I left this comment on one of Peter Boghossians threads in response to a commenter there. I wonder if Peter will finally address it? I have my doubts. But he should. Tl;dr version: Despite having a recent hour-long public convo with Stefan Molyneux, most of which was about *not* censoring in intellectual discussions, Peter Boghossian isnt saying anything about Stefan Molyneuxs censorship of his critics and implicitly lying to Peters face about his real views on censorship, why? ~ ~ ~ When I did a Google search on Peter Boghossians name and feminism, I found several interviews with Stefan Molyneux. Thats not an encouraging sign of Boghossians objectivity. Molyneuxs ideology is religion-like, so I view this as I might if I had found several sympathetic interviews with the Catholic church or a Scientology rep. A month ago, I pointed out to Peter some facts about Stefan Molyneux, someone I formerly had the deepest respect for and on whose work Ive even based some critical life decisions. I am not claiming to have personally been harmed by Stefan. I wasnt. I personally benefited. Nonetheless, Im aghast at Stefan Molyneuxs censorious behaviour and his dishonesty on what is not only a materially-critical issue, but also one vital to the lives and connections of his viewer/reader, and to their family members and friends. Why I approached Peter specifically about this including in a private conversation (i.e., I know he read it, and it wasnt always just in these comments ... which he may not have all read) is because I *respect* Peter and his work. Ive been a fan for a while. I also respect Peter for not deleting my and others critical comments, and I trust he wont delete this one either. Hes welcome instead to respond. I believe very strongly in intellectual honesty, especially not censoring. Peter claims to believe in this too and, for the record, I believe him. After all, I dont notice a lot of censorship going on here. Plus he came across as very sincere and genuine in his conversation with Stefan who, I believe, was neither sincere nor genuine. Nonetheless, while I can understand Peter being reluctant to, as a friend of Stefans (despite Peter recently posting material to the effect of the truth must trump friendship) be seen to criticise him, I thought Peter would ****as a bona fide for-real philosopher**** want to say something about Stefan going on and on with him to his face about not censoring his critics, when Stefan has a longstanding—and recent—practice of doing that. This ranges from trying to get critical websites shut down, frequent (and often silent) banning at the FDR forum and other venues Stefan uses, claiming critics go to the front of the line on his shows but actually him or his people banning instead of inviting some of his stronger critics on the show once they express a desire to do so, using the state via Digital Millenia Copyright Act notices to forcibly shut down his philosophical critic (which hes been sued for, although whether Stefan has been successfully *served* is another and interesting matter entirely), going on the Joe Rogan show and lying to Rogans face about why Stefan did this, but admitting that it has nothing to do with copyright or anything like that, etc., etc. ... lots of censorship ... ... and even mocking people who check out criticisms of his arguments, laughing at them and discouraging them from doing so. That is hardly intellectually rigorous of Stefan and it is philosophically troubling. But couple that with this: Stefans wife, who is a therapist, was disciplined by the College of Psychologists of Ontario (Canadas largest province and where Stefan and his wife lives) for her advising Stefans callers on deFOOing, an acronym seemingly they made up. What is deFOO, you may ask? It stands for departing ones family of origin. Its what it sounds like. Permanent estrangement from ones family. Now Stefan and by extension his wife benefit financially from donations of people, often young people, encouraged to deFOO (Stefan misrepresents to the public how large of a part deFOOing is in Freedomain Radio, and did on the Joe Rogan show as well). So not only does Stefan ban critics, not only does he discourage his followers from looking into criticisms of him, and not only does he, hypocritically as an anarchist who has denounced intellectual property law and copyright law generally and said people can use his stuff specifically, he *couples all that* with going on the popular Joe Rogan Experience show and claiming that the College of Psychologists supports his position on deFOO, when he knows full well that they do not! He knows that because thats why his wife was disciplined, and why he had to cull his shows and remove those featuring his wifes Ask a Therapist segment. Way to stack the deck in his favour! Ban critics, discourage researching criticism of him or his ideas, **AND** lie about the College of Psychologists supporting his stance on deFOO, for which Stefan financially benefits when people become estranged from their family, becoming part of the FDR community, and donating money to him on an ongoing basis. Not only does Stefan financially benefit from the above, it puts the other person in a very precarious emotional position having now been persuaded to leave their friends and family and become dependent on the FDR community which is very thought controlled, and which they can and may well be cast out of without warning or even post-banning explanation. So, naturally, emotionally vulnerable people are now prone to toe the FDR community line. (Not to mention what it does to the other persons family. For the record, Im not opposed to deFOO in some cases. I did it myself. But I am opposed to using psychological tricks and lying people into taking that momentous step. In one video, Stefan financially breaks down how a caller will make an estimated $5,000,000 by deFOOing. This is one of the videos he succeeded in having taken down when Tru Shibes excerpted this portion with fair-use commentary). Peter Boghossian, being a philosopher who who is known for opposing censorship including of critics, and who also opposes religious movements (and FDR, while nominally atheists, shares a lot in common with religious movements in its methods), I would have thought that he would feel an obligation to say something about this after he had a recent hour-long conversation with Stefan about not censoring. I assume Peter believed Stefan was sincere during this conversation, but now has to strongly suspect otherwise if Peter is maintaining objectivity. Yes, I understand Stefan is his friend. But better the truth than a friend, right, Peter? Further, he opposes religion for a lot of reasons including how it can take control of peoples minds. Well, FDR. youtu.be/kdS9QFaXRQ4
Posted on: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 00:57:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015