All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 4, 2023 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
55:09
TEMPTATION!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, so Burning Man's a little crazy at the moment.
Yeah, it's funny. After all, there are demonic rituals and massive drug and orgies and living in a tent.
They got a day or two of rain, and they're currently mostly underwater.
There's like 60,000 people who can't get out because their wheels, the truck wheels or car wheels, can't get any purchase in the mud, and they're currently stuck there learning about objective reality.
Now, Burning Man is like a Woodstock drug in Sex Fest.
Hedonism turning to crap.
Did you ever go to Burning Man?
Okay. I want to ask you guys, just in general, what do you think the odds are?
What percentage odds would you put that I'd ever gone to Burning Man?
What odds would you put that I'd ever gone to Burning Man?
1%, 0, minus 100.
What pre-philosophy?
I was 15 when I got into philosophy.
What, what, what?
There is no pre-philosophy.
Pre-philosophy was puberty.
Pre-philosophy was playing Ultima 3.
You got your Tilly hat.
It's good. Yeah. Listen.
I mean, how mature do we want to be first thing of the day today?
Oh, it's a tough question.
I basically just have a thing I spin by my desk, like, level of maturity for the day.
But I'm open to feedback on this, you know, how mature, how mature should I be?
Because nature's healing itself out there at Burning Man, just like it did, I guess, at the Travis Scott concert.
Let's give her a spin.
58% maturity.
Okay, what percentage? No, I'll take minus.
Minus 10 to plus 10.
What level of maturity should we start with?
Minus 10 to plus 10. I'm your play thing.
10. Oh, you want maturity?
That's fine. It's a Sunday morning.
Take me to church.
Minus 10. Oh, good.
So we've got a spread. We've got a D20 spread.
I'll be doing a review of Baldur's Gate later today.
My daughter and I played a little bit.
7.25. Just be brutal.
But that's not on the maturity thing.
So you've got to stay in the lane, man.
You've got to stay in the lane.
So, yeah, the Burning Man thing...
I assume that Burning Man...
It's mostly full of wildly pretentious hippie wannabes who are getting a lesson in reality.
They're getting a lesson in objective reality.
Something you can't drug away.
Something you can't sex away.
Something you can't spend away.
Something where it's man versus nature rather than man versus his own drugs, sex, money-fueled delusions.
So there's kind of like a thing about Burning Man that there's sort of two Poles who are out there, just two Polish people, that's all I'm saying, right?
And so there's like the super rich who are out there for like, you know, micro dosing creativity, and then there's just a bunch of hippies and so on, right?
But I think, what is the price to get in?
Do I remember? It's like a thousand bucks to get in, but after that stuff's free.
Do I have that? Do I have that right?
Yeah. You saw a person already died at Burning Man, but aren't there a thousand plus kids still missing in Maui?
Wasn't a huge STD outbreak last year yet.
I've heard Ebola references.
Probably not true there, right? Mostly true, but there are some creative engineer types making very cool stuff.
Well, let me ask you this.
Let me ask you this.
Would you date someone if they said they had just come back from Burning Man?
Because you know what? Burning Man refers to your urethra.
Pissing fish hooks, right?
Would you date someone who just came back with that vaguely sticky handshake and walking kind of funny because of ass-cheek chafing?
Would you date someone who just came back from Burning Man and Burning Woman?
I'm afraid my daughter's Valley Girl accent has just completely infected my brain at this point in life.
But why wouldn't you date someone who just came back from Burning Man?
Because, you know, one of the things that happened in the 60s was people got so fried out on drugs that the intellectual leaders became insane.
You know, skanky?
Demonic? Like, tenting...
In the mud. I guess the closest thing I ever went to was there was some concert.
Was it for SARS or something like that?
There was some concert in Toronto, which a friend of mine who was a big rock and roll fan wanted to go.
And it was quite a lineup.
I mean, there was the Rolling Stones.
There was the Guess Who.
There was ACDC. Again, it was a whole big festival thing.
Now, the reason that I went was...
I mean, I like concerts, sure, fine.
But the reason that I went also was because I was writing a scene about a mass gathering in Germany in the 1930s for my novel, Almost.
And I wanted to get a sense of the smells, the flavor, and so on.
And I also knew that the Wanderwoke...
There was a hippie movement in the 1930s in Germany that basically shared all the characteristics of the hippie movement in the 1960s in...
America, with the outcome being far right in Germany and far left in America, but I wanted to go and get the vivid sense, flavorous sense, and get a sense of the people, and it's so much easier to just write what you've seen rather than create from scratch.
It's the epicenter of moral relativism.
Yeah. I mean, it would be horrible, I would assume.
It would be... I mean, the concert was fine.
We didn't stay overnight, of course, but I do remember it was like an hour to go to the bathroom.
It was an hour to go to the bathroom.
It was just horrible. Oh my gosh, I remember being...
