Molyneux' FDR controversy is going too far

[dalebert]

No publicity is bad publicity.

I agree that Stefan is probably over-reacting lately. He was mostly ignoring them which I think was the right way to go. Their negative obsession with him is so ridiculous. Get a life, people! If he'd continue to do that, it would tend to keep them looking like what they are-- people with some kind of personal issues that make them obsess. Probably he hits a little close to home and they react violently to fuel their denial. I think his response to that article was dead on accurate. That mom is the perfect example of the type of relationship that is worthy of a defooing.

[Jim Johnson]

I'm sure it's Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

[memenode]

New developments:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article5485325.ece

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip8eLGo_Dec&feature=PlayList&p=0629B97DDFA9C7DB&index=19
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUH5GfJKoDA

It is amazing how much noise is made around an 18 year old, a "legal" adult, deciding to leave his parents. Suddenly someone pointing him out that he had the freedom to leave and break a relationship he didn't feel comfortable in is a "cultist" and manipulator.

I also listened to an audio interview here: http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_Times_Reporter_Tom_Whipple_Jan_6_2009.mp3

The journalist Tom Whipple continuously tries to question Tom's choice and imply that he might have done something wrong, but most revealing is when he points to half other teenagers feeling like their parents don't understand them and yet don't leave those relationships, as if the mere fact that most other people are suffering something makes it more moral for everyone to suffer and if you try to break off from that you're made to be evil.

Same collectivist bullshit pops up in so many other places, like the classic one regarding paying taxes. Everyone is stolen from so when someone resists he is supposedly acting unfairly. "If we have to pay taxes you must too or else you are "stealing" from us", they would say. This way the current society perpetuates suffering and violence as a moral thing. "If I suffer you must too." - instead of - "Let's stop all suffering and violence and applaud those who resist it!". It's so upside down! We're living in a society of mutually assured suffering and violence. What seems to be considered moral is exactly the opposite of what they'd otherwise verbalize as immoral: theft, dishonesty, revenge, coercion etc.

Stefan Molyneux may be a rambler, but there are people who want to listen to his ramblings and the content of what he says is something that should echo throughout the world. His thousands of podcasts and videos and pages of books are in fact not enough when faced with the magnitude of stupidity, ignorance and self-contradiction exhibited by the mentally ill minds of the masses. Yes I said mentally ill.

[Caleb]

It is amazing how much noise is made around an 18 year old, a "legal" adult, deciding to leave his parents. Suddenly someone pointing him out that he had the freedom to leave and break a relationship he didn't feel comfortable in is a "cultist" and manipulator.

"Suddenly someone pointing out to him that he had the freedom to shave his head, wear an orange robe, and chant 'The Leader is great! The Leader is wise!' is a 'cultist' and a 'manipulator'.   

[memenode]

Which may in fact go to show how meaningless the whole label may in fact be. Ultimately everyone makes choices according to their own values and all this bulls*it is only a result of a mentality that drives people to constantly invade others' lives and try to control their choices.

Stef has every right to make any kind of observation or even recommendation he wants. Those who listen to him have every right to disagree or agree with him. If they don't have the mental capacity to think and decide for themselves and therefore become susceptible to suggestions by any man on the internet, that's their sole problem and their sole pejorative. And if they do follow his suggestions based on actual self thinking, same thing. So long as the transaction is voluntary and there is no actual fraud involved, nobody has the right to interfere.

Of course, by that same logic the parent also had the right to prosecute her child over the media too, cause a bit of social ostracism for FDR and some shame for her son. And she did. Just the same I have the right to call her a control freak who can't live with her sons voluntary decision. She seems like someone who might want to stoop so low as to force her son to come back, if there was a law that allowed her to do this. Her son would in turn have every right to pull a gun against the thugs who would in that case want to drag him back to his "mommie", if he wanted to take that chance. And so on and on... action and reaction.

Welcome to anarchy. No not chaos, but individuals making choices for themselves (and sometimes other individuals verbally castrating them for it). The longer we have an anarchy, however, the more used will individuals become to other individuals making choices they might not always like.

Cult? What is that? Just another loaded word. Just another terminological zombie. Just another abstraction. Just another distraction from reality.

