paid for my product, or work for someone who has a good idea or a business that sells products that people value, and get paid per hour, while he gets paid for the product he is selling and pays me enough such that he still makes a net profit for the amount of value that I bring to the company. For if he paid me and all his other customers based on arbitrary cut off points instead of how much value I bring to the company, and he ended up paying people more than they bring to the company in value, then that would result in a net loss of money. He would go out of business.

Would you work for free?

pay his employees* not customers

It's basic logic. If labor can be used to create something of no value, then CERTAINLY labor isn't the source of value, but something else is. Customer theory still hasn't been dethroned in business theory.

not an argument.

Seldom go against each other? Do you know why there are unfilled fed govenors right now? because they were at obamas throat. Do you think Trump likes yellen raising rates right now? Have you even heard of the volcker recession? Political terms and central bank appointments don't overlap, so there is a 50% chance that the people there have a very different worldview than the people in power. historically there have always been major disagreements between them.

It was you who initially said UBI changes incentives for workers without providing any empirical evidence. The honus is on you to prove that claim so I'll wait for a link before arguing the monetary policy part, because you are clueless on it.

Milton friedman first wrote on UBI you can look at his papers, but you wont find any of your """arguments""" there

>OP is confused why stumbling bumbling retards call a stumbling bumbling retard

maybe you should call in and ask op

You could never do better though

better than what?

ooga booga

The male stripper one was pretty good

It looks like the commie ran away shrieking 'WRONG'. Typical. Let's see if he returns.

you're german, lol fucking arab cuck ahmed lmao baka senpai desu

not an argument

lmao burger
>60%
clap in theaters kek

wow xd he said the line he wins lmao good job snepai desu you have done well indeed did all of you see that he said the thing that the person we are discussing usually says but he used it to shut down any criticism in an amazing turnabout whew wow how did he do it he's clearly the most intelligent arguer please respond if you saw what he did cause what he did was so great because it wasn't an argument and he said it wasn't an argument and it wasn't a superfluous statement even wowsers what a hella badass can you say it again pls that was really good you impressed me can we call molymews himself so he can see how well you applied his three word string catchphrase in a textual scenario that was definitely something else.

You get partitioned by any great powers lately?

thanks for the reply