The “Truth” About Stefan Molyneux

“Some of my biggest criticisms of Molyneux involves his attachment to false premises, his speculations passed off as “fact”, and his presumptions that he knows the truth of people’s motivations. I’d rather avoid engaging in those tactics while criticizing him.”

Read more at Thoughts on Liberty.




4 thoughts on “The “Truth” About Stefan Molyneux

  1. Aha! Found you.

    When I read your article on “Thoughts on Liberty” about Stefan Molyneux, I was alarmed and saddened by some of the (almost slanderous) statements you made, and I wrote a lengthy, and quite thoughtful, response. In fact, I spent about an hour writing it. It seems that, perhaps because I disagreed with you, you couldn’t be bothered to let it see the light of day.

    Now, as I’m reading your more recent article advocating the same old patriarchal position that men are or should be entitled to “wham-bam-thank-you-ma’am”, stick it in and leave, damn the consequences, with legal protections (!), I cannot help but wonder if it would be worth my time to write a heartfelt comment, since it seems to be the policy of this author to actively censor reasonable opinions when they are offering constructive criticism.

    In love of liberty.

    1. I don’t censor comments unless they’re spam or literally just vulgar about my body or something (no need for that on my own site).

      Was that comment you reference posted on my blog or elsewhere? I have no pending comments waiting to be approved and never received a notification of this comment about which you speak. Did WordPress eat it? Did you leave it elsewhere?

      The only comments I received on my Stefan Molyneux article were on the original post (which I don’t moderate the comments on) and all over Facebook and Reddit. I also received many emails. I don’t pay that much attention to WordPress comments as 1. People don’t tend to leave them in the first place and 2. The debates are usually all over FB.

      As for my position on this issue being patriarchal, I don’t think about it that way… I think about consistency and freedom. Nobody should be forced to be a parent. I am in support of women’s rights to prevent and terminate pregnancy so as not to end up parents – I believe men should have the same right, except they have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body itself.

      I certainly don’t want to see more babies born into this world without love and supports and parents… But that doesn’t obligate unwilling individuals, particularly when one side gets to make all the choices about it.

      It’s morning and I’m getting ready for work so forgive the brevity, but I’m sincerely sorry if you had written a long thoughtful comment and it got eaten by the server or something. Or if I overlooked it elsewhere. But I don’t have any interest in censoring — I debated over that article for over a week after. All over Facebook, in plenty of hostile territory.

      I don’t like censorship. In fact, in the wake of that article, I experienced some via Molyneux’s people and found it to be unfortunate.

      1. Thanks for your reply. It was on “Thoughts on Liberty”, so if as you say someone else moderates that forum, they must not have felt my thoughts were appropriate.

        I apologize for my bitter tone. When I first wrote you, I was trying to convey how deeply important de-foo actually is (call it confirmation bias if you like, but it literally saved my life). So when I found out my statements, which come with a lot of psychological trauma behind them, were not worthy of being read, only to then read what I still consider a scary way of defending men who lead women on and abuse them, then to discover that it was you who wrote it, I was in an emotional state of mind.

        Wishing you further success in your blogging.

        In love of liberty.

      2. I know we don’t generally censor ToL comments either, though I did reply to several people on the topic of deFOOing and you can find my comments there.

        I absolutely think people should remove themselves from physically harmful or horrifically abusive situations. I am not convinced that Molyneux makes a distinction between disagreement/minor dispute with families and actual abusive behaviors.

        I don’t defend abusers. Abusive husbands/fathers/partners, etc, should be removed from a person’s life. I would never suggest that someone should stay in contact with an abuser for the sake of a child.

        My article was written to defend the rights of men who have no interest in or desire to be fathers. Men who provided seed and exercise no right over their child. Men who did not consent to being parents.

        Men who *did* consent, exercise rights, and/or then possibly abuse is an *entirely* different matter whatsoever.

        Thank you for your comments.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s