0:04 - Introduction to Trolls
0:23 - Identifying Trolls
3:52 - Defending Past Statements
7:19 - The Weight of Criticism
10:06 - Addressing Misinterpretations
13:21 - The Role of Context
18:14 - Rejecting Dominance and Control
25:48 - Respect and Engagement
29:31 - Personal Relationships and Criticism
31:59 - The Importance of Community
35:32 - Closing Thoughts and Future Discussions
In this episode, I address the challenges and intricacies surrounding online discourse, particularly in our Telegram channel where a few trolls have emerged. The focus is on how to respond to criticism effectively—highlighting the importance of demanding specific examples rather than engaging in vague compliance or ad hominem attacks. I emphasize the necessity of distinguishing constructive dialogue from destructive trolling.
We navigate through examples from past debates, specifically notable discussions from five years ago that still resonate today. I reflect on my past commentary on COVID-19, discussing how I stood by my assessments regarding the reliability of data from organizations like the Royal College and the World Health Organization. I revisit a debate with Rationality Rules, elucidating that the expectation to reference material from my own book in the midst of a live debate wasn’t just unreasonable; it was a strategic trap. I articulate that debates should center around ideas and logic rather than memory recall under pressure.
Criticism often comes from a place lacking in priority—while we face grave issues worldwide, some choose to focus their moral outrage on what I said years ago. I call this misplaced focus a significant moral failing, arguing that if someone's principal concern is an alleged inconsistency in my statements, they might be missing the bigger picture of real-world injustices. I draw attention to my consistent encouragement of critical thought and skepticism toward authority, especially during chaotic times.
I delve into the nature of engagement, insisting that respect should be a foundational element in any conversation. When confronted with hostility or contemptuous language, it's essential to recognize that engaging with such individuals rarely leads to productive outcomes. I assert that for dialogue to be effective, it needs to stem from a place of mutual respect and understanding.
Through this discussion, I also ponder the implications of calling someone a hypocrite, especially when such accusations arise from bad religious understandings about judgment and forgiveness. I reflect on the broader themes of integrity and personal values, stressing that real discussions should uplift the principles of truth and reason rather than devolve into personal attacks.
In closing, I invite listeners to be more discerning about where they direct their energy in conversations. It’s crucial to engage with those who respect your perspective while rejecting toxic interactions that yield little growth or understanding. I encourage everyone to foster environments that promote genuine inquiry and constructive criticism rather than perpetuate cycles of outrage and negativity.
[0:00] All righty, righty. Hope everyone's doing well. I just had a few minutes.
[0:04] I wanted to drop in to just talk about, I mean, so this is the Telegram channel, and for the most part, it's fairly troll-free, but we do have a couple floating around, and I just, I need you all to, stop engaging, right? Just basically stop engaging.
[0:23] So the way that you identify a troll is it's actually, it's kind of embarrassingly simple, right? So what you need to do is ask for specific examples of criticisms, right? People, of course, perfectly welcome and thrilled to have people come in and criticize. That's great.
[0:49] And there have to be specific criticisms, which is great. So something that you can actually answer and look for those things, right? So there was a couple of trolls floating around. And in the conversation, I'll just tell you sort of my metric of doing it. So in the conversation, you look for, there was criticisms about some stuff I said in late 2019 or early 2020, and about COVID. So I went and listened to the show that was related to it. It was a rant, a solo rant, but it was related to a show I did before. And I was talking about how the Royal College had taken its estimates down of COVID fatalities from 500,000 to 20,000, like a 25 times drop. So I was talking about that. So they weren't believable. I was telling people, don't believe anything coming out of China, and so on. And then I was talking about the World Health Organization that was basically saying to countries, you have to let everyone in from infected countries because otherwise it's racist or stigmatic. And I was talking about how ridiculous all of that was and how terrible that was and how it was going to get people infected and sick and so on. So yeah, I mean, I stand by all of that and all of that. So.
[2:10] There was another one. Oh, God, this one is just very tiresome. So I guess it was five years ago, like half a decade ago or so, I did a debate with a fellow named Rationality Rules.
