Freedomain Radio

As you may know, I was interviewed by Tu Thanh Ha from the Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail on November 20, and the story has just come out. 

It is full of the usual exaggerated nonsense, claiming that I "encourage people to cut contact with their parents" and so on, and referring to me as a "pied piper" who lures impressionable young men and women away from happy families and so on... And in trying to work out the FDR income, he assumes that no one who subscribes ever cancels, which is of course not the case.

On the plus side, at least he mentions my relevant education, which is a step forward for the mainstream media, and also that only about 20 adult children have left families, out of tens of thousands of listeners. The reporter also links to Liberating Minds, which is... interesting. I have added a link to the Liberating Minds quotes page to the top of the Freedomain Radio homepage.

If you are interested, as an exercise in understanding media bias, it is worthwhile I think to listen to the actual interview I had with Mr. Ha, and then read the article ( or the other way round, if you prefer  ).

This is the original interview:

FDR1231

This is the article:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081212.wgtfreedomain13/BNStory/Technology/home

Yes, it's progress, having a lot more of the facts, but glosses over the most important aspect.

Stef, you have a volutaristic philosophy offered on a voluntary basis that has theories about politics, economics, and relationships. I'm halfway through the recording at a theme emerges to the article. This a man on the internet who claims to engage in voluntary interactions, but he has these vocal critics who were in some way or suffered disconfort because of his dessiminations of voluntaristic philosphy, therefore the only way he could be successful is by preying on the week. Sounds very similar to: This a successful businessman, however he has vocal critics who have lost proftits because of his innovations, marketing, and expansion, therefore the only way he could have suceeded was by exploiting his employees, costumers and engaging in unfair trade practices.

 Of course a supposedly neutral reporter cannot make these claims outright, but refers to critics with exacting detail, but is far less concrete in terms of who has benefited from these interactions.

with all this media attention shouldn't you go on a book tour of the UK or something

I am not surprised at the slant of the story, my first reaction was to think of any other angle they could have tackled the story that would sell in a mainstream newspaper... and yeah family destroying internet phenomenom is the only one that I could come up with.

From the article

"His critics say he is a meddler with an inflated sense of self-worth, a manipulator who aggravated problems and drove vulnerable people away from their kin."

The usual Ad Homs from the usual suspects I surmise...

The journalist had plenty to chew on, given the depth you went to in this interview. But regrettably he has used baseless assertions as the genesis for this article, much like the Guardian...

The 'myth of the family' is strong Luke...

WorBlux:

 Of course a supposedly neutral reporter cannot make these claims outright, but refers to critics with exacting detail, but is far less concrete in terms of who has benefited from these interactions.

Yes he will happily use the ad homs of critics, but never talks to any of the users that have benefited from fdr.. But I guess we are to be considered the gullible ones that are incapable of rational reasoning.. This deliberate avoidance of the views of the listenership allows his critics far more breadth than they deserve imo... But it doesnt surprise me given the degree to which most news outlets will go too, to avoid the truth of the matter and apply the current cultural myth of the day..

Stefan Molyneux-Cyber Homewrecker

As a hellion child he displaced his sick mother across an entire continent to feverishly pursue a higher education with the sadistic intent of fullfilling his aspirations of destroying families while wearing wigs and dresses and smoking pipes.His Lust for financial and spiritual domination of his cowed cult following makes Televangelists look like Girl Scout Cookie sellers.His Breath was not unpleasent.

xelent:

WorBlux:

 Of course a supposedly neutral reporter cannot make these claims outright, but refers to critics with exacting detail, but is far less concrete in terms of who has benefited from these interactions.

Yes he will happily use the ad homs of critics, but never talks to any of the users that have benefited from fdr.. But I guess we are to be considered the gullible ones that are incapable of rational reasoning.. This deliberate avoidance of the views of the listenership allows his critics far more breadth than they deserve imo... But it doesnt surprise me given the degree to which most news outlets will go too, to avoid the truth of the matter and apply the current cultural myth of the day..

Well, how could they possibly be expected to talk to us?!  I mean, we're the mindless followers of Father Stef, right?  We don't have the credibility to speak of the our great leader, unlike those that post hateful diatribes about murdering his laughter and calling each other foul names.  After all, we're just the cultists.

Predictably, he paints the parents as hapless victims, allows them plenty of quote space, and makes Tom and Laura out to be capricious and cruel. Also, predictably, he quotes active LiMi participants at length.

I want to offer Tom and Laura both my sympathies. There are just no words to express the anger, disgust, and horror I feel about what is being done to the people here who have the courage to help themselves, and refuse to accept the imposition of self-sacrifice as a virtue.

I also want to say that I am intensely angry at the way Stef and Freedomain Radio are attacked and mischaracterized.

I can't claim anywhere near the kind of commitment to, or "ownership" of this place, as Stef, of course. But I still cannot help but feel a great deal of love and loyalty for this place, and admiration for the people dedicated to supporting it, and yes - to Stef as well. And, it angers me nearly to the point of tears, to watch the vicious try to destroy someone and something so good.

When Hilpern first showed up here, I reacted with extreme hostility. Though it is true that behavior had some root in an unconscious history of my own, I think given both the Hilpern and the Ha articles, I am now starting to reconsider the contrition I expressed for that hostility, at first.

