Reminder that Stefan Molejew is a cult leader. Quite literally, he fits all the characteristics. He even has his own inner circle of people on his forum, who stay at his house with him and his wife. Look at his eyes for God sake, does that look like the eyes of a normal man?
Oh and before you say "not an argument", keep in mind that "not an argument" is itself not an argument.
Lmfao
Holy shit, kek
>He even has his own inner circle of people on his forum, who stay at his house with him and his wife
Source on that one?
So? I'm too lazy to join his cult. I don't care what others do. He's funny and he dominates libshits so that makes me happy.
Also his face looks very small compared to his head in this picture.
god dammit
>Happy white people are creepy!
Fuck off, Sadiq.
Go on FDR liberated. It's run by an ex cultist. And a lot of people that leave FDR reveal a lot of things.
The specific incidencet I have in mind, is a Phd student who left FDR after being in the inner circle. She mentioned that people from the inner circle are frequently with Stefan in real life, sleep at his house, and treat him like a God that he is above all criticism.
NOT AN ARGUMENT!!! REEEEEEEE
Are you seriously telling me he doesn't look weird and creepy? He has them Hilary Clinton eyes.
>happy
Ive checked that site, I know he meets/ has met up with the inner circle IRL but i havent actually seen anything about people living with him.
That other stuff is probably correct given the reports ive seen and his relative charisma
Name one single bad thing about cultism. It's the end product of human evolution
>cult leader
...that wants you to go DeFOO (renounce your family of origin if they aren't lolbertarians like you).
TRIGGER WARNING
It's not always bad. But it's one reason to not believe in him anymore.
>Oh and before you say "not an argument", keep in mind that "not an argument" is itself not an argument.
Why would I need to make an argument against something that isn't an argument?
That scared the shit out of me
I actually agree with this. Watching him, it's very easy to get sucked in.
Quite literally not an argument. No arguments can be made to refute non-arguments
HOLY FUCK! This is the youtube equivalent of creepy gifs that make you jump.
I'd join his cult
It is an argument. It's an argument for him being a cult leader.
Not an argument.
Let's say that he is a cult leader. What is actually wrong with being a cult leader?
How isn't it an argument? I'm putting forth an argument that he is a cult leader because he has all the characteristics of cult leaders. Cult leaders ALWAYS share certain characteristics and behaviours. Cult experts that have analysed Stefan have also concluded that he's running a cult.
>Look at his eyes
Not an argument.
Not arguments.
Join his forum and suck his cock (metaphorically speaking) and he may invite you over. Tell him how bad your parents are and he'll tell you to abandon them.
Do we sacrifice people to the argument God?
Because people are being psychologically manipulated by Stefan for his own benefit. Do you think there's nothing wrong with manipulating people? If so, you're probably a sociopath.
Fuck me I was all tired and sleepy while watching this and I nearly had a heart attack
I might not be an argument but at least I'm not a nigger, you fucking gay lord.
No, you just tell Stefan how amazing he is all day.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with manipulating people. It honestly depends on what you're manipulating them into.
For example you can manipulate someone into achieving goals they set out for themselves that they didn't have the strength to carry out alone. Or you can manipulate a hot girl into having sex with you. Neither of these things is wrong.
>Not an Argument
>ONE DOLLAR
>do you support me being shot?
Why didn't we force these memes before?
Aside from crazy shit like defoo, which anyone with a brain can identify as a huge risk, what does he produce/say that is actually wrong or dangerous? He seems to encourage informed discussion and debate. Is Sup Forums just mad at him because he isn't constantly calling people who disagree with him jews and shills?
You are psychologically manipulating someone right now, labeling a perfect stranger with stigmas, for the benefit of your own personal feelings.
How do you know there aren't mutual benefits, why would they agree to the contracts and relationship if they didn't feel like they were getting any benefits?
defoo isn't all that crazy. A lot of people have absolutely terrible people in their lives that they are surely better off without.
I've got a feeling all of you who who talk shit have beenough btfo whIle listening to his stuff. I don't want to hang with the guy but he's very informative and triggers tons of Libs and fags (people claiming he's a cult leader)
You're probably an amoral sociopath.
So you have no problem with manipulation based on lies and half truths? Especially manipulation that can break up families. Stefan does not allow anyone to criticize him. Anyone that does is kicked out of the inner circle.