I used to go on sales calls with one of my salespeople who looked like a slightly shorter, slightly chunkier Michael Douglas...
And he had what he referred to as a microbladder.
And we at one point had to go to such a small area that it was a tiny plane with no bathroom and it was like a two-hour flight and he had a big coffee before he got on board and I just remember like, is he going to have to pee in his cup?
Crazy. You know, it's the kind of thing where if you've ever been in a situation where you just can't go to the bathroom, it's really nice.
Like if you've ever been, like when you just appreciate it all the more because it's kind of a regular thing.
Like when I worked up north, we'd have these giant breakfasts.
Like we'd just cook up everything.
Bacon, eggs, sausages, toast and all of that.
We'd have these giant breakfasts because then we'd be out working physical labor all day in the cold and all of that.
So we'd have these giant breakfasts and then we'd have to wait for our 10 or 15 minutes to all go to the bathroom.
And going to the bathroom, we didn't even have an outhouse.
Because there's no point building an outhouse when you're only camping there for a month or two.
And so we basically just created a seating stick, a seating log, like a horizontal seating log.
You'd do your business in the morning and then just get on with your day.
But yeah, it was quite primitive.
Quite primitive. Somebody says, I've visited many European versions of Birdie Man just to see which people are there to avoid them later.
My youngest brother went to one here in Australia.
Couldn't pay me enough.
Like, honestly, couldn't pay me enough to go.
I just think it's all the kind of people that you'd never want to meet or have anything to do with in life as a whole.
Because they would be, I mean...
I assume fairly horrible.
You can't ever productively spend time with people who want to flee reality.
You can't ever productively spend time with people who want to flee reality, so why would I want to have anything to do with that?
And the fact that they're suffering because of their own hedonism?
I mean, all it's done is it's accelerated it, right?
Hedonism leads to disaster because it's living like an animal with the brain of a human.
You're living like a mammal with the brain and soul of an angel and that just tears you apart.
So I just can't imagine.
I mean, that just will never go out a good thing, right?
Camping in the mud and heat in a field with strangers is terrible.
Did it once at a festival in my 20s, says Dave, in the early 2000s.
Absolutely unbearable, overflowing, Porter Johns.
Okay, how long has it been since you roughed it, right?
I'm just curious. I mean, do we have camping enthusiasts here?
How long has it been since you've roughed it out there in the wild?
What do you got? For me, gosh, I'm trying to think.
The last time you slept, last time I slept under the stars.
Gosh, it's probably been 35 years.
Never. Five years.
Seven years. A month ago, 45 years.
Ten years. Fifteen plus years.
Yeah, yeah. Last summer.
Not long. Yeah, I used to spend summers at a camp, like a summer camp.
It was heavily subsidized and all of that.
I spent... I mean, you'd go up there for two weeks and I would sometimes be up there for a month or six weeks.
I remember as a young, attractive lad, I was used in the commercials for how much fun the camp was.
And... We would occasionally go out and do like winter like stuff at night and it's just like your mosquitoes in the tent and it's kind of sweaty, kind of horrible.
You always seem to have a tree stump attempting to do Royal Navy 17th century sodomy with your butt and all that.
It's just like I like to go camping with friends but that's what you do in a small northern Ontario town.
Yeah, no, I can't do it.
I mean, maybe, but I did, of course, when I was younger.
I didn't do much camping-camping, but I certainly did live in the woods in what I call prospector's tents, where it's the big canvas huts and so on, which was okay.
But, all right, let us philosophy.
Let us with the philosophy, my friends.
I'm happy to take your questions.
We're going to go 20 minutes or so, and then we'll go subscriber only.
I will put for you in the link.
The link. I'll put for you in the link.
If you would like to join, it's totally free.
Life in a northern town.
It's a good song. Dream Academy?
It's a one-hit wonder song, I think.
Never Went Roughing It, Cabins.
Yeah. I had a job one summer.
I got a job with a girlfriend of mine and we would spend the summer at a campsite, a hunting campsite, where we took care of the cabins and all of that kind of stuff.
But it was ridiculous.
I ended up working out my hourly labor and it was like a buck an hour.
I'm like, peace out, man.
I quit. It's a long ride, a long boat ride back to the bus station for like an hour and a half on the boat with the guy who was really, really angry and unhappy that my girlfriend and I were quitting.
I actually have to leave for the stream early because I've got to go hiking to a cave for 12.
Very nice. Hey, Steph, do you have any tips about dating Christian women in college?
I know you said that you did that once.
Well, I don't know, really.
I mean, Christianity is a big, broad spectrum.
But I would say that the conversation that I had with the girl that I kind of half dated in my master's degree was around kids.
I don't believe in telling kids conclusions that I can't logically prove.
In fact, I don't like telling kids conclusions at all.
I don't like to say this is true or that is true.
I like to say, here's how I know what is true and here's how I know what is false and let's compare that to your experience and think it through yourself.
