Something has the last months or so bothered me. And that is that what you preach is not always in correlation to what you do. And there are quite a few question marks in your persona, as far as I can see it. And I thought I'd write a mail about it as from what I've seen on the freedomainboard (ironic name) - criticism is often handled with banning. Which is strange for someone that "values truth" and writes on his about page: "If the theories I propose are reasonable, and are supported by evidence, well and good, we have both learned something. If not, listeners such as you are quick to point out errors, which I receive with gratitude. This approach is fundamentally different from most "talk shows." I am a rigorous philosopher, and I will always bow to reason and evidence."
We could take the example of Stewart - a highly intelligent and knowledgeable guy that could have been a valid source on your site. His only "crime" was that he wasn't a fan of your book UPB - and explained in details why that was in this thread:
What was his treatment because of it? A mail from you saying "Please stop posting on the FDR Board... It's neither productive nor enjoyable, and I've had a number of complaints. Sorry it didn't work out.". That's quite interesting for someone that values criticism, don't you think? And there are many more cases. I personally think this google map is very entertaining looking at:
Virtuous philosopher, that's what you call yourself, huh?
Another problem - or rather, another curiosity of mine is this:
How did a guy almost utterly unable to form solid relationships in his own life become the world's greatest authority for the rest of us? Doesn't that seem, oh, I don't know, odd?
You have said yourself that your childhood was completely loveless. You've also said that your attempts to form female relationships prior to Christina were dismal failures. And from an outsider's view, and listening to many old podcasts of yours - your relationship with Christina doesn't appear to be 100% healthy either.
You could of course say you do have the love of your daughter (which may be true), and that "Izzy" loves "daddles," but I also recall you saying in the past that a baby's apparent love is no more than imprinting, similar to that of baby ducks. So let's scratch Izzy from the love parade because, according to your own words, it's not real love.
The members of the FDR board have a relationship with only a persona - a public representation of Stefan Molyneux that you've created and sells to them, which I also recall that you've admited to be a construction. None of them associate with you as a real man personally, day to day.
You work alone, right? And don't seem to have a circle of friends that you carouse with, no family members you enjoy, no drinking buddies from college, no best friends from high school and so on.
And to be completely honest with you, regardless how it may sound: the closer people come to you - the more they seem to want to distant themselves from you. I obviously do not know if that is the case in real life too - but it does seem to be true on the internet and the freedomainradio. It seems that people really find you inspirational and worth their time in the beginning when they find you, but the more they delve deeper into the personality of Stefan Molyneux, the more they realize that 'everything is not what it seem to be' and move on to other sources of information.
So, dead serious, how does a guy like that get away with writing a book about relationships and the logic of love - with a straight face - without everyone else peeing themselves in laughter?
I just wanted to share that thought and you're welcome to contemplate it as much or little as you want. Consider I've seen enough times how you handle criticism, I can imagine you will see this whole mail as a "hate speech" (I don't hate you, I just don't find you to be the superiour, high moral superhero that you claim to be) that has "nothing to do with you".
I wish I could say that's my only issues with you. But far from it. Another thing is the privacy. As you know, you've consistently not practiced what you've preached when it comes to people's privacy. In many cases (all of them being cases which you did not like the poster), you've revealed their real name rather than just their username - something that doesn't match your description of privacy:
Hypocrisy, once again, I'm afraid. It seems that rules are important but doesn't have to be applied to Stefan Molyneux. In particular if his ego has been hurt. Same goes for swearing, I should add. It's okay for you to lash out every now and again, but when others do it - it's called "wrong" and "unacceptable language". I could go on with more examples, but this mail is long as it is.
Speaking about ego by the way - I've seen the video "Salvation of Philosophy" and it only confirmed what I've suspected for a long time - your narcissism. I know that you don't like to be called a narcissist, in the same way a mythomaniac don't want to be called out on his lies, but I do find this something you really need to look into - if not for your community you claim to be "a very important part of Freedomainradio" (but doesn't seem to be so when it really comes down to it), but for you most importantly. I also found a response to your Salvation of Philosophy quite interesting, and that is this one:
You have said many times that you've been in therapy and that it has helped you a lot - but to be completely honest Stefan, don't you think it would be a good idea of continuing that? It does feel that most of your actions today, and what drives you, still is related in what you've called "a loveless childhood" and that you ironically are guilty of a lot of what you preached about in An elegy for Michael Jackson - which is making up and/or covering up emotional scars from your past.
It seems to be that you have become what you hate - an authority. And you have handled it in what you hate the state doing - misusing it and to benefit your own needs. And all of these points of betrayal, hypocrisy, narcissism and dishonesty adds up and the inevitable question pops up - the inevitable question that I'm quite sure many users (that both are part of "free"-domainradio and those that never join at all) ask themselves, and that is: Why bother with Stefan Molyneux?
What do you think? Was I too harsh? Personally, I don't think you can possibly be too harsh when it comes to Stefan Molyneux. Especially as he don't mind himself to point out others "abusive", "corrupt" and "unforgivable" behavior.
The mail contains thoughts both from myself and users of this forum (which I share). Stefan was someone I from the beginning really liked, but the more I learnt about him - the more I suspect I became. Then after signing up to the boards I only got confirmed what I already had guessed - that it was not really much of a philosophical discussion, but more of a fan base. A place where Stefan can build somewhat of a relationship with his members - and in return get them to donate their money to him.
I suppose one of my first real warning signals (as I can remember) was a video Stefcunt did that was called Despair where he took one man's comment from his latest video and started to analyze him and basically claimed that people didn't love him. Uncalled for, and made me see Stef in a completely new light.
From then on, I found more and more things to be skeptical about. (I found Stef 2009 I believe, but never followed him on a day to day basis, more once a month or so.) And nowadays I can't stand the guy. Like posters have already pointed out on this board - Stefan Molyneux is a walking example of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
This is my first ever post on Liberating Minds. How's that for an introduction post?