[2:23] And in it, he asked a question about the book and asked if it was referenced anywhere else in the book. And of course, in the middle of a debate, I can't say if something is or is not referenced anywhere else in the book. Like a particular argument or topic, because I'd have to do a search through the book. And so I said, well, if you wanted to know if this was repeated anywhere else in the book, if you'd sent the question ahead of time, I could have answered that, but I'm not going to.
[2:52] It's like a power play, kind of power trip, right? It's a trap. I'm not saying it was conscious or not. It doesn't really matter, but it was kind of like a trap. Like UPB is a big old dense book. And if someone says, well, is this argument referenced anywhere else in the book? What are you supposed to do are you supposed to say okay hold on let me let me scan through the book i mean that's just awkward and kind of weird right in the middle of a debate to take sort of five or ten minutes to scan through a book maybe you find it maybe you don't but that's you know so i have to say well i'll i'll deal with that after but i i can't answer that because if you wanted me to scan to see if this this argument was referenced anywhere else in the book i would need to know ahead of time. It was something along those lines, right? So, that's not something that can be dealt with in a debate as a whole, right? So, it's just other stuff like that. And so, when...
[3:53] Oh, and there was another thing, there was somebody in Telegram who was talking all about how you can't judge anyone, Jesus loved everyone, Jesus forgave everyone, and you can't judge anyone. And that same person then called me a hypocrite, right?
[4:08] Oh, my God. Talk about confession through projection, right? So then I pointed that out, and they said, hey, you know, well, but you are a hypocrite, and you can do with that what you want, right? It's like, okay, so Jesus, because this person was quoting Jesus, who was forgiving the soldiers who were actually murdering him. Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do, right? Jesus did not call the people who were killing him murderers or killers or anything like that. So Jesus does not say any negative terms whatsoever to the Roman soldiers who were actually murdering him, torturing and murdering him, right? He doesn't say, these guys are killers, but, you know, forgive them. These guys are murderers, but forgive them. He says, forgive them, Father, for they know not what they're doing.
[4:54] So Jesus doesn't have a negative thing to say, does not put any negative labels on the people, the men, actually torturing and murdering him. But this guy can call me a hypocrite. Oh my God. And then say he's really into Jesus. And of course, Jesus says, love your enemies. So again, you just have to be aware of this kind of stuff and just be alert to it. And I'll just, I'll tell you as a whole, like, if you don't get the creepy sense from these sorts of people, like, you need to check your own instincts. Because it is creepy, right? And I'll just tell you sort of the view that I have of these things. And I'm certainly happy if you guys have pushed back or disagree. Of course, I'm perfectly happy to hear all of that. But this is sort of my perspective. So, you know, there are, what is there, 8 billion people or something like that in the world. And for people to come and it's like, well, you said this thing in a podcast that was six years ago or five years ago, right? And so on, right? I mean, even if I had said something wrong.
[6:08] Five years ago or 10 years ago, even if I'd said something incorrect, which of course I have over the years, even if I had done that, said something inconsistent, something out of character, something that goes against philosophical ideals five years ago or 10 years ago, in the, I mean, this is just the perspective that is important to have. And this is not about me, right? This is about you. Because, I mean, obviously I don't particularly care about trolls on a little telegram channel, but it is important for yourself, right? So it is important to say, for me, okay, so let's say I said something in the heat of passion that was not perfectly consistent half a decade ago, right? Let's just say that. Let's concede the point. I said something wrong. I said something that went against ideal philosophy. I went against my, Let's say I said something about COVID or something that was incorrect or wrong against my principles. Or let's say that during the debate with rationality rules that I had misunderstood something and did not respond to the case or whatever it was.
[7:19] Let's just say that I had made mistakes or made errors or gone. Okay, so let's just say that.
[7:27] I didn't, but let's just say that I did. Let's just concede the point, right? So what? So these are people coming into a social environment. And they're saying, of all the ills that I could deal with in this God-forsaken planet, we've got rapists, torturers, murderers, warmongers, money printers, child abusers, pedophiles, sorcerers, blackmailers, of all the corruption in the world that I could be dealing with, of all the great and grand malevolence and evil in the world that I could be dealing with, What I'm going to do is I'm going to poke around with something Stef said six years ago that might have been inconsistent with him in me.
