Sharon Presley on authority


George H. Smith

Recommended Posts

Patience, thank you for this link. I just posted all 3 parts on my Facebook wall. The timing was excellent because I have just been posting about Molyneux and his unsubstantiated comments about psychology. He, for example, claims that almost everyone has been abused and that "everyone" needs therapy. I have a PhD. in social psychology and have taught developmental psych as well for many years (and a bit of abnormal). I can assure you that the research literature says nothing of the kind. I responded to several of his videos on my Wall, including one that claimed that women who have children with abusers are "severely disturbed." I presented evidence against that ridiculous conclusion. I also denounced his view that "good" only = agreeing with the NAP and bad only = disagreeing; thus good = being a libertarian and bad = not being a libertarian. He uses this simplistic sophistry to try to convince his followers to drop all their friends who don't want to become libertarians. After all they are "bad" people. I may not be a philosopher but I have taught critical thinking and I know a false dichotomy when I see one. That's just another example of his cult talk. He sounds like a Scientologist.

If you are on FB, please send me a private message. I've already had to block one person who was over the top and I'm being very cautious. I am currently not accepting friend invites from people who are FB friends with Molyneux--just in case. But hey, so far only one person has defriended me. I'll just have to try harder. ;)

Molyneux also sent me an invitation to be on his show. I declined, saying I was only willing to talk to him on neutral ground. I'm not stupid. When dealing with an opponent, you don't willingly give them the "home court advantage." I said I might be willing to engage him at Libertopia in the fall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patience,

Welcome to OL and thank you for posting that. I hope you find value here.

Sharon,

I long for the day when the phrase, "with malice towards none," becomes an essential moral tenet of libertarianism and Objectivism, rather than the current "with constant moral bashing of a scapegoat" (this last being my phrasing, of course :) ).

I have found--both in theory and practice--that it is possible to be morally clear about disapproval without making a religion out of it or wallowing in hatred.

A good example is what you are doing.

I don't sense you have one iota of malice towards Molyneux, but instead, I believe if he would stop the mind-control BS, especially on young folks, you wouldn't give him another thought (other than comments about the mess he would have left behind).

On the other hand, this dude holds plenty of malice in his heart and he teaches it.

You're one of the good guys.

Shine on...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here I thought that patience was a virtue!

Who knew!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One person in the thread spells it out, thanks for this. Sometimes I feel very lonely.

Because I don't trust any single one of you that "empathy" is going to stop your participation in.a mob on a killing frenzy once irrational ideas are taking over.

Bingo! Sort of, but pretty damn good, regardless

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit I pulled this article from the Wikipedia entry on Simon Baron-Cohen, so I haven't dug too far into your insinuation about Americans liking Evil more than Empathy. The USA is the most charitable nation on earth, so I kinda doubt the insinuation.

Title-wise, if there is a marketing study to back up the title change, which there probably is, I imagine Americans spend more on nonfiction books with drama in the title than lack thereof. Empathy does not bring drama to mind. Evil does.

Michael

Even so, things dystopic are more "interesting" than things eutopic.

How long do you think a newspaper or magazine that published only Good News would last?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if Baron-Cohen deals with the true psychopaths (the term that clinical forensic psychologists prefer) because, as the article points out, they basically cannot be rehabilitated. Now if we are talking about ordinary folks, sure, there are ways to increase empathy. Developmental psychologists talk a lot about this--the authoritative method of childrearing that I mentioned above is one--when a child is small, you can teach them about empathy--for example, "Suzy, it's not nice to hit your little brother. Remember how much it hurt when your older brother hit you?" Explanation and teaching, modeling by example--all good ways. But lots of parents don't do that.

Simon Baron-Cohen's main claim to fame is is work on Asperger's Syndrome and Autism. He has nailed these two conditions right and proper. I never fully understood what I was until I read some of S; B-C's stuff and used his diagnostic questionnaire.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if Baron-Cohen deals with the true psychopaths (the term that clinical forensic psychologists prefer) because, as the article points out, they basically cannot be rehabilitated. Now if we are talking about ordinary folks, sure, there are ways to increase empathy. Developmental psychologists talk a lot about this--the authoritative method of childrearing that I mentioned above is one--when a child is small, you can teach them about empathy--for example, "Suzy, it's not nice to hit your little brother. Remember how much it hurt when your older brother hit you?" Explanation and teaching, modeling by example--all good ways. But lots of parents don't do that.