My teaching kids how to think, not what to think, is the fundamental task of parenting.
Inflicting your conclusions is inhibiting their individuality, their selfhood, their essential human capacity to reason and to process evidence.
So where we ended up diverging was I said that if we got married and had kids, I would not...
Tell the children that religion was true, but I would teach them how to think.
And if they chose religion when they got older, that would be their choice.
But I wouldn't teach them things that are true.
And it doesn't really matter.
I wouldn't tell my daughter that...
Non-aggression principle is moral.
Non-aggression principle is moral.
Just put two words, jam them together, and think that you've taught something.
Synonyms. NAP equals UPB equals good for you.
And that's not...
This association stuff is really boring.
You know, like I put out this rant that I did on Friday night about the guy who was saying, don't hold on to your resentment and let go and blah, blah, blah, right?
It's just a bunch of words.
If I don't see somebody's reasoning process, if I don't know how they determine what is true and false, if I don't see how somebody determines what is right and wrong, then all they have left is appeal to vanity, appeal to insecurity, appeal to consequences.
Appeal to consequences is bribes and threats.
It's not human. It's animalistic.
It's predatory. It's a sophist trick.
Appeal to consequences is treating me like a naughty puppy.
And I just... I mean, isn't it just a matter of pride?
Like, if somebody tries to bribe you with good consequences or threaten you with bad consequences, I recoil in disgust.
I recoil in disgust.
It's literally like grabbing a cat and a switchblade and saying, agree with me or the kitten gets it!
Like, that's vile.
Like, how absolutely vile to try to manipulate and control me according to...
Animal calculations of benefit and harm.
What a revolting way to treat another human being.
You can't reason with me. You can't encourage me.
You can't help me reach the right conclusions.
You can't teach me a better way to think.
All you do is you say, well, you know, if you don't agree with me, Voodoo curse of regret!
But if you agree with me, serenity, peace of mind, and all these wonderful things will just flow out of your heart like a geyser of...
Fuck off.
It's so claustrophobic.
Yeah, appeal to authority. It's so claustrophobic.
It's so invasive and claustrophobic is like the right word because it's somebody's insistent will that you agree with them but they don't have a single good reason for you to do so.
A single good reason for you to do...
Well, the appeal to authority, I mean...
The appeal to authority is gone, man.
For anybody with half a brain, right?
For anybody with half a brain, the appeal to authority is gone.
Right? We know that, right? Why is the appeal to authority gone?
For anybody, like, even a bit of a brain.
I mean, in New Zealand, the same guy who said he was going to hunt down the unvaccinated, now that New Zealand has a very high death rate, I think the highest in the history, he's like, hey man, you made your own choices, nobody forced you.
God, I can't imagine being that kind of weather vane, you know, not having a spine or...
So, I mean, sorry, I don't know if you missed the question, but because of the institutional collapse in
collapse in institutional confidence, right?
Yeah, I am the science to disagree with science and just the lying, right?
Just the lying. Constant lying, constant gaslighting, constant bullying.
If you cared about your fellow citizens, you'd have paid me.
But that's a snare for false morality, right?
So why did bad things happen to people and why did they do bad things?
Because they had false morality.
They had false morality, and therefore they could be manipulated by false appeals to morality.
Right? By false appeals to morality.
I mean, if...
To me, it's kind of like when the carcass of a sperm whale drops to the bottom of the ocean.
It gathers a lot...
Of scavengers, right?
I mean, I'm sure you've seen these videos of like these whale carcasses or whatever it is at the bottom of the ocean.
And whether it's crabs and little fish and all that kind of stuff.
And when a big, meaty carcass is available...
So when there's a huge amount of moral delusion and moral hypocrisy and moral grandstanding and moral lying to yourself, then people will exploit that.
I mean, it's like a sleeping, beautiful, open neck to a vampire.
Do you think the propaganda has gotten worse since the Spanish flu a century ago?
Well, I mean, like most things in the modern world, the middle is hollowed out and the extremes are all that are left.
So the propaganda has gotten far worse, right?
Obama signed, I think in 2012 or something like that, signed an executive order to allow for propaganda to be targeted against the United States citizenry.
And yeah, military-grade propaganda has been inflicted in the decade-plus since.
But of course, anti-propaganda...
Is also there as well, right?
So there's this thing on social media where this pregnant black woman got shot by police and they're trying to drum up the usual stuff because, you know, moving into the election cycle.
But the community notes are like, well, you know, to be fair, she did try and run over the police officer with her car.
So, you know, maybe he had to...
Trying to find a way to survive that lovely little interaction.
So there's propaganda for sure, but the anti-propaganda is very much available now in a way that it wasn't before.
So you have more choice now.
The propaganda's gotten more extreme, but the opportunity to bypass or find other things than the propaganda...
Like there was an old movie called Conspiracy Theory with...
Oh gosh, who was it?
Julia... The big, big, big tooth woman.
Julia. Julia.