[8:17] Come on. Oh, wouldn't it be great? Wouldn't it be absolutely fantastic to live in a world where the biggest moral issue the planet faced was some possibly inconsistent statements I made half a decade ago? Oh, my God, can you imagine what a beautiful, beautiful, wonderful, delightful, fantastic world it would be if that were the case? Wouldn't that be wonderful and lovely and beautiful if that were the case, right? Wouldn't that be exactly the world that we'd want to live in? Well, because you see, we've dealt with child abuse, we've dealt with war, we've dealt with predation, we've dealt with political violence, we've dealt with pedophilia and terrorism, and we've dealt with all of this. And now in the rational sorting of all the world's ills and evils and hypocrisies and ailments what we've done is we've got all the way down on the list to potentially inconsistent statements Stef made half a decade ago that's where we're at.
[9:39] That's what we're going to be dealing with. That's the priorities.
[9:45] So, there's no sane prioritization in the world that would have possibly inconsistent things, I said half a decade ago, as somebody's highest moral goal and effort and where they're going to put a lot of time in.
[10:06] Where are they going to do that? So somebody could say, I don't know, somebody could say, oh, well, Stef, when you criticize the World Health Organization's call for open borders in a pandemic, well, so you wanted statism to close borders, and you wanted this, that, and the other, and it's like, okay, just for those who have half a brain, which, of course, everyone here has much more than that. But for those of you who have half a brain, you would understand that it is perfectly rational to call or approve of actions that would occur in a free society as well. In a free society, do you not think that movements would be restricted in the middle of a dangerous pandemic? Well, of course, in a free society, there wouldn't be anybody funding biolabs in hostile foreign nations anyway, so this really wouldn't come up. But let's say in a free society there was some virulent new pathogen that came out of some bioweapons lab of course geographical areas would be closed.
[11:12] Of course, of course they would, right? So I'm perfectly fine with that. In fact, I would want that. So again, these are things that I'm sure we can understand. But the idea that someone's just this big, their big moral issue, where they want to focus on their, the way they want to focus their big moral attention, is on stuff I said, Obviously, you know, it's the boring, usual, taken out of context thing, but it is. Right? So, at a time when I was rapidly criticizing all of the propaganda, don't believe the Royal College about this stuff. They just revised their numbers down 25 times. Don't believe anything coming out of China. The World Health Organization is corrupt. Right? And saying, well, Stef, you were just bad and wrong about all of this stuff.
[12:09] I mean there were estimates that said that covid cases would have dropped by 97 percent if the borders had been closed from china right the borders had been closed from china, well i mean if that's true that would have saved a lot of lives i mean my ideal i think i'm no i'm no expert in this area so this is just you know foolish amateur speculation of course but the ideal I think would have been to restrict travel from an epidemiological standpoint right to restrict travel to minimize the number of cases and that way the mutation from alpha to, omicron would have occurred I mean there was an alpha then it was a second was it a beta or something like that then it was omicron so the transition from the more virulent one to the less virulent one, which happens over time, would probably have happened with fewer people getting really sick and some dying.
[13:06] Would that have happened? I don't know. Is it a possibility? Certainly, I think it is. I think that would have been better. I think that would have been better. Is that corrupt and immoral to say? No, I think it's a possibility. I think it's a theory, right?
[13:22] I mean, don't you remember, was it Nancy Pelosi at the beginning of COVID was like, come on down to Chinatown and eat the food and meet the people and mingle and breathe air, right? I mean, come on. The idea that you can't close a border during a pandemic because racism, and that the only person to criticize about the whole COVID thing is me, who was telling everyone to be skeptical of everyone in authority. I said that the costs of the lockdowns were going to be far higher than any potential benefit. I didn't take the vaccine. Right. So the idea that of all of the people in the world regarding COVID, the person you're going to come and crab at his little old me is so pathetic, I can't even tell you. Because if you, and listen, man, if you've cleaned up your life to the point where the biggest moral issue in your planet is potentially questionable statements I made five years ago, holy crap, you must live in perfection. You must have a wonderful marriage. You must have all the corrupt people out of your life.