He is just sharing the truth, you can walk away from it at any time if it makes you feel uncomfortable.
molyneux is based as fuck
Nah. I came across interviews with ex cult members and learned about what goes on behind the scenes.
Firstly, if I WAS an amoral sociopath I'm sure I'd be at peace with it and it wouldn't really matter at all if you pointed it out to me. Like I would have no point of reference at all of how to percieve myse4lf negatively in that way because it's all I know.
Secondly, I absolutely have no problem with it because manipulating people is they way things work. It's how shit gets done. There's no working around this, you actually cannot interact with people on a mass scale without some sort of manipulation being present. For example right now you are trying to manipulate me to prove a point.
No, I'm describing his attributes which align with established cult characterics.
How does Stefan spunk feel in your mouth, nut hugger? Is it nice and warm? Do you like it?
A request to any NEETs that have the time, please make a video called "the descent into madness of Stefan Molyneux" which is basically a compilation of his videos, starting off with his classic ancap phase, making sure he seems calm and rational, by the end he's going on about immigration and Europe, making sure you use clips of him looking as insane as possible, "your house" etc.
Your defintion of manipulation is retarded. By your definition everything that involves communication is manipulation, which makes it worthless.
Fairly sure he is. He's a raging narcissist as well, fits all those points too, if I were to go his route of analysis I'd say that child abuse probably made him that way. I've always found narcissists to be quite pitiful really, their sense of self-worth is so damaged that they have to invent some grandiose image of themselves to feel better.
That said, this honestly "isn't an argument". He's right on a lot of things, it just so happens that he's also a severely mentally ill cult leader.
cult experts? the fuck is that? you mean thunderfoot or some shit?
Not an argument
>all of these ad hominems against a man
Why not judge his words and ideas?
Instead of the person behind them?
That is why I listen to what he says while I lift.
I am manipulating this bread to make a sandwich.
It's really easy to pick a simple concept and make everything fit within that framework.
E.g. everyone is driven by self-interest
Thunderfoot made some videos accusing Stephan Molyneux of being a cult leader.
Molyneux made a rebuttal where blew Thunderfoot out of the water. Thunderfoot hasn't made a video about him since.
I don't see why I should have a problem with this, it doesn't devalue what he has to say.
Fucking hell.
Is Stefan Memeneux the new Ben 'spike the kike' Garrison?
I like Stefan. He talks some shit but a lot of logic and I think he's choking on the red pill.
I detect a level of depression in him. His vids have changed recently.
I'm a community psychiatric nurse and can detect shifts in mentality. Watch this:
youtube.com
Most disturbing. He seems to be in depression. He's passionate and he's English/Irish/Canadian.
I think he's conflating his childhood in London with the rest of UK. I hope he's alright.
What do you think, Sup Forums?
Umm, yes, that's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Let's say I have a son and he plays little league baseball and his team fucking sucks the fattest dick ever because they're kids and they don't take any of it seriously at all. they just want to have fun. Well if I keep telling him to try his best, you got this, don't quit etc and he doesn't get discouraged because he sucks and he keeps going to practice and one day gets good and falls in love with baseball, I have just manipulated him into being fulfilled and loving something. How is this bad?
I think molly is alright . He reminds me of my father, if he were more intellegent and had things to teach me rather than hours and hours of complaining on how bad life is.
Of course because thunderfoot and argue his way out of a paper bag.
No. People that study cults and cult behaviour all over the world for a living. Are you thick
What is his therapist doing? All these years of therapy and he's still a crazy cult leader.
What about if he was a serial killer? Would it devalue it then?
He does have some cult like tendencies for sure. Talking about how people have been broken and turned sick from the government and his ideals somehow is the cure for it all.
That does not fall under the conventional definition of manipulation.
As I've said, your definition is pointless. Why have the concept of manipulation if it is synonymous with communication?
>muh spanking
>muh single mothers
>muh leave your family if they hurt your feewings
Molyneux is a creep with deep mommy issues, and it's embarrassing that so many are into him.
So he's like any other great philosopher?
OP or anyone in this thread aren't making a better argument than Thundercuck. If that guy got destroyed by Molyneux then these guys have no chance.
It honestly wouldn't. He could be a transsexual pedophile who is wrong about 99% of things, but the 1% he could still be totally right about. It's best to tackle each of his arguments individually instead of making blanket generalizations, although it is also kind of entertaining to make fun of what kind of person he is..
manipulation. noun. skillful or artful management.