Mel Gibson and I can never remember this woman's last name.
From Pretty Woman.
Julie Roberts. Thank you.
Appreciate it. I guess you never trust anyone with two first names, like George Michael.
Anyway, so, y'all go.
So, in it, there was a guy who had this theory about a conspiracy, quote, conspiracy theory, which, you know, is just a term invented by intelligence agencies to discredit people who point out that People act in coordination to further their interests.
See, birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it, hyenas do it.
They all coordinate to benefit the individuals and the flock and the herd and whatever it is, right?
The lions hunt in a pack, and the birds all fly in unison to avoid predators, and the fish all swim in school.
So apparently all animals have an instinct to act in coordination to benefit their interests, but human beings just don't have that at all.
We've evolved past that.
It's like the tale. You know, we might have a little bit of a stub, but there's nothing there, right?
Human beings don't do that.
Human beings don't ever act in coordination to benefit their own interests.
So, of course... We need to get rid of the crime called conspiracy, right?
In just about every legal system there's a crime called conspiracy, conspiracy to commit crime.
So apparently human beings don't collude to advance their own in-group preferences But there's still a crime called conspiracy.
Anyway, so there's a conspiracy theory movie, and in it, this Mel Gibson's character, who's, you know, boy, he works a lot of dad jokes into that movie, but he's, how does he get his theories about the world across?
Well, he photocopies, he types up a newsletter laboriously by hand, he photocopies it, and he puts it in people's mailbox.
So...
We don't have to do that anymore, right?
All right so
I could give you an example if you like of the threat bribery scenario from this very platform
I could give you that if you would like to see the breakdown, because there was a really good demonic offer At freedomain.locals.com Would you like to see that?
It's really, really devilish.
It tried to appeal to everything that moves me.
This may involve a little bit of a rant, but I won't do it in tough guy voice because I might need to speak.
I might need to speak.
I not need to speak.
Alright. What do we do here?
I will get it for you, guys.
So what people do when they want to control you is they find out what you value and they bribe you with it.
I mean, obviously, if somebody kidnaps your dog and you love your dog, then they'll say, I'll release your dog if you do what I want.
So they'll figure out what you most value and they will try to bribe you with it as if they own it.
And... So, our good friend, it doesn't really matter, and I appreciate the question, and I, you know, I don't hate on the person for trying this.
It's very illustrated, very instructive, so we'll do this, then we'll go to donors.
Just as a reminder, for those who are dropping by, welcome.
We're going to do a donor-only show in a little bit, so you can join me there.
If, of course, you are here and you haven't tipped in a while, I don't like just the tip.
Just give me the whole thing. Ball's deep.
But if you haven't tipped for a while, if you would tip, I would, of course, massively appreciate it.
And I've just taken on another employee.
So, you know, and we'll do great things.
Let me ask you this, because we were just talking about this morning.
I was talking about this with the team. Would you be interested in a show called...
Give me minus ten, revolted, zero, indifferent, plus ten.
Love it. The truth about sin.
The history of sin.
What sin has meant throughout history.
Would you be interested? Absolutely yes.
And it's so funny because the new guy and me thought about it independently over the course of the last two days.
But I would love that.
Why'd you make it sexual?
I appreciate that. Thank you.
Thank you. No, I was talking about basketball.
I don't know what place your mind is at, but, you know, it's a holy day for me, so.
All right. The idea is warming me up to 10.
All right. So, this is the fellow and what he posted, and it is very, very interesting.
I will read the whole thing, and then, because, you know, I mean, we assume that.
All right. Steph, I just have a very important question for you in regards to philosophy and Twitter.
Steph, the relationship you had with Twitter wasn't a personal relationship.
Therefore, the level of abuse you can suffer is arguably not as severe or damaging as a person in your personal life abusing you.
For example, many people are shadow banned on Twitter, and many other creators, such as JFGariapi, were also deplatformed for, quote, platform manipulation.
Not saying what happened to you wasn't bad, but in context, that it wasn't just you who was targeted.
Do you think it does not reduce the standard of moral accountability Twitter has to you personally?
Bunch of assumptions, bunch of questions, but we'll get to the whole thing, right?
This leads me to my main philosophical question, Jeff, and that is, where does moral compromise sit in a moral philosopher's heart and mind?
For example, you ready for the bribery?
You ready? For example, if as a result of you going back on Twitter, let's say a hundred or a thousand or a hundred thousand children, with that number matter, are born as a result of women seeing your egg count tweets on Twitter, and less kids are spanked as a result of people seeing your work as a result of your presence on Twitter, Would the good of being on Twitter be so great that it vastly outstrips any moral compromise you made to go back on Twitter without an apology?
Wait, there's more.
Correspondingly, would a moral philosopher also argue to write a peaceful parenting book and not publish it on a mainstream platform such as Twitter be immoral?
For you to not make any concerted effort to do so, even though it would cost you nothing monetarily to do so?