[Caleb]

Perhaps we aren't communicating effectively?

Are you suggesting that, because men are metaphysically free, there is no such thing as a religious cult? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. I lampooned your statement because the attempt to separate individuals from their friends and family is one of the classical sociological indicators of a cult. Saying "suddenly, just because a person is told that they are free to break off relationships with their family makes one a cult" is about on the same level as saying, "suddenly, just because I go around starting buildings on fire, I'm accused of arson."

[MengerFan]

Saying "suddenly, just because a person is told that they are free to break off relationships with their family makes one a cult" is about on the same level as saying, "suddenly, just because I go around starting buildings on fire, I'm accused of arson."

Ummm, no. It's on the same level of saying "just because I am black, everyone accuses me of being a basketball player."

[Caleb]

ummmm, no it's not. relatively few black people are basketball players. Whereas, since isolating people from those who are close to them is by definition a mind control tactic, 100% of people who use it are engaging in coercive psychological mind control tactics, or in the vernacular "are a cult".

It's actually amazing how many of Dr. Singer's list of seven mind control tactics Molyneux engages in. This guy is bad news. It is just plain deceitful to attempt to teach a philosophy of "liberty" using coercive methods.

Then again, perhaps Molyneux is simply illustrating absurdity by being absurd? 

[memenode]

First of all he is not isolating anyone. They are the ones doing all the isolation by their own choice. They are the ones who come to him in the first place. He talks about his philosophy, makes observations and suggestions without any threats. How can this possibly be in the realm of coercion?

According to your logic I might be accused of mind control and therefore, according to you, coercion of someone every time I try to convince someone of my views. Trust me it's easy to go down that line. Just go talk to a statist trying to espouse all of the illusions (s)he is believing in and (s)he will very likely often feel like being brainwashed, simply because what I'm saying is so foreign and unlike everything (s)he has been taught to believe.

Sorry, that doesn't work. And it is quite dangerous to accuse someone of coercion when in fact that's not what he is doing, since you probably (like me) believe in self-defense and may therefore condone someone "defending" himself violently from Stef. In my view such defense would be a real act of coercion, and NOT what he is doing.

From what I see, the label "cult" is used in a similar way as the term "conspiracy theorist", as a quick way of dismissing someone by discrediting him and his views, so you don't have to deal with actual arguments and actual reality. And I absolutely abhor such tactics. I certainly don't condone coercion and fraud so I will call it for what it is when I see it. I don't need to use fancy terms like a "cult" to do that. If someone is lying to someone that he knows that he will see great afterlife if he kills himself on December 21 2012 for instance, I will call it for what it is, a FRAUD. It may be a cult by someone's definition, but that is less relevant than the only fact that makes it harmful: that it is a fraud.

But neither is Molyneux lying to people with regards to reasons why they may sometimes want to break certain relationships, or at least you'd have to really face off his arguments to prove that they're incorrect, nor is he coercing anyone to break any relationships. He isn't even verbally ordering them to. Suggestion is as far as it goes. And that's not a crime!

[William]

since isolating people from those who are close to them is by definition a mind control tactic, 100% of people who use it are engaging in coercive psychological mind control tactics, or in the vernacular "are a cult".

Does that include encouraging a person to leave an abusive relationship?

Do you consider the military a cult?

If the truth of a situation is pointed out by A and B chooses to no longer associate with individuals from his past, did A isolate him or did B in fact isolate himself?

If a person is unhappy with the way their life is going, one of the best ways to change your life is to change your environment. Friends and family can be a large part of the environment that has contributed to forming the unhappiness in a persons life, usually unintentionally.

[MengerFan]

since isolating people from those who are close to them is by definition a mind control tactic, 100% of people who use it are engaging in coercive psychological mind control tactics, or in the vernacular "are a cult".

Are you serious? Are battered women's shelters cults and mind controllers when their volunteers encourage women to leave their abusive partners? I've encouraged people to apply the NAP in their personal relationships since long before Molyneaux was on the scene. Did that make me a cult? I certainly don't remember anyone ever bringing me their virgin daughters.

[dalebert]

...since you probably (like me) believe in self-defense and may therefore condone someone "defending" himself violently from Stef.