You can manipulate a person, you can manipulate a guitar, you can manipulate a nation. You can manipulate a pencil. Or you can keep being such a giant fucking faggot and manipulate this dick.
Like really, nigger? Go to dictionary.com and look up the word
Not at all.
I watch his videos because the dudes he has working for him make a pretty good job of condensing information and statistics.
But yeah, i have noticed some themes in his talks, his enterpreneurship, his belongings to the aristocracy, being a big winner all his life despite being raised by a single mom (worst thing possible in the world as he says) and so on. He is a narcisistic bitch and he is doing this for the views and for the money.
NOT
AN
ARGUMENT
What if he murdered your family?
I have been working 4 days straight 14 hours a day and while working I have been marathoning Stefan Molyneux in the background and I think I transcended this realm and am on another plane of existence. Someone help me.
He is narcissistic and he is doing it for the views. So what? Who cares? Either he makes a good case and offers something of value or he doesn't.
He's not doing it for money. That's just a flat out fabrication. He makes less money from youtube than he used to make in the past. What he does is motivated by his huge ego and him wanting to spread his ideology. If he just wanted to make some money he could talk about literally anything, yet he chooses to talk about peaceful parenting and single moms. He'd be much more successful if he spoke less about those subjects, because no one cares about parenting and single moms, those are boring subjects.
Ad hominem, not an argument.
>en.wikipedia.org
quote from what you just linked me.
"Social influence is not necessarily negative. For example, doctors can try to convince patients to change unhealthy habits. Social influence is generally perceived to be harmless when it respects the right of the influenced to accept or reject and is not unduly coercive. Depending on the context and motivations, social influence may constitute underhanded manipulation."
>He's not doing it for money
youtube.com
It's not an ad hominem. That's like saying Stalin murdered millions of people is an ad hominem. I'm not saying the things he said are wrong BECAUSE he is a cult leader. That would be an ad hominem. That is not what I'm saying. I'm not even discussing his ideas or what he talks about.
Don't join the thread if you're stupid.
Literally not an argument.
Yes, what of it? It's not supporting your argument that ALL communication is manipulation like you were arguing earlier.
Stefan's manipulation does not fall under positive behavior. It's all done for his ego. That's why he silences all criticism and kicks people out of his inner circle.
My fucking heart!
So is Trump but no one wants to admit it.
Jeez he's a pundit you autists he has a bias and takes complex subjects and dumbs them down in a biased perspective. Once you understand this you can listen to him for entertainment and take some but not everything he says at face value.
If you don't count proof as an argument, I suppose so.
got me
I never claimed that all communication was manipulation, you claimed that I did. I gave examples of how manipulation can be used positively thus disproving your point that manipulation is inherently negative.
Explain to me how his manipulation is not positive. His overarching message is for people to take personal responsibility for their decisions so that they can take control of their lives.
It is an argument. Or more accurately, it's evidence to support an argument: the argument that Stefan is a bad person, a narcissist and a conman with a messiah complex. The video demonstrates Stefan's utter lack of respect for his viewers and his greedy nature.
Here I will use the typical argumentation used to libertarians. If Stefan doesn't want to receive 1 dollar and he thinks it's beneath him, why hasn't he set a limit to his donations? The fact he hasn't set a limit implies he has voluntarily agreed to receive 1 dollar. It implies he is happy to receive 1 dollar. If he has voluntarily agreed to accept 1 dollar, why is he so angry?
What a fool you are, you dont want any kind of "leader" being a leader just for the sake of being worshiped, anyone can buy such a person and it leads to the situations we have to deal everyday nowdays.
used by*
It's not proof or an argument. It has literally nothing to do with anything I said.
I said that he quit a good job to do a lower paid job, therefore he isn't doing it for money. If he was doing it for money he'd be running his business instead of doing youtube.
You post a video of him mocking a 1 dollar donation.
Are you retarded?
Another theme repeated in all his videos is donate, he even suggested 50cents per broadcast. He is not doing it for money, sure.
Shill, go eat some cocks somewhere else, your bullshit is not welcome.
If you're mocking people who don't donate enough to you for your own satisfaction, I think you do care about the money. It's possible he's not only in it for the money, but I don't see how you can deny it's a large part of it.
Has stefan invited you to sleep over yet?
And I addressed your claim below. You nut huggers are hilarious.
I don't donate anything and enjoy his occasional video.