As an aside, I've seen stuff like, and it's a bunch of hashtags, whatever, that's I guess a kind of provocative trend on Twitter shortly after Elon took over.
So to say I think there is a reasonable chance of hashtag peaceful parenting and hashtag catch your eggs, ladies, could also be trending on Twitter.
If you went back, it's certainly not unreasonable, especially since you have already gathered a substantial Twitter following of almost 400,000.
Yes, there may be people in a hundred years or a thousand years who take your decision to go back on Twitter as an indication of, quote, hypocrisy for you seemingly going back on your stance to leave abusive relationships and not return without an apology.
But I think if you publish the reasons you go back on Twitter, and those reasons are vastly superior to not going back, And I think no one could criticize you honestly on that point.
And the only ones who would do would be trolls looking for a cheap shot against you as a moral philosopher.
I think a historian has a responsibility to place decisions a person has made in context and as a whole and not just use a technicality to attack someone.
I'm not a troll, as people often seem to always accuse me of.
In fact, I am a supporter.
And I do not have much personal interest in seeing you on Twitter, because whilst Lipstick Wars would be fun to see again, I enjoy your content enough here on Locals, so I don't have much need for Twitter as well.
I just think, sorry, I think your presence on Twitter would just be good for you as a businessman and moral philosopher to be able to share your most important moral philosophy.
So it's not that I'm asking you all this just so I can enjoy your Twitter, which of course I would, but it's mainly just because I want to see your philosophy become the mainstream.
Someone once said that the best revenge is success.
So would you not agree that going back on Twitter and spreading your ideas of hashtag peaceful parenting and hashtag have kids ladies be the very best way to get revenge on those people on Twitter and YouTube who tried their best to silence you?
I don't necessarily know where you stand on the idea of revenge as a moral philosopher, but I think this particular revenge has no particular negative cost, so it would be an ideal and even a moral revenge, if you want to call it that.
That's good. That's good.
Isn't that just great?
So well done.
Magnificent. And I hugely appreciate that.
I hugely appreciate that.
What a wonderful, wonderful post to make.
What do you guys think?
It was written by the devil?
Well, I wouldn't say that.
I wouldn't say that.
Maybe motivated, no, I'm kidding.
You don't understand people's obsession with Twitter, most specifically you getting back on Twitter.
I really don't understand. There's a reason for that.
There's a reason for that.
Would you like an unpack?
Would you like an unpack?
Yes, okay.
Okay, so it wasn't a personal relationship, therefore the level of abuse you can suffer is arguably not as severe or
damaging as a person in your personal life abusing you.
Is that statement true or false?
It wasn't a personal relationship, therefore the level of abuse is not as severe or damaging as a person in your personal life abusing you.
Why is that? You're absolutely right.
It's completely false. Why is that statement false?
Why is that statement false?
Destroying years of work is pretty personal, yeah.
Um...
Why is there a distinction?
Well, I mean he's just trying to make a case, right?
So, a person in my personal life abusing you, I can detach from that person.
And they're not in my life, right?
However, when you've spent, you know, 10 years building up an audience and that's part of your revenue stream, not because there was money in Twitter at the time, but because people would then go to my site or my videos and they would end up donating.
So when you've spent thousands and thousands and thousands of hours building up A relationship which is foundational to your philosophy, your success, your survival as an economic entity, then taking all that away from you, is that not worse than somebody who's mean to you in your personal life?
And then just saying, oh no, this person gets drunk all the time, or this person yells at me, or this person is mean,
so I'm just going to detach from them, right?
I think some people want you to go back on Twitter so they don't have to take the responsibility to share these ideas
themselves.
I think that's part of it, Frank, and I don't have, of course, the final answer, but I don't think it's...
I think it's much deeper than that.
I think it's much deeper than that.
So, he says, for example, many people are shadow banned on Twitter.
And many other creators were also deplatformed for, quote, platform manipulation.
So what does that mean? I don't understand.
So he's saying, go back on Twitter...
Even though people are shadow banned.
So I understand that.
Not saying what happened to you wasn't bad, but in context that it wasn't just you who was targeted.
Do you think it has not reduced the standard for moral accountability?
Twitter has to you personally.
Did I ever say, I mean, this is a straw man, right?
So, maybe I did.
I don't remember saying so, and I certainly wouldn't imagine that to be the case, but I could, you know, I could say something that I don't remember.
Did I ever say it was personal to me, that they targeted me personally?
I don't recall saying that.
In fact, I remember very specifically saying, they don't hate me.
They don't even hate philosophy.
They hate the effect it has on their resource acquisition, their political goals and so on, but they don't.
It's not personal. So what he's doing is he's saying, Steph, you're being irrational because you're taking the deplatforming personally.
Which is not the case.
Now, here's the thing. When somebody ascribes a perspective, an argument or an opinion to you that you don't have and have never shared, it's projection, right?
