Dude literally every negative thing ever to come about in the world is the fault of government

>dude literally every negative thing ever to come about in the world is the fault of government
>if you disagree this isn't a safe space for me as you are literally advocating for my death and violence against me stop pretending you're civilized *plugs ears* wahahahwhahwhawhhahawhahwahhwhah

youtube.com/watch?v=5Du-wt_aVpI

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=DNjsw4KX6hI
youtube.com/watch?v=ejuC12dxTcM
youtube.com/watch?v=exUMuE4QRD4
youtube.com/watch?v=oQrsGjT0Sn4&feature=youtu.be&t=1h39m6s
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01541619
ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_4.htm
board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42813-youtube-the-truth-about-rape-culture/
youtu.be/Spe9JbmDOms
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

bump

No one else hates this pseudointellectual faggot?

You know, every single one of you that makes these threads, you never, ever refute his points, you never do it. You just laugh and hope that no one calls you out on your bullshit.

Not an argument.

I do but I prefer to ignore him

i agree with him on pretty much everything like mudslimes, feminism, but fucking ancaps are so stupid man.

My first time making one of these threads.

I was pointing out the fact that anybody who disagrees with him about government he automatically shuts down and stops the conversation to retreat back into his safe space. "You want to initiate force against me!" "You want me dead!".

It's ridiculous. Do you really need me to explain the problem with refusing to have any conversation that isn't filtered through your incredibly narrow lens?

Plus it doesn't seem to bother anyone else that literally every one of his videos boil down to, "government too big! that's why (insert any topic here) collapsed/died." From Robin Williams' suicide to the fall of Rome, it's all about the government. Even watch a clip of Joe Rogan and a guest talking about how everything Stefan said was wrong about Robin Williams. Joe Rogan won't even let him on his show anymore because he lied to his face directly multiple times.

Haha. Wew lad.

Let me tell you something about Molyneaux, cuck. It's nothing pretty.

Women—white women in particular—expire at 18.

By then they're shameless roasties and damaged goods with gaping pussies the diameter of a fist. Most American girls lose their virginity at the ripe age of 12 to virile drug dealers, the constant stream of violent sex, feminist theory, chick flics and media brainwashing corroding their vulnerable minds into irreparably degenerate vipers and slaves to impulse, incapable of properly rearing a child.

The ultimate redpill: To uncuck society the age of consent must be lowered. Why are Millennials having less sex? They need fresh, tight pussies. Despite their brainwashing, their mammalian minds instinctually understand that the pussy on the market right now is rancid and beyond the reproductive peak.

Molyneaux doesn't realized this. He's too cucked by feminism to stay woke. He's just nodding off like a cluckhead in an opium den.

checked, nice quads

Please stop shitposting in my thread. I wanted to actually talk about Stefan's faults.

Behead those who insult Stefan

End your own life.

I myself took the time to check the sources for almost everyone of Stefan's more controversial videos and there are big problems with them- mainly that they are the only sources that support what he is saying. It's not just that he cherry picked from the most supportive sources- they are literally the only ones out there that support his worldview. For example, The Truth About Rape Culture presentation has Stefan citing sources about the likelihood of being raped. While he does correctly dissect the retarded "1 in 5" statistic, he then goes on to say that in all cases of rape accusations, about 10-20% would be legitimate or true. He provides two sources for these numbers, which when looked at show a survey from the late 70s and a police report from the 80s, and Stefan only includes cases that lead to full prosecution and jail time. He makes the conclusion that 80-90% of all rape allegations are intentional lies and that most of the remaining 10% are women who had sex while intoxicated, two conclusions he comes to using sources that had less than 500 subjects in their studies, and that just don't have anything to do with the intoxication factor.

Now don't me wrong I'm far from an SJW and am sure the numbers of false rape accusations are much higher than they want you to believe- but Stefan's "sources" are untrustworthy and inconsistent at best, and his analysis of them is in most cases blatant falsehood or speculation which he passes off as truth by saying, "these are the facts/numbers".

I hate ancaps so goddamn much. Libertarians/conservatives are far superior.

Joe Rogan confronted him the video where he first said this, and Stefan did admit he may have been a little heavy handed with his ideology with that statement.

No well-adjusted human ever suddenly decided to abandon their family and friends because of something he said, the ones that do are generally people who have been heavily abused. The demeanor of the people who call into his show should clue you in to what kind of lost souls are being sucked in by stefans ego-maniacal ranting

Stop holding this stupid shit over his head and make an argument or two why dont ya?