I don't get it.

How is empathy making any difference to Suzy? I can feel myself into almost anybody, that has nothing to do with being nice to them or not. Surely Suzy's empathy will only lead to a stop on hitting her brother unless she also sympathizes with him.

To put it in extremes: The better sadist is the one with empathy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if Baron-Cohen deals with the true psychopaths (the term that clinical forensic psychologists prefer) because, as the article points out, they basically cannot be rehabilitated. Now if we are talking about ordinary folks, sure, there are ways to increase empathy. Developmental psychologists talk a lot about this--the authoritative method of childrearing that I mentioned above is one--when a child is small, you can teach them about empathy--for example, "Suzy, it's not nice to hit your little brother. Remember how much it hurt when your older brother hit you?" Explanation and teaching, modeling by example--all good ways. But lots of parents don't do that.

How is empathy making any difference to Suzy? I can feel myself into almost anybody, that has nothing to do with being nice to them or not. Surely Suzy's empathy will only lead to a stop on hitting her brother unless she also sympathizes with him.

To put it in extremes: The better sadist is the one with empathy.

We have here a problem with terminology and assumptions. You are assuming that empathy and sympathy are unrelated. In fact developmental psychologists assert that understanding the emotions of others (empathy) leads to sympathy (caring about others) and the research is on their side. Normal children do learn to sympathize when they are taught to empathize. Very young children are "egocentric," that is, they literally see things only from their literal perspective. Once the parents have them focus on the fact that other children feel the same pain as they do, then the normal tendency in normal children is to also feel sympathy. They are in fact being taught to sympathize. The research is also very clear on the fact that on average those who are not to empathize will be less likely to care what happens to other people. They are more likely to be socially inept and/or bullies.

The fact that an abnormal person can to some limited extent also understand what others are feeling (pain) and likes it and doesn't sympathize in no way speaks against what I have just said. Sadists and psychopaths are broken people. Their actions do not speak to the situation of normal people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simon Baron-Cohen's main claim to fame is is work on Asperger's Syndrome and Autism. He has nailed these two conditions right and proper. I never fully understood what I was until I read some of S; B-C's stuff and used his diagnostic questionnaire.

Ba'al Chatzaf

But just because he may be good on Autism doesn't mean that he is correct about empathy. I've seen him report some very sloppy research on gender, for example, that has been shot down by other researchers.

I can't help but wonder if he just wants to make a name for himself by saying something shocking or different. He won't be the first

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have here a problem with terminology and assumptions. You are assuming that empathy and sympathy are unrelated. In fact developmental psychologists assert that understanding the emotions of others (empathy) leads to sympathy (caring about others) and the research is on their side. Normal children do learn to sympathize when they are taught to empathize. Very young children are "egocentric," that is, they literally see things only from their literal perspective. Once the parents have them focus on the fact that other children feel the same pain as they do, then the normal tendency in normal children is to also feel sympathy. They are in fact being taught to sympathize. The research is also very clear on the fact that on average those who are not to empathize will be less likely to care what happens to other people. They are more likely to be socially inept and/or bullies.

The fact that an abnormal person can to some limited extent also understand what others are feeling (pain) and likes it and doesn't sympathize in no way speaks against what I have just said. Sadists and psychopaths are broken people. Their actions do not speak to the situation of normal people.

Since this forum deals with Objectivism, may I ask how you would assess Howard Roark's psychological health in the light of

  1. His inability to empathize with most of his peers and
  2. his (apparent?) ability to empathize with Dominique and
  3. his sadism towards Dominique?

Also, would you confirm that you assume the normal to be the good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have here a problem with terminology and assumptions. You are assuming that empathy and sympathy are unrelated.

Sharon,

You might be amused at the following.

A famous direct response marketer, Ales Mandossian, has an example that is constantly repeated in the Internet marketing world about empathy and sympathy. Here is a direct quote from an available PDF paper (which is probably just a transcription of him speaking): The Psychology of Web Traffic Conversion.

You know the difference between empathy and sympathy, right?

Not to be crude, but sympathy is putting your arm around a good friend who’s vomiting off the side of a boat because he is seasick.

That’s sympathy.

It doesn’t do me the least bit of good when I’m vomiting.