It's manipulation.
It's manipulation. So he's saying personal abuse is worse.
Twitter didn't target you personally.
You're mistaken to take it personally, and therefore it wasn't as bad, right?
And none of those...
See, none of those have any arguments behind it.
Now, if somebody says, you know, if they care enough to, like, this was probably an hour to put this message together, and again, I appreciate the communication.
I think it's great. But if they're going to put that much time into communicating, but they don't say, you know, boy, you know, Steph...
on show X at timestamp Y, you said this, which is why I believe this, right?
But if they don't say, I'm dealing with your specific quote, if they don't care enough to convince me, right?
This guy knows I'm about reason and evidence, right?
So he's not giving me any reasoning, and he's not providing any evidence.
So I read it out of curiosity, knowing it has nothing to do with me.
It has nothing to do with me, because if I'm speaking to someone who says, well, I only speak Japanese, they communicate somehow that the only English phrase they know is, I only speak Japanese.
If I continue to talk to them in English, knowing for an absolute fact that they cannot understand a word that I'm saying, Then understand, I just want to hear the sound of my own voice.
I just like to talk or whatever it is, right?
But it's got nothing to do with them.
Nothing to do with communicating to them.
So what do I say? How do you convince me?
You make a reasoned argument with evidence, right?
And of course, I've made a lot of arguments about Twitter and not going back, and he hasn't addressed any of them.
So he's just talking to himself.
He's got an imaginary staff that represents some aspect of himself, and he's trying to manipulate that.
But honestly, it has nothing to do with me because he's not quoting me at all.
I've never said it was personal, not that I recall.
Anyway, so, but what he's saying is that the implication is clear, right?
The implication is that I'm taking something personally which was not personal, right?
And that's kind of immaturity.
So, you know, if you plan a day out to the park with your family and it starts thundershowering and you get angry at the weather, that's taking something personal that's not personal, right?
And that's immature, right?
That's immature. So he's saying, you are taking the impersonal as personal, which is immature, right?
And again, that's all the implication.
There's no arguments, no evidence, no reasoning behind it.
And it's all kind of implied.
So when people imply stuff rather than spelling it out, I know it has nothing to do with me.
So then he goes to say, this leads me to my main philosophical question.
And now he says question rather than argument.
Are you sure you want to do that?
You know, that's a way to get you to doubt without actually having to make an argument, right?
Where does moral compromise sit in a moral philosopher's heart and mind?
So, where does moral compromise sit in a moral philosopher's heart and mind?
That's a very interesting question.
Would you agree? I mean, that's a fascinating question.
Where does moral compromise sit in a moral philosopher's heart and mind?
That's a fascinating question.
Love it. It's a great question.
Now if he asks me that question, I can make some arguments, I can provide some analogies, I can do whatever I can to try and get all of this stuff across, right?
Where does moral compromise sit in a moral philosopher's heart and mind?
So then he's asking me an abstract ethical question, right?
But then he says, for example, So now he's going to give me consequences, right?
So he's asking me an abstract, somewhat technical, moral question, but now he's going to waive consequences in front of me, right?
If as a result of you going back on Twitter, let's say 100 or 1,000 or 100,000 children are born and fewer kids are spanked.
So more kids are born, fewer kids are spanked.
Would the good of being on Twitter be so great that it vastly outstrips any moral compromise you made to go back on Twitter without an apology?
So, now, how many times?
hit me with a why if you've ever heard me say that the argument from consequences is invalid.
Right. Why is the argument from consequences invalid?
Why do I have no interest?
In fact, it's just a huge red flag for someone who doesn't know how to think and is dealing with emotional issues by trying to manipulate me.
why is the argument from consequences invalid?
Because yeah, you don't know the outcome.
again.
Thank you.
Because it's claiming facts, not in evidence.
You can make up anything.
Would you like me to make up an argument from Consequences about not going on Twitter?
I can make an argument from consequences that's even more strong.
So I could say, well, okay, if I go back on Twitter and I start posting, I'm going to arouse the same kind of rage and threats and violence that I did before, and someone's going to come into my house and murder me, and then everyone's going to be scared of philosophy, they're going to be scared of saying anything about UPB and peaceful parenting, and I will lose 40 years of productivity as a philosopher, and I'll be put in the grave and my work will die with me That's it, right?
I could make that up, right? Is that possible?
Or, or I could say, gee, you know, if I go and promote peaceful parenting, then that's
going to filter down to the younger set maybe, and they're going to start resisting their
parents and get beaten more, and then the promotion of peaceful parenting will end up
with more violence against children, right?
So you can make up anything.
you You can make up anything.
Easy peasy, right? You don't get that second argument?
Okay, so peaceful parenting gets out there in the world, and as, you know, things may or may not do, it's not like, I don't know, they don't have an age verification requirement for Twitter.