[14:30] You must have pretty perfect integrity. You must have a great career in a very honorable field. You must have great health. I mean, this must be, for this to be number one on your list of moral issues, I mean, you must have already fixed everyone else in the world to get down to me, right?
[14:52] I mean, of course, I haven't been perfect over 20 years and almost 6,000 shows, books, documentaries, debates, you name it, right? Of course, I haven't been perfect. So what? I mean, that's not a standard that I have for myself. But the sinister kind of thing, it's like, oh, it's so dark. It's so sinister where people come in and it's like, well, it speaks volumes that Stef is not even responding to this. It's like, bro, I'm busy. I've got a lot of stuff going on. Got a lot of balls in the air. And it's like well it's really they're sinister don't you get a sense of this like sinister stuff that just kind of floats around he's such a hypocrite I used to follow him and then I felt he fell from grace I mean that that debate he had with rationality rules spoke speaks volumes blah blah blah right, like don't you get that that's just kind of weird.
[15:41] Pathological concentrated venom like that's pretty obvious isn't it that should be pretty obvious and of course if you disagree or are opposed to what it is that I'm saying, I'm obviously happy to get feedback. Now, I understand, and I will anticipate this, you know, because I understand the mind of trolls fairly well, after, you know, 20 years in the public eye. So, I understand, and this is what people will say, right? This is what people will say. They will say, oh, so Stef, you're saying that you can't be criticized until all the humanity is free, and there's no child abuse in war. And only then can you be criticized or corrected, right? Well, no, of course I have taken criticisms and corrections, and I open every show with the invitation, feedback, criticisms, comments, corrections, whatever is on your mind. Sure. But for someone to post a snippet or something that is an addendum to an existing show without posting the context. And here's another thing too. I mean, I try to be pretty consistent and I try to be pretty rational and all of that. So this is always a question too, if you get criticized for something, if I get criticized for something, is there ever potentially a more charitable explanation? But if somebody zeroes in on, well, this is just really bad, right?
[17:09] Without, okay, well, what's the context? Is there potentially a more charitable explanation or anything like that? It's like, no, this is just bad. And then it's funny because, of course, I haven't thought about that debate with rationality rules in years and years. But I do remember that being a thing, which is where he asked me for a reference that showed up anywhere else in the book. And I just, I can't answer that in the moment. I mean, I wouldn't even try. And it would be unreasonable.
[17:40] To ask me to check that, right? Because there's a no-win situation. I guess maybe that's part of the trap, right? It's a no-win situation. Either I sit there for five or 10 minutes scanning through the book, in which case they say, oh, he doesn't even know the contents of his own book. Look at him. He doesn't even know what's in there, right? It's like, well, no, I want to be precise, and I certainly would be happy to do that work beforehand. Or I say, no, I'm not going to review whether this shows up anywhere else in the book during a debate. I'm happy to do it afterwards, or, you know, you could have sent that to me ahead of time, but that's not a reasonable thing to ask me during the middle of a debate, right?
[18:14] So, because a debate should be about a reason and arguments, not memorization of a 450-page book, right? So, I think we can all understand that. So, if the big issue is something that happened in a debate from half a decade ago.
[18:37] That's pathetic that's honestly that's just so come on guys it's so obvious it's so obvious, if you say jesus is your ideal you should love everyone and not judge anyone and then you call someone a hypocrite then clearly i mean come on guys that's a troll and i would really respect somebody who you know had jesus as their model and said Stef here's what i love about you and so on and like even if they viewed me as an enemy right and i've had i remember there was a guy some years ago, came on very positive. This is when I was less positive towards Christianity, came on very positive. We had a really pleasant chat, and I really respected that.
[19:15] But you get the creepiness, right? Which is, it's just weird and bad faith and so on, right? I mean, if you believe in reason and truth and virtue, surely there's a lot to praise about what I've done and what we've done as a community, as opposed to nitpicking at edge cases from half a decade ago.