Empathy is putting your arm around that person and vomiting with him.

In a rather graphic way, he makes the point that we want customers to empathize with our products, not feel sorry for us.

:smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put it in extremes: The better sadist is the one with empathy.

Good retort, with an element of truth to it.

Another, worth a thought, is: empathy is for those lacking in morality. :)

I think we have to be clear on what empathy is, since I made that error arguing it with Xray.

"The power of projecting one's personality into (and so fully comprehending) the object of contemplation."

Note "object."

So far, wonderful. Morally neutral, efficacious, and in fact, completely in one's own self-interest to achieve.

Ms Presley supplies the connotative aspect in which it is (I think) misused : "empathy leads to sympathy".

Personally, I think to complete the chain of causality, we should state "empathy leads to sympathy, leads to compassion."

That's what Baron-Cohen, and most people, mean by "empathy" isn't it?

Empathy (by definition) alone, without its baggage, is terrifically useful in understanding others, or "objects.". But the advocacy of compassion (alone) raises questions : if they preach compassion, they must want something from me ; could they lack it themselves? what presumption, that they believe I don't have any! But mostly - what can I DO with compassion? I may feel it for the whole world, or help every struggling human and animal I come across, but its effect overall is minimal. Is the impractical also not the immoral?

Frankly, I believe that you've either got empathy/compassion, or you don't. Seems to me, it's a baseline human response that can't be taught.

It is right and proper to sense it - and act on it sometimes. Usually, in the interim period, before you know pertinent facts about a person, and situation, objectively.

It is never a moral demand and expectation of one.

There is not the least contradiction between rational morality and our humanist instincts.

And I'm mighty suspicious of people like B-C, pushing "empathy"..

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony,

In my limited understanding, mirror neurons (or, maybe, normal neurons that develop mirror capacity) are directly involved in empathy. I believe this is both innate and developed by experience (i.e. able to be taught).

I disagree with you about compassion on a biological level (I hold it can be taught, as I am learning from living with a child who needs this teaching), but I agree that the bad guys preach it because they have a hidden agenda.

I don't have any proof or science yet to qualify what I am going to say here. This is a working idea I have arrived at after a lot of reading and mulling it over. I hold there is a group of emotions that deal with species survival inside of all mentally healthy human beings. I hold the greater part of our emotions go to individual concerns and the lesser to species (about 80-20 or 70-30 for a rough guess), but both are there. While compassion may not serve personal values qua individual, it serves species values quite well.

Some people try to justify compassion in selfish or selfless terms. For example, the selfish argument is a kind of trade--you give compassion to strangers so you can get it from a stranger when you might need it. That makes it a selfish value. But I find that argument secondary. The selfless argument needs no example to be clear (read any sacred text if you need one), but I find it secondary, too.

To me, compassion derives directly from human nature on the species side. In Objectivist terms, it is a fact of reality, a kind of fact that Rand called "the given," albeit I doubt she would ever have called compassion itself "the given" since she was fuzzy and suspicious about the prewired--nonvolitional--stuff in the brain, calling most of it "whim."

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put it in extremes: The better sadist is the one with empathy.

Good retort, with an element of truth to it.

Another, worth a thought, is: empathy is for those lacking in morality. :smile:

Errr... do you mean that in a good sense? As in: if you don't know what's good for you at least you don't hurt anyone because empathy leads to compassion?

If so, I would have thought we agree that it won't work as that is precicely what the do-gooder is about. And those are the worst.

I know you were joking in some way, but I don't know exactly in which. :smile:

Ms Presley supplies the connotative aspect in which it is (I think) misused : "empathy leads to sympathy".

Of all premises I consider irrational, I fear and reject this one the most.

The main problem is it's reverse application: non-sympathy must imply non-empathy. It's a cornerstone of the cliche belief that a majority holds about the rich/powerful/arrogant: That they don't share/yield/humiliate themselves because they are flawed, rather than because they have actually very good reasons not to sympathize with the majority of people.

Without that premise, Communism would have been impossible. Large parts of leftism rest on that pillar alone.

Frankly, I believe that you've either got empathy/compassion, or you don't. Seems to me, it's a baseline human response that can't be taught.

It is right and proper to sense it - and act on it sometimes. Usually, in the interim period, before you know pertinent facts about a person, and situation, objectively.