So let's say people are like, oh, peaceful parenting is really, really important, and so teenagers start resisting their aggressive or violent parents more, then that escalates the parents' aggression against them, and therefore more children could get abused as a result, right?
So, you can make up any consequence you want.
You can make up absolutely any consequence you want.
And honestly, I could do this all day, and I won't, obviously, but I could do this all day.
Make up any consequence I want.
Make up any consequence I want.
You could also make the case, if you want, even if we just take this one.
Let's say children being born, because I talk to the wilderness, where we support each other, where we help each other, where real change is occurring, real thoughts, right?
So I would lose you guys and gain what?
Nothing! Now, what if I made up, and it would obviously be convoluted, but what if I made up some convoluted reason or explanation as to why I was going back on Twitter?
That was obviously bullshit, but I just wanted to go back on Twitter because I'd been lured by power or influence or effect or whatever, right?
I would lose my reputation among you guys, which it's really important to me that I have your good opinion.
I'll be frank with you. I'll be completely honest.
It's very important to me that I have your good opinion.
Because, you know, we few, we happy few, right?
We're keeping this flame alive in these dark times.
It really matters to me.
If you guys tell me I'm doing something wrong, I'll take it seriously.
Like, this guy saying you may be doing something wrong by not going back on Twitter, I would absolutely take it seriously.
If you all said...
It's plus 10, you should absolutely go on Twitter, then either you're right or I haven't made a good enough case.
And then we would, right? Has the world, let's say, over the last, you know, so the stuff that led up to the deplatforming was, you know, 2020 election stuff, right, in the US. So let's go back.
Those plans were all put in place, say, five or six years ago.
Has the world gotten crazier, more aggressive, more violent, more corrupt over the last five to six years?
Yes, yeah, that's right.
Just a smidge. Just a smidge.
Just a smidge. Okay, so then he says...
So it's not the same world. So there's no going back on Twitter.
You understand? Twitter has moved.
Twitter has moved completely.
The world has moved. There is no going back on Twitter because there's no Twitter in 2015.
Yeah, you can't go home.
You never step in the same river twice.
Both the river and the man have changed, right?
It's like this thing about time travel, right?
I'm going to go back in time.
it's like okay then you're floating in space because the earth's in a different place right?
I mean COVID was the big watershed thing It revealed just how programmable people are and so on, right?
So understand, when people say go back on Twitter, they're saying travel through time and then die in a void in space because the world has changed from 2015 or 2010.
You know, when I first started, you could make just about any argument you wanted and it was fine.
I mean, people would disagree with you.
They'd fight back hard and all of that.
I mean, the world that we grew up in is gone.
It's gone. The world we grew up in no longer exists.
So when people say go back on Twitter, they're literally telling me, go back to your 40s.
It's like, that's not possible because I'm in my 50s.
Can't go back to my 40s. So he says, yes.
So he says, a substantial Twitter following.
Nope. Nope. There used to be so much interesting speech out there that I didn't even bother with Twitter.
Well, there's a lot of complaints about how boring YouTube is, right?
A lot of complaints even among younger people are like, there's nothing to watch on YouTube.
Of course. Of course there isn't because everyone's self-censoring and it's boring.
All right. So then he says, yes, there may be people in a hundred years or a thousand years who take your decision to go back on Twitter as an indication of, quote, hypocrisy.
Oh, my God. The quote miners.
The quotes there are doing some pretty heavy lifting.
Well, it's not real hypocrisy, but I don't want to make the case.
So I'll just use quotes.
Oh my gosh, that's very funny.
That's very funny. There may be people in a hundred years or a thousand years.
As an indication of, quote, hypocrisy for you seemingly going back on your stance to leave abusive relationships and not return without an apology.
It's beautiful. What a gorgeously ornate, sophist, labyrinth of fog-nothingness.
maybe people so now now you see not only can he see the consequences of going
back on a Twitter but he can also see a thousand years in the future
maybe like if I said to my novel the future was a documentary I can see a
thousand years into the future Bye.
Hey, you got a new 500-year plan?
Hold my beer. That was something else.
That is something else, man.
There may be people who take your decision to go back on Twitter as an indication of quote hypocrisy for you seemingly going back on your stance.
I say, well, I don't get into abusive relationships unless there's an apology and restitution.
Right? I don't re-engage with abusive relationships unless there's an apology and restitution.
So if I re-engage in a relationship without apology and restitution, what does that mean seemingly going back on your stance?
The quote and the word seemingly and the thousand years.
You know, I always wonder when people are typing this stuff, do they ever sit there and say, you know, I'm a long way from reason and evidence at this point.
I'm talking a thousand years in the future.
I'm using quote hypocrisy rather than making a case.
I'm using the word seemingly for something which is an obvious reversal.
I'm going north. Now I'm going to go the opposite direction.
South. Well, that's only if you seemingly are going the opposite direction.
What does seemingly mean?
But I think if you publish the reasons you go back on Twitter, and those reasons are vastly superior to not going back.