Why in all the world, would it not be just to feel hostility toward people who do this sort of thing? Why should I not feel disgust and derision for someone who would willingly spread the kind of sickness at LiMi to the rest of the world? How could I not be completely justified in wanting to defend with fang and claw, the people and the things I consider both dear to me, and necessary to the health of the future?

I defy anyone to explainto me now, why I should not hate these people, and what they do.

GregG:

I defy anyone to explainto me now, why I should not hate these people, and what they do.

I'm not sure I can.. Indeed I feel increasingly irritated by the usual crowd of hate mongers that gather everywhere you venture with these thoughts.. Indeed not helped by such one sided arguments from a half arsed press, which will happily ignore its (FDR) listeners and indeed Stefs arguments too..

However the one thing I truly fear about hatred is how it might isolate me from everything.. I have most definately not chosen to live in the woods on shrubs and berries, I very much want to be a part of the world as my life can be seen as a great example for living free, by those that are not.

I think if you can see that really its the hatred of their method and beliefs that are the core to your feelings. This is the same corruption that allows soldiers to kill innocents, but I put it to you that you dont hate all soldiers?

(excuse my crude argument)

It's kind of interesting that he points out Stef's income, 67 PK's x $500 = $33,500, take that number and divide it by 2.5 years and you have $13,400... throw in the extra change for subscribers and lesser donators and you might have $15k or so - that puts Stef at or below the poverty line in some states.

Stef = Diogenes

Diogenes of Sinope was exiled from his native city and moved to Athens, where he is said to have become a disciple of Antisthenes, the former pupil of Socrates. Diogenes, a beggar who made his home in the streets of Athens, made a virtue of extreme poverty. He is said to have lived in a large tub, rather than a house, and to have walked through the streets carrying a lamp in the daytime, claiming to be looking for an honest man. He eventually settled in Corinth where he continued to pursue the Cynic ideal of self-sufficiency: a life which was natural and not dependent upon the luxuries of civilization. Believing that virtue was better revealed in action and not theory, his life was a relentless campaign to debunk the social values and institutions of what he saw as a corrupt society.

GregG:

I defy anyone to explainto me now, why I should not hate these people, and what they do.

Greg I am concerned, while I can empathize and relate to your anger, I cannot say that this was a post that expressed any curiosity about your feelings or ours, but rather the opposite.

Quite right. I was going to delete it, but it's already been responded to.

My apologies to all.

GregG:

Why in all the world, would it not be just to feel hostility toward people who do this sort of thing? Why should I not feel disgust and derision for someone who would willingly spread the kind of sickness at LiMi to the rest of the world? How could I not be completely justified in wanting to defend with fang and claw, the people and the things I consider both dear to me, and necessary to the health of the future?

I defy anyone to explainto me now, why I should not hate these people, and what they do.

I totally understand, but the truth cannot really be defended, in my opinion, only accurately identified - and those who attack the truth I think are not really worth hating. The desire can be very strong to emotionally engage with such bias (i.e. the Globe and Mail reporter did not contact a single person who has benefited from or appreciates Freedomain Radio, and did not mention the fact that his only sources were either people banned for being abusive, or parents who were so abusive that their adult children fled) - but I do not think that it is a very productive use of time.

I don't think that we can "defend" philosophy, or first principles, or empirical rationality, or the consistent application of the nonaggression principle to all circumstances, even the family. All we can do is rigorously and consistently identify and enact the most valuable and universal moral principles, and forge ahead to discover new lands, which is where the greatest joys are, in my opinion, in exploration and definition.

People who use such silly ad hominem attacks are doing their very best I think to tempt us to circle back and cease our exploration and curiosity, and fight with them over shadows, rather than discovering and shedding new light.

Stefan Molyneux:

GregG:

Why in all the world, would it not be just to feel hostility toward people who do this sort of thing? Why should I not feel disgust and derision for someone who would willingly spread the kind of sickness at LiMi to the rest of the world? How could I not be completely justified in wanting to defend with fang and claw, the people and the things I consider both dear to me, and necessary to the health of the future?

I defy anyone to explainto me now, why I should not hate these people, and what they do.

I totally understand, but the truth cannot really be defended, in my opinion, only accurately identified - and those who attack the truth I think are not really worth hating. The desire can be very strong to emotionally engage with such bias (i.e. the Globe and Mail reporter did not contact a single person who has benefited from or appreciates Freedomain Radio, and did not mention the fact that his only sources were either people banned for being abusive, or parents who were so abusive that their adult children fled) - but I do not think that it is a very productive use of time.

I don't think that we can "defend" philosophy, or first principles, or empirical rationality, or the consistent application of the nonaggression principle to all circumstances, even the family. All we can do is rigorously and consistently identify and enact the most valuable and universal moral principles, and forge ahead to discover new lands, which is where the greatest joys are, in my opinion, in exploration and definition.

People who use such silly ad hominem attacks are doing their very best I think to tempt us to circle back and cease our exploration and curiosity, and fight with them over shadows, rather than discovering and shedding new light.

Thank you for this, Stef.  This was extremely helpful regarding my own feelings I had when I read the article last night...

It's not even a particularly well-written hit-piece. It feels, to read, like I'm being jerked along on a string.

I don't feel particularly... angry. Just... a bit disgusted. As though I had accidentally touched something slimy.

We should hang a sign up saying "Mind the primeval ooze."