[19:44] So that is wild that is wild so oh did the yeah the one guy replied right yeah unspecified, disappointments i'm so disappointed and stuff right and so was it dan dan here wrote uh really boring after everything i've already written you asked for specifics surely you're trolling now ironic that someone who was regarded as a troll here has no chance of convincing, me you actually don't act in good faith but you manage it in two short sentences is quite an achievement but not one to be proud of so again this is just all insinuations and insults and so on right why so defensive Stef well that's a very much a troll statement right why are you so why are you so defensive I really did start out with the best intentions have you watched the video your video on your channel that you posted the one you so manifestly avoid discussing but there really isn't anything to discuss, is there? That's the problem. You fucked up in a major way. And that would never have been an issue if only you hadn't been such a hypocrite about it after. If only you'd come straight out and reversed yourself. Problem gone. But for whatever reason, the first time I asked you about this video, you managed to let it bleed to death. And you got away with it. But now, there's your channel as proof, and you still would not admit it. Play for time. Ask for context. Hope it will go away. And don't worry, it will. I will. This will have no consequences for you. Like I said, nothing is at stake here. Nothing at all. After all, it's not like anyone's conscience is at risk here. It's like, oh my God.
[21:12] Oh, my gosh, that's just wild, isn't it? Isn't that? So, yeah, some stuff that can be misinterpreted or some stuff where, yeah, taken out of context. I said that people should not minimize or pretend that there's no danger to what at the time was, to me, at least very clearly, a bioweapon. Yeah, I stand by that. You can get mad at me if you want. You can say, ah, yes, well, but it turned out years later that blah, blah, blah, Omicron. And yeah, I get all of that. I get all of that, but at the time, it was dangerous. And for people to minimize the potential danger of a bioweapon to the point where they were encouraging people to come down to, say, Chinatown, where there were probably more aggregations of that virus, yeah, I stand by that. But, you know, you just see all of this, like, there's this weird intensity about some comments I made five years ago or six years ago at the beginning of COVID, right?
[22:17] Did you see how that's, like, there's something else that's going on here, right? There's something else. I mean, I'm pretty proud of what I did over the course of COVID, right? I took a lot of bullets for making a video called The Case Against China, which is to say, this is the reasons why we can think it came from the biolab and not from the wet market. I was vindicated about that. I said lockdowns were going to be far more harmful than did doing any good. I never wanted a political solution. I did not take the vaccine. So, I think during a time of some significant confusion and misinformation and chaos, I'm pretty proud of what I did over the course of COVID. right? I was talking about the dangers of tailored bioweapons back, you know, 12 years ago on Joe Rogan. I did an entire video about how dangerous China was, an entire documentary. I flew out to Hong Kong, marched with the protesters and met with the guy who wrote the Hong Kong Constitution and took tear gas to the face to go and document the resistance against China, and talked about how dangerous China was, at a time.
[23:34] When COVID was already circulating. So that's pretty good. That's pretty good. I don't even know what it would mean to be perfect, but that was pretty good, right? I talked about my skepticism about the safety of the vaccine that was developed in a couple of months. And I talked about the red flags, right? That it was developed very quickly. You can't compress time. They can't know the long-term effects, and why would they need exclusion from liability, right? So, with regards to COVID as a whole, I was pretty good. I got things pretty right. So, I mean, hindsight is 20-20. There's no such thing as perfect because you don't know what you don't know until you know it, and the information is not available until you know it.
[24:25] So, yeah, I think pretty good. when it comes to upb you can't disprove it i mean it's been out now for like i don't know 16 17 years i've had endless debates about it done presentations about it you can't disprove it so so instead of saying you know great job improving secular ethics man i'm really going to take this to the masses what people say is well in a debate with rationality rules you put something on the shelf or said you needed to be told ahead of time, about something do you see what I mean, do you see how like out of reality that is rather than saying wow you know you've proven, secular ethics what an incredible achievement that's the holy grail of philosophy I'm going to bring that to the masses what they do is they circle back and say well in a debate Stef, you didn't answer one question there was one question you didn't answer because, you said that it was outside the scope of the debate. So, rather than saying, wow, I'm going to bring UPB to the masses and bring peaceful parenting to the masses, rather than that, they say, well, you said this early on in COVID six years ago, and then you had a debate where you didn't answer one question five years ago. And that's where people are focusing their outrage and their moral energies, right? Right?