It is never a moral demand and expectation of one.

There is not the least contradiction between rational morality and our humanist instincts.

Couldn't agree more.

And I'm mighty suspicious of people like B-C, pushing "empathy"..

I still didn't find the link to the article by B-C suggesting that, can you help me out here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of all premises I consider irrational, I fear and reject this one the most. The main problem is it's reverse application: non-sympathy must imply non-empathy. It's a cornerstone of the cliche belief that a majority holds about the rich/powerful/arrogant: That they don't share/yield/humiliate themselves because they are flawed, rather than because they have actually very good reasons not to sympathize with the majority of people. Without that premise, Communism would have been impossible. Large parts of leftism rest on that pillar alone.

Agreed, it is those who live by compassion alone ( a sub-set of altruism) who deserve a lower rung in hell.

In effect they need victims to feed off, so seek them out , or worse, create them by ideology and force.

Another kind are the passive ones, in needing others' constant compassion.

I have no doubt that there are many who'd be horrified by this - who are really not as extreme as my portrayal - who sincerely believe that they are 'doing good'. Compassion feels good, after all. 'Built-in' by Mother Nature. Additionally, who of us would refuse someone in trouble or pain?

But there's a superiority aspect to such people professing compassion that emanates as sanctimony, which is distasteful as well.

To think that this is morality to most people! And that the "immoral" egoist is seen to not have empathy/compassion: the biggest lie.

Rational morality includes it but much, much, more, besides - as you are aware.

(For the link you ask for, sorry I'm useless at finding links.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys:

Here are some links...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/audio/2011/may/05/science-weekly-podcast-simon-baron-cohen

This is an audio interview of Baron-Cohen - Zero Degrees of Empathy: A New Theory of Human Cruelty.

Here is an NPR transcript with audio on the subject - http://www.npr.org/2011/09/30/140954023/could-a-lack-of-empathy-explain-cruelty

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys:

Here are some links...

http://www.guardian....mon-baron-cohen

This is an audio interview of Baron-Cohen - Zero Degrees of Empathy: A New Theory of Human Cruelty.

Here is an NPR transcript with audio on the subject - http://www.npr.org/2...explain-cruelty

Adam

All I've ever understood about "human cruelty" is shoot that son-of-a-bitch!

So I did.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can feel myself into almost anybody, that has nothing to do with being nice to them or not.

I think it is important to differentiate intuition from empathy. Being able to realize what makes others tick, to guess their thoughts: this is intuition. Intuition need not necessarily lead to empathy. For example, con artists are often highly intuitive (which is why they know exactly how to manipulate others), but they are unempathetic because they don't care about the damage and hardships they inflict on their victims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can feel myself into almost anybody, that has nothing to do with being nice to them or not.

I think it is important to differentiate intuition from empathy. Being able to realize what makes others tick, to guess their thoughts: this is intuition. Intuition need not necessarily lead to empathy. For example, con artists are often highly intuitive (which is why they know exactly how to manipulate others), but they are unempathetic because they don't care the damage and hardships they inflict on their victims.

dictionary john-xray xray-john

john............xray

____________________________

empathy.........intuition

sympathy........empathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no doubt that there are many who'd be horrified by this - who are really not as extreme as my portrayal - who sincerely believe that they are 'doing good'. Compassion feels good, after all. 'Built-in' by Mother Nature. Additionally, who of us would refuse someone in trouble or pain?

But there's a superiority aspect to such people professing compassion that emanates as sanctimony, which is distasteful as well.

I think a lot start out innocently and become evil on their way, like Catherine Halsey in the Fountainhead:

"But that's not all, there's something much worse. It's doing something horrible to me. I'm beginning to hate people, Uncle Elsworth. I'm beginning to be cruel and mean and petty in a way I've never been before. I expect people to be grateful to me. I . . . I demand gratitude."

That's the problem. People set out to do good on an irrational premise with the best intentions - but they will not be thanked for it. They can't be thanked, all they do is to render themselves worthless. When they slowly begin to realize this it leads to evasion and resentment.

In the Fountainhead, our the dialog goes on:

"Is it vicious to want to do right?"
"Yes, if it's your chief concern. Don't you see how egotistical it is? To hell with everybody so long as I'm virtuous."
"But if you have no . . . no self-respect, how can you be anything?"
"Why must you be anything?"