>Most american girls lose their virginity at the ripe age of 12 to virile drug dealers.

this is what pol actually believes

See: Also Joe Rogan doesn't let him on anymore because he lied to him multiple times:
youtube.com/watch?v=DNjsw4KX6hI
youtube.com/watch?v=ejuC12dxTcM

Same here

when did joe rogan say he wouldnt have him on any more? I havnt heard that

most of the board agrees for the smallest government possible

I'm not convinced about having zero governement

Anyway, just write him an e-mail and go on the call-in show. Debate him yourself. Post your results here.

youtube.com/watch?v=exUMuE4QRD4
>all of his videos are hour long, crazy videos
>if you listen to him, you're dumb
youtube.com/watch?v=oQrsGjT0Sn4&feature=youtu.be&t=1h39m6s

I understand that he doesn't state here "I won't let him back on" but I can't find where Rogan says it, but I read recently he said he'd only let him back on if he explains himself and apologizes for lying. It's in one of Joe Rogan's 600-699 podcasts.

You didn't watch the full interview did you? Stefan admits to Joe that he did not have all the facts when he made his "the truth about robin williams video"

Stefan has an agenda just like everyone else even though he claims he's just a philosopher seeking the truth. I don't fault him for it.

I am for the smallest government possible, but there is a critical line between "small" and "no" which I believe you understand, and I appreciate that very much.

The issue is that people see things in extremes. If I disagree with Molyneux I am either a shill, a jealous faggot, or a lefty communist.

I have written him more than one email, but his qualification process for accepting callers is pretty extreme. It's why every single video you've watched where he talks to callers, you'll notice they all agree with him on the fundamental basis that all government/statism is bad and evil in everyway. You won't find one where a guest disagrees, because when a guest does disagree he doesn't post it on his channel, see the video in OP which was recorded on the caller's end because he knew it wouldn't go up if he didn't agree.

I would love to discuss and debate with him but so far it's just not possible unless you agree to those basic pretenses with him. If I were to get into a call under different pretenses then bring up how he shuts people down, he'd just shut me down.

It's a hopeless situation. I agree with a lot of his points but it's very, very hard to trust him.

>People unironically think that this is an argument

I did listen to the whole interview, I've listened to every single interview he's done on Joe Rogan's podcast and he did admit that. The issue is that Molyneux himself has said you don't trust a philosopher or ethicist with an agenda beyond truth/reason.

When a self proclaimed "beacon of truth" a man who "if [he] didn't come along, we'd have to wait another 2500 years for someone who'd stand for what he does", is lying, declaring something is "the truth" without research or looking into the facts, how can you trust what he says? Especially considering his shoddy sources as I explained here: And I haven't even mentioned the defooing/cult/whatever shit because that's all speculation in my mind, although it's certainly odd and suspicious.

Read the thread before you post.

most certainly not an argument

>If I disagree with Molyneux I am either a shill, a jealous faggot, or a lefty communist.
Sup Forums is not one person brah. Anyway, don't let it detract you, just ignore those posters and focus on the the ones that have arguments
OR maybe your arguments aren't that great. One of your earlier posts were like this
>1. Stef is a liar because I checked the stats/sources and they not convincing at all because of they were old and/or had a small sample size blah blah
This one is good (and I'm going to check on them myself later on)
>2. I like Joe a lot. Because Joe doesn't like Stef anymore, this hurts Stef's credibility
this one is kinda lame

Read the thread before you post.
You're right that it's not one person but every time I criticize Molyneux that majority of respondents have only insults or "not an argument" to say without even reading my arguments. I get it, memes are funny, but it's this echo-chamber shit that leads to the left.
If you want to check them yourself go to his "truth about rape culture" video, check sources in the description and look for ones about false rape accusations, you should be able to find them. They link to google books/pdfs.
I actually do not like Joe a lot and if it came off that way that is my fault. I don't hold any opinion on Joe Rogan really- I just use him as a base because he's the one who talked extensively with Molyneux and provided a platform for Stefan to speak himself, and the fact that he admired him so greatly in his first chat with him and has come to disrespect and criticize him/make fun of him more often than not, I think that holds some merit. The hurting of Stefan's credibility is more about the fact that he was lying to somebody's face, and shuts down people who disagree, and also rails against copyright/intellectual property while regularly issuing strikes on channels that criticize his videos or even mention him or Freedomain Radio.

not an argument

Like I said, hes an egomaniac. Thats why I'm not surprised by what said at all. He's only going to talk to people who are going to play ball on his terms and support his agenda, with not even a remote possibility of him losing an argument. Most of the callers are drones from his forums.