[25:49] So please, for the love of all that's holy, just learn to recognize this stuff and stop engaging. And I've taken enough bullets and done enough of the cause of truth that I demand, and you should too. I mean, honestly, you should too. I demand some respect. And if people don't want to provide me that respect, I don't want to interact with them. Now, that doesn't mean that they can't correct me. It's wonderful to be corrected. It really is. But if people come in with this like creepy, sinister vibe with no sense of priorities, then I'm not going to listen. And if it's like, if they're just, I mean, if they're just repeating, like this might as well be, you know, this sort of stupid rumor that, oh, Stef posted the teenage girl on one of his own videos, which never happened. Or, you know, Stef viciously insulted a listener who only donated $2. dollars. That never happened, right? So, if people just kind of come up with stuff that is asked and answered, they're going to post stuff without context, I don't care. I don't care. Because then it's kind of like a fat guy trying to sell me a diet book. I don't care what's in the book. You know, if people, you know, will come and say, I think, you know, generally great stuff, I think you had a hiccup here, or I think I don't understand something here, right? As opposed to, Stef was a complete hypocrite. I don't care. I don't care. Unimportant. Uninteresting. Irrelevant.
[27:18] Done enough good work in the world, I've taken enough bullets for the truth that if you want to approach me with some appreciation and respect, I think that's wonderful. Let's have a great conversation. People disagree with me all the time. Great. In my personal life, in my public life, great. But if there's just, you know, in your weird mind, all the good that I've done has been erased because of some hiccup in a debate six years ago. I mean, why would I care? Why would I care what you think about anything? And I'll tell you sort of my approach to these kinds of things as well, whether you think it's useful or not. I'm just telling you my approach.
[28:01] Well, I think about what this person's personal life is like. You know, if somebody wants to criticize me, that's fine. Criticize me all you want. But I think about what this person's personal life is like. And I think, okay, let's say it's a woman named Jane, right? This is not the trial, right? But let's say it's a woman named Jane. And what Jane does is Jane gets ferociously angry and contemptuous about some hiccup or ambivalent thing that happened six years ago. Now, can you imagine what it would be like to be married to Jane? Can you imagine how jumpy you'd become about how intolerant and intransigent she would be and how much you'd have to spend your time trying to deal with all of this aggression and so on, right? So what I think of is I think of, okay, this is how that they conduct themselves in this sort of, you know, odd and hostile way and, you know, and so on, right? What would it be like to be married? What would it be like to have that kind of person as a father or a mother? Now, once you understand that, once you understand that, then you can understand.
[29:16] I don't have any respect and don't listen. Because if this is how the person is, that there's a weird and creepy and obsessive and contemptuous and hostile, it's like, what's their personal life like? Are they happily married?
[29:31] Do they have great friends, right? Do they have the love and respect of those around them? Well, no. Like, no, and it's really tragic, of course, if these people were to talk about their bad childhoods, that would be kind of honest. But that they would pour all of this moral rage into me saying i can't answer this question in a debate six years ago or in a time in in a podcast like the stub that that was it was i did a show and then i said i'm really angry at the world health organization for being so corrupt and i'm going to do a rant about it and then i did a rant about the world health organization saying to everyone you got to go and hug the sickly so to speak, which I consider dangerous and I think is, and certainly with the information at the time, it made perfect sense. So if this is where people are putting their big focus and moral rage, what kind of personal relationships do they have? Would I want this person to be my friend? If I met this person at a dinner party, would I want to hang out with them again? Like we had a meetup not too long ago, a free-to-main meetup for donors, and it was really great. I mean, everybody who came, I would be like really happy to socialize with again. It was really a great deal of fun. We went to a restaurant. We walked around and my daughter gave a tour. And then we sat at a restaurant, a big round table and talked philosophy and laughed and joked. It was a beautiful, beautiful evening, right?