That is the choice they have. If you already wasted half your life it might seem impossible, so some chose to be nothing.

[EDIT: Thanks for the link, Alan.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi folks....

This conversation may have moved on, so please forgive me if I'm providing useless information. (I do that a lot.) I got several hits from this forum so I checked in to see what the subject was. You clearly have Molyneux figured out, so there's nothing much I can add except the following trivia. This is from the you-can't-tell-the-players-without-a-scorecard dept.:

That particular blog (MolyneuxRevealed) has a sad story behind it. The owner is a parent, an Ayn Rand fan (who may or may not actually be an objectivist as well; I'm not sure). He was intrigued by Molyneux's early podcasts and--having already introduced his son to Rand--also shared the podcasts with him. Molyneux pretended to be delighted to have father-and-son as fans. He even made a podcast with both of them to prove he was not anti-parent. After the podcast, Molyneux convinced the son to defoo. The son hasn't spoken to a family member for several years.

FDR Liberated...You have to bop around this site a bit to uncover stuff, but there is a "Read Me First" section that helps. I have only skimmed a few things (very superficially), but it appears to be a blog from one of the de-fellowshipped, or de-frocked, or shunned, or excommunicated or whatever term the Freedom Domain Radio organization calls giving a member the boot.

That's me. However, I have never been a member of FDR in any way nor have I ever had contact with Molyneux. Long story short, I started the blog more-or-less by accident. I had no intention of it becoming what it is today. However, it now serves a purpose of helping parents understand what happened to their children as well as encouraging Molyneux's followers to question what they're being told at FDR. It can be very hard to explain what is going on at Molyneux's site, especially if you have to explain libertarianism, anarchocapitalism, et.al., at the same time. For whatever it's worth, one can now simply send interested parties the appropriate links to an article on FDR Liberated. (Yes, I am biased, but I am up front about that and take great pains to ensure my quotes are accurate.)

My main tool is to take what Molyneux and his wife say and do and put it in black-and-white for all to see and evaluate for themselves. I rarely need to do anything more than that.

From bopping around, I found out something else. It appears that the site owner also operates a forum for ex-FDR people. (Fer Keriiiiiiiist sake, couldn't these Molyneux people come up with a better acronym? I feel weird and New Dealish just from typing "FDR"...)

Here's the forum: Liberating Minds :: Welcome :: Welcome to new users

From that page:

... about half of the initial board members including me the administrator used to be or still are members of the FreeDomainRadio Board. Needless to say that we have learnt an awful lot from FDR in general and Stefan Molyneux in particular, but we have become dissatisfied and uncomfortable with the philosophical and psychological direction FDR and Stef are going in, or feel the need for more focused discussions than are possible on the FDR Board (or simply were banned from that board).

I neither operate nor administer that forum in any way. It is operated by a very knowledgeable and kind fellow in Amsterdam who writes under the name Conrad. The quote above made me feel a little nostalgic. It was probably written around 2007 (about a year before I found the forum). At that point in time, Molyneux had decided to operate FreeDomain Radio as his main source of income. He became far less lenient with people who disagreed with him (because his donations depended on having a forum where everyone praised him). Many former members were expelled. They gravitated to Conrad's site for a while and then went their separate ways. Since then, the forum has often been a first stop for people who leave FDR--either through expulsion or of their own accord.

However, since ex-Molyneux fans only want to talk about him for so long, the site very often slows to a crawl.

Molyneux refers to Liberating Minds as a "hate site" and forbids his members to read that forum. In fact, for a while, if you were an FDR member who posted on Liberating Minds you would be expelled and have your IP blocked. In fact, if you even clicked on a link to FDR from Liberating Minds, you ran the risk of an IP block. For that reason, many links from Liberating Minds use HideRefer or NullRefer to ensure the reader doesn't suffer a similar fate.

Here is another site I got from the Burke profile page:

Digital Ethnography – Freedomain Radio: Is Stefan Molyneaux's work ethical?

I just bopped around that site a bit and got lost among the Molyneaux critics and lost souls who are confused. There's also An Essay by Stefan Molyneux, which I quote from below. I decided to check this to make sure it was accurate (heh -- that's a habit you don't see online too much smile.gif ) and, after some digging, found the original. It seems pretty accurate. Here is the original (written in 2005) from Molyneaux's blog: Are People Just Stupid?