He doesn't actually. He's a thorough pacifist.

I have heard accusations that Stefan is extremely overbearing in terms of what he considers to be abusive and perhaps applies it to pretty much every parent/child relationship. I don't know the validity of such claims as I haven't listened to a lot of his podcasts. I do feel that the one that was made an example of in the media recently is a case where I agree with Stefan. I felt like that tactic by that mother was appalling. Her son left because of her emotionally manipulative tactics and instead of trying to be better, she ratcheted it up to the next level and attempted to humiliate him publicly.

While not to that extent, I limited my relations with my dad way down to a level that I was comfortable with. It wasn't about trying to punish him. I didn't want him to suffer or anything like that. I just didn't have a sense of closeness to him because he never attempted to foster such feelings until it was far too late. Being with him was just awkward. He was a stranger to me. The fact that he was my father by blood didn't mean anything. I did what I needed to do for my own emotional health and I don't regret it.

I hope Stefan is not creating strife where there is none, but I think the general principle of expecting healthy reciprocation in your familial relationships just as you would from any other relationship is a good principle. If someone demonstrates disrespect for me, and several supposed "friends" have, it's very harmful to my self-esteem and personal emotional health to continue the relationships.

[Russell Kanning]

Did that make me a cult? I certainly don't remember anyone ever bringing me their virgin daughters.

maybe every cult doesn't do that ... it might just be how they start

[Caleb]

Does that include encouraging a person to leave an abusive relationship?

Look, you're confusing the issue here. Someone who leaves an abusive relationship is seeking physical protection.  The isolation is not to prevent her from hearing somebody's ideas.  I have to question anyone who is so insecure in their beliefs that they won't even listen to opposing beliefs.  It's really very simple:  You don't have to break off contact with someone to cease giving them power over you. If someone is allowing a parent to control their lives, the solution isn't to shun the parent it is to cease giving the parent control over your life - it is to empower yourself to make your own decisions. Isolating oneself from opinions that vary from one's own is not empowering at all.

Do you consider the military a cult?

Absolutely!  The military uses at least as much psychological manipulation as the worst cults. The behavior of the military is downright emotionally abusive.

If a person is unhappy with the way their life is going, one of the best ways to change your life is to change your environment. Friends and family can be a large part of the environment that has contributed to forming the unhappiness in a persons life, usually unintentionally.

See above about empowering yourself. My power over myself comes, not when I shun my mom, but when I let her have her say but do not let her say become, of necessity, my own choice.

I've encouraged people to apply the NAP in their personal relationships since long before Molyneaux was on the scene. Did that make me a cult?

Not really, because, and please don't take this the wrong way, but you aren't really influential. The abuse of mind control tactics works because of the power dynamic - an "authority" over against a vulnerable person. You chit-chatting and shooting the breeze with other libertarians is hardly such a power dynamic.

Now, if you were to declare yourself a "philosopher," build a group surrounding yourself where you are unquestionably the "leader", such that you become considered an authority within the group, then yes, the power dynamic permits you some degree of power over others.  Here is what I will grant:  Your power over others is only to the extent that they let you have power over them. But that's why victims of cults are vulnerable people, people who don't have a sense of empowerment in their own lives. Exploiting vulnerable people is hardly morally defensible just because one doesn't physically coerce them.

[Caleb]

First of all he is not isolating anyone. They are the ones doing all the isolation by their own choice. They are the ones who come to him in the first place. He talks about his philosophy, makes observations and suggestions without any threats. How can this possibly be in the realm of coercion?

Right. This one gets its own little response because its just so over the top.  Every single cult uses this line to justify its isolation techniques.

Take the Jehovah's Witnesses, who practice a brutal form of "disfellowshipping" wherein even a person's closest friends and relatives will refuse to talk to him if the group chooses to expel him. Now, when sociologists try to explain that this is a cult tactic, the Witnesses will always claim, what?  Of course, just what you just claimed, 'Oh, we don't make the decision for the family. If they are deciding not to talk to him, we can't intervene. "  Well, where the hell do you think the family got the stupid idea to shun in the first place?  They didn't pull it out of their own ass, it was the religious pressure involved.