Okay. Superior is just a word that people use.
What does it mean?
What are vastly superior reasons?
What does that mean? Like, the reasons are either rational or they're not.
They're either objective or they're not.
They're either defensible or they're not.
They're either consistent, they're not.
They're either valid or they're not. What are superior reasons?
Well, those are reasons with a six-pack.
Those are reasons in a gilt gold carriage.
Those are reasons with a sexy French accent.
Those are reasons that rub your feet.
They're superior reasons.
Because, you know, reasons, they all just stack in a hierarchy, man.
Some are inferior reasons, and some are superior reasons.
You know, aristocratic arguments, as opposed to being serf arguments, you know?
I mean, superior arguments, the reasons are vastly superior.
Superior! Two plus two is five.
Two plus two is four.
Two plus two is three. One of those is superior, and one of those is inferior.
What does superior and inferior mean when it comes to arguments?
It doesn't mean anything. Oh my gosh, that's very funny.
But I think, then I think no one could criticize you honestly on that point.
And the only ones who do would be trolls looking for a cheap shot against you as a moral philosopher.
Hmm. Trolls looking for a cheap shot against me as a moral philosopher.
How about somebody who says, you're killing babies and harming children by not posting on Twitter?
For this mirage of 400,000 people who genuinely listen to what you say, despite not following you to even new platforms.
Yes, they won't go one website over, but by God, they'll change their entire lives and take on evildoers at a time when evildoers have far more power than they did ten years ago or five years ago.
Oh my gosh.
I'm not a troll, as people often seem to always accuse me of.
A level of self-knowledge does not intensify.
In fact, I am a supporter, and I do not have much personal interest in seeing you on Twitter.
Because whilst Lipstick Wars would be fun to see again...
See, you understand, this is...
It's a little schizo, right?
You can save thousands of children, hundreds of thousands of children from being beaten.
You have the power to create life.
A hundred thousand babies are there for your tweeting.
Or, or it's exactly the same as inconsequential lipstick wars.
Your Twitter account is a lifesaver or a petty way to argue about makeup.
It's really the both at the same time, no matter what.
And does anybody like this even notice this?
Oh my gosh. I think your presence on Twitter would be just as good for you as a businessman and moral philosopher to be able to share your most important moral philosophy.
So it's not that I'm just asking you all of this just so I can enjoy your Twitter, which of course I would, but it's mainly because I want to see your philosophy become the mainstream.
All right, quick question. Quick question.
Odds that Peaceful Parenting, the NAP and the Voluntary Society, odds that that becomes the mainstream.
Odds that in any of our lifetimes, odd that that becomes a mainstream view
over the course of our lifetimes.
It's not very low, it's zero.
It's zero.
I've said this from the very beginning. This is a multi-generational project.
I mean there may be particular locations, but the mainstream.
Bye.
Someone also said that the best revenge is success.
So would you not agree that going back on Twitter and spreading your ideas of peaceful parenting and have kids ladies be the best way to get revenge on those people on Twitter and YouTube who tried their best to silence you?
Tangle vengeance! Tangle vengeance!
Revenge is also an argument from consequences.
You'll feel better going on Twitter.
What the ever-loving F does philosophy have to do with feeling better in the moment?
What on earth does philosophy have to do with being better in the moment?
Feeling better in the moment.
You know, diet and exercise is all about feeling better in the moment.
It's wild. Don't necessarily know where you stand on the idea of revenge as a moral philosopher, but I think this particular revenge has no particular negative cost.
So it'd be an ideal, and even a moral revenge, if you want to call that...
So he hasn't even looked up revenge.
But I think this particular revenge has no particular negative cost.
Well, it's nice that you think that.
It's nice that you think that.
I mean, I don't know what it has to do with facts or truth or reason or evidence or empiricism or reality or convincing someone of anything.
I like blue!
I like standing over the subways in a cold breeze while wearing a tartan dress.
Oh, that's nice. I mean...
I like pierogies, so you should compromise your morals.
I think Slayer is an overrated metal band, so you should corrupt yourself in pursuit of power.
I just think that's very funny.
Oh my gosh.
That's just... I mean, it's great.
I mean, and I really do appreciate him making this case.
I really do. I really, really appreciate him making this case.
It's very, very instructive.
And look, there's a lot in here about how to approach quality people...
To get them to change their minds.
You know, if we sort of give the surface thing, right, like he really wants to help children.
He really wants me to be on Twitter to help children, right?
Okay, so if you are a moral person and you say, it's immoral for me to do X, then how do you change someone's mind?
It's immoral for me to do X, how do you change their mind?
Do you say, well, if you don't do X, children will lose their lives.
It's like, no, you don't do that because that's just a weird verbal abuse, bullying, bunch of nonsense.
Make the case. Well, yeah, but he did make the case, just a very bad one, right?
So how do you morally get someone to change them?
So that's it for the show for non-donors.
▲
Export Selection