[30:53] But if I had somebody jabbing a finger in my face and saying, well, six years ago, man, you wouldn't answer a question in this debate. I'd be like, okay, calm the fuck down.
[31:03] And, you know, maybe back out of my personal space a little, right because it just means that they don't know how to criticize they're not coming from a positive space and and they're certainly not acknowledging all the good right i'm so disappointed in staff.
[31:20] It all wrong. How dare you? I came in good faith. Like, I just, why would I want to have anything to do with someone like that? And if someone like that dislikes this community, I think that's great. I'm not going to try and talk someone like that out of disliking our community or what it is that I'm doing. I want them to say how much they dislike me. I want them to say what a hypocrite I am. And I want them to, they're doing some repetition compulsion of, well, man, all I did was I tried to correct Stef on something and he banned me. And that's how hypocritical, it's like, great, you know, you go, go tell everyone that, please tell everyone who's in your life.
[31:59] What a bad guy I am and what a terrible community this is, please, I'm begging you. Because that's the inoculation, right? Go, go tell all the people who find you to be a valuable and helpful person in their life, go and tell those people how bad the community is and what a hypocrite I am I think that's like honestly seriously without a shred of doubt or hesitation I want I want people to do that because everyone who's in your life who puts up with this kind of behavior is not somebody we want here where we're trying to figure out the truth right so yeah focusing your your intense rather creepy moral rage at a video that was an addendum to a longer show from five or six years ago, or me not feeling comfortable making an absolute statement about all the contents in my book in the middle of a live debate. If that's your big moral outrage, I think that's really sad. I think that's really sad. And then, of course, it's the cycle of you come across all kinds of intense and aggressive. And what happens is, it's a form of dominance and control, right? Well, Stef, you've said that you're really into consistency. Here's something I found that's inconsistent. Now you have to do what I want and fix and resolve it. And if you don't, you're a hypocrite.
[33:24] I don't want to play that game. I really don't. And I'm just not. I did listen to the show because I was kind of curious about what I had said.
[33:34] And it made sense to me in context. So, and you don't want to judge Omicron by the alpha. Was it alpha? Delta? Like the first, the first, I may have the nomenclature wrong. It's been quite some time, but sort of the first round of COVID was fairly nasty.
[33:53] And so I just I view it could be right or wrong I'm just sort of telling you how I view it I view it as a form of dominance a form of subjugation which is to say oh Stef you're so into consistency well here's something that's inconsistent now you have to fix it and solve it and resolve it and do what I want and if you don't you're hypocritical right well I mean I just I reject those premises as a whole. I just reject those premises as a whole. If I was inconsistent about something five or six years ago, why would you care? Was I the most inconsistent person in the world five or six years ago? If consistency is so important, why aren't you focusing on, say, the mainstream media who lies people into war? Can't you focus on their inconsistencies? So it's not because the person cares about inconsistency. It's because they know that I care about consistency. And so they want to try and dominate me by saying, I've exposed this inconsistency in Stef and he better respond to it or he's a hypocrite. It's not because the person cares about inconsistency, it's because the person cares about power. And I will not have my values used against me. I mean, people can try, of course, right? That's fine. But I will not have my values used against me.
[35:16] Go out into the world talking about my love of reason and consistency in order for people to try and control me by labeling me inconsistent and then calling me a hypocrite if I don't do what they want. That's not what my values are for.
[35:32] So anyone who's out there trying to punish you for your values or attacking you for your values and so on, I just don't have anything to do with them. And I know the difference, of course, because I have my values in my personal relationships. I have my values in my marriage and as a parent and all of that. And having my values brings me joy, happiness, love, and delight. So I kind of know the difference. So having these values in my personal life, and I think to a large degree in my professional life, but having these values in my personal life brings me, it sparketh joy, right? It brings me great and wonderful things. So if someone comes on like a hurricane, like a shark, and it's like, Stef, you're a total hypocrite and you got to answer this or you're even worse of a hypocrite. It's like, that's not how my relationships work. And I get corrected by people in my life.