All I'm saying is, I acknowledge the fact hes not to be taken at face value. I still agree with him 90% of the time. Have you ever heard the mark twain quote "there are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics." At the end of the day everybody has an agenda, no matter how unbiased they claim to be. He's a philosopher so he speaks in terms of empirical and moral truths.

neither is a meme from an anarcho-capitilist

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01541619
ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_4.htm

Here are the two sources in particular I was mentioning. Notice the first one- a study over a 9 year period shows 41% of cases were false allegations- meaning this is a study of 266 cases out of the 860,000 that occur each year (not counting sex while drunk like feminists do).

He compounds this with the other source, and the sources listed under the: When Women Lie section here:board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42813-youtube-the-truth-about-rape-culture/

To come to a conclusion of about 80% being intentional false allegations.

Checked

Kek

I'm glad you agree about that then. I hadn't heard that Twain quote but it's very true. My issue is that, while I agree with much of what he says, I actually feel less secure in my own beliefs knowing that a person like Stefan who is intentionally misleading, a proven liar, and one who fudges numbers/intentionally misconstrues statistics also holds them. I agree with what he says but I have stopped listening to him because there's no point- his sources are almost always shoddy, I can't use any of facts or statistics he states in a real discussion or argument because I know they come from an untrustworthy source with a powerful agenda, and it bothers me.

The closest I've found to a person I can trust on the issues and use of statistics (as I have checked all of them myself) is Ben Shapiro, and even he has a crazy pro-Israel agenda.

I just don't appreciate someone like Molyneux touting themselves as the be-all, end-all of reason and fact but then being an emotional debater at best- sure he will find statistics to back up what he's saying, but these are usually anomalies that he misconstrues as recurring studies, and he does all of this under the guise of being a beacon of truth. I don't understand why everyone must have such a strong agenda. I've only ever wanted to know the truth. Perhaps the closest I've ever gotten to hearing pure truth was listening to Yuri Bezmenov's lectures on subversion. Shocking stuff. Sorry for the rant I appreciate you putting thought into your posts and not just memeing.

if by hatred you mean contempt then yeah. he's a literal Jew and his philosophy is perfect for usury and other traditionally immoral things. he doesn't actually do anything other than research shit which isn't that hard. as far as original content from him it's mostly neural linguistic programming and fitting every bit of information into his ideology that he then talks about every 3 seconds on his videos. I can't see the appeal unless you're an idiot that gets taken in by obvious cult leaders/charlatans.

IIRC those were the only two studies that even existed, or at the very least, that he could find. It's not a popular subject.

Collect all your info and do a call-in show, user. Give it a try. I think it takes at least two weeks to get in. You might jump the queue if you've got a good case

also skip to 52:00 for lols. anyone who has done a bit of research into cult psychology can figure out that he uses a LOT of cult techniques. the guy is absolutely insane.

youtu.be/Spe9JbmDOms

>you support the use of force against me

Of course, you stupid egg-headed cunt, I support the use of force against anyone that does not abide to social norms and laws.

By his rationale I could fart on someone's face and as soon as that person reacts and pushes or hits me, anyone that supports that action is not worth to even converse with.

He truly is a retard.

He listed 5 or 6 others as well though, it was actually quite a common study back in the late 80s, it's just that he doesn't include any of the numerous studies that show rates that might dispute his agenda.
I am currently compiling a text file with sources, quotes, timestamps and so on and I plan to try again, I've emailed him in the past but the qualification to get on the show seemed far too bothersome/took a long time. I plan to actually go through with it once I gather all of this, although I certainly have doubts about whether or not he'd let me on.

I'm off to bed though, goodnight everyone. Thank you to those who weren't memeing and had some thoughtful posts even if you disagreed.

Also do try to phrase your question about the sources he uses and why he bothered including that statistic about false rapes if he has so little data to back it up. You can jump off from there about other instances where the sources aren't valid enough for his talking points.

When/how did he lie? Sauce?

>drumpf

>miss cleo

holy shit, user, you just took me back in a time warp like 20 years