That site is confused because--as best I can tell--it was produced by a couple of college kids (I'm going to guess their names are Stiffler and Kehoe from the URL) for some class project. They cut and pasted a bunch of stuff into WordPress, wrote an article that appears to be germane to the class they were taking and then took off for spring break. It's very sloppy and probably produced in between viewing videos from "Girls Gone Wild in Fort Lauderdale."

I'm a little ticked off that they confused me with cult expert Rick Ross. I have no desire to annoy him--he's a very credible expert and I'm just some guy with a blog. However, repeated requests to the site owners to clean up their site have gone unanswered.

However, the essay you mention (which they cut and pasted from my site) is quite important. I have three articles on my site that I call "The Foundation Series." The first is about that essay, which I believe to be the foundation of FDR. In short, the essay states that people haven't become anarchocapitalists because they were abused by their parents. The "abuse" is parenting without a rational sense of ethics, relying instead on one's belief in the state or religion. Hence, nearly all parents are abusers. (I am not making this up.):

The Foundation of FDR (and yes, I do link to Molyneux's entire essay from this post)

The second article demonstrates that FDR is far more than a Web site; it is a tool specifically designed by Molyneux and his wife to pry adolescents at the point of individuation away from their "evil" families. Few people who inhabit FDR question why nearly all of them just happen to be in their very late teens to mid-twenties:

Prying them Loose

The third article is an introduction to the psychologizing that goes on at FreeDomain Radio, specifically how the works of Alice Miller (a not-very-well-known psychologist within the academic community) are used to convince FDR members that they are abused.

The Rape of Alice Miller

Of course, that just scratches the surface. Inhabit FDR long enough and you'll come to believe that Molyneux himself is the true star in the psychology universe. (Although recently they have become very taken with this guy.) And the tools to convince you that you were abused and really should defoo run very, very deep.

And there you have it. Again, I sincerely apologize if this is TMI.

Best,

Q.E.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To QuestEon: (EDIT: deleted "and Molyneux-detractors" to stress that I'm curious about QuestEons opinion in particular)

I just re-read An Essay by Stefan Molyneux, the last time I read that was some time ago.

I'm wondering where Molyneux-atagonism comes from: His demeanor (about which I know next to nothing first-handed) or his opinion about the sick nature of modern family realationships.

If it's the former, it might help to make it more clear what the criticism really is. If Molyneux is simply a domineering bully, it would be beneficial to separate this accusation from his message.

If it's the latter, I largely agree with Molyneux (on the family issues, not on his libertarianism). I don't have a very strong opinion on Molyneux personally and even less on his community - but the contents of this article strike me as a very likely description of how parent-offspring relationships very often are.

In particular, children are told that they should keep relationship with their parents for reasons other than their personal benefit: It is considered normal/moral/decent. I don't think I'm the only one who wasted quite a large amount of time and energy in relationships that I really, really, wanted to get out of since I was very little and did not nearly as early as I could have - for little reason other than allegiance to a moral imperative of questionable character.

But whether it's the former or the latter (reason of antagonism) is usually obfuscated by his detractors. In the link above a video of Aaron, another YouTuber, is given as an example of an ex-follower who now speaks out against Molyneux. This is rather misleading.

He's not speaking out against those ideas but only against the "culty" climate at FDR. The video is linked under a criticized article of Molyneux, as if Aaron now had a different opinion about that topic. I've seen most of Aaron's videos, and as far as I can see his criticism was largely confined to Molyneux' debating style and dominant demeanor. Ironically, Aaron is currently (I believe) employing another YouTuber, XOmniverse, who broke off contact with his parents - he made a video justifying this. XOmni was not a "follower" of Molyneux to my knowledge, befriended Aaron on YouTube and moved to California to work in his pest control company. Those two are not in opposition to the article as far as I'm aware.

If the accusation against Molyneux is one of being a cult leader, I would like to hear how one can attract adolescents into a cult without something being seriously sick about the family relationships beforehand - or is the premise that even healthy adolescents are incapable of judging for themselves?

If the accusation against the man is one of being an asshole, I can well believe this to be true. Most functional people are.

If the accusation against the man is one of holding wrong opinions, I would like to see that separated more cleanly from the ad-hominem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now