[36:22] And it's great. It's usually positive, fun, good-natured, enjoyable. So I know what it's like to have values and be corrected and be respected. And that's not that. So, and again, this has nothing to do with like, who cares about the little telegram channel, who cares about these people? I mean, not me, but I think it is very illustrative for you as a whole, for you listening to this as a whole. At some point in your life, you just have to say, look, if you want to interact with me, you're going to have to do so with some level of respect. And, you know, I will grant the same back, but some level of respect, right?
[37:03] If people aren't willing to grant that to you, why on earth would you want to interact with them? And the fact that they might say, well, it's hypocritical if you don't, it's like, that's no, no, just not interested in those kinds of conversations. And then, you know, of course, they're going to say, well, well, I tried to correct him and he just banned me and like, you can't take criticism. I get all of that. Well, you can't control any of that nonsense, but you know, then they should be thanking you, right? So let's say I am such a hypocrite, right? Let's just say, right? I am such a hypocrite that I just, I just ban people who disagree with me, even though I actively engage in debates, and even though I'm constantly asking people for corrections, and even though I've thanked people for their corrections in the past, and even taken responsibility when it was just my fault, right? When I came on too strong against someone a couple of months ago in a podcast, I publicly apologized, changed my behavior, and gave him a free private call-in as compensation. So, I mean, obviously, I don't need to defend myself because everybody knows the sort of answers to these things.
[38:01] But let's say that I am just some complete mealy-mouthed hypocrite, then they should be relieved to be, like if you found someone with some mealy-mouthed hypocrite, then wouldn't you be relieved if they didn't want to have anything to do with you? Right? That would be a good thing. That would be a plus, right? Like if there was somebody in the business world who was a complete con man, you know, like Theranos style, right? Just a complete con man. And then that person wouldn't want to do business with you, that would be a plus, right? That would be a positive thing. That would be a plus. So I'm helping them out. All right. So I've got, grab a little food before the seven o'clock show, but I just wanted to jump in and talk about this. And if you have any comments or issues or criticisms of what I'm saying, you can certainly raise your hand. I'm happy to hear them now. Otherwise we can reconvene in a little under an hour for the seven o'clock Friday night to show. So I'll just wait for a second here in case anybody has any questions or comments let me just check and see but yeah i'll need to your first round was alpha yeah thanks yeah asking for rigid ideological purity and nitpicking is boring yeah yeah.
[39:06] I get at the beginning, people don't have to give me any respect because I'm just new to the field, but I've done really great good in the 20 years I've been a public intellectual. If people don't want to provide me any positive respect due to that, then I just have no particular... I've earned that. I've earned, certainly in the public square, I've earned being treated with respect. If I'm not going to be treated with respect, I have no interest in talking to someone. Why would I, that would make no sense to me. That's just a matter of self-esteem. And of course, you know, since people in my life treat me with respect and I treat them with respect, I'm not sure why I would have lower standards for people I don't even know. That doesn't make any sense to me.
[39:47] All right. Oh, I see one of my critics is on the call, but is not saying anything. Well, that's a shame. All right. Okay. So yeah, just, just please don't engage with people who have their oddities and quirks and seem to find this community as the place where they need to expend their ferocious moral outrage. Come on, man. Don't pick on the peaceful parenting, anti-war, anti-power, anti-violence, non-aggression principle, UPB community that this is where you're going to focus your moral outrage. I mean, it's pathetic. It's really, really sad. Please just stop falling for this kind of stuff as a whole. It's just really important because this is a good place for you to figure out. In a fairly safe space, this is a good way for you to figure out. And I'm sorry that the people who were so outraged by everything I did have not seen fit to speak with me over the course of this conversation. But I suppose that's boringly predictable. All right. Thanks, everyone. We'll see you in a bit. freedomain.com to help out the show. Lots of love from up here, my friends. Take care. I'll talk to you soon. Bye.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
