Post: #1

I'm sure quite a few of you guys have heard of him before, what do you think of him? He got me into red pill stuff in the first place, which I'm grateful to, but he is seriously lacking in a lot of areas. Namely he advocates marriage and is 40-ish now, meaning he is pretty behind the times.

I would recommend you check him out, he's an arrogant asshole and his videos are really lengthy but most of them are pretty good. He is one of the biggest philosophers today (according to sub numbers) and is damn good at speaking and explaining in a fun way. If he was younger and not married he would kill it with girls, he has the arrogant yet charming vibe down.

Skip all the fluff on his channel and go straight to the truth about series or some of the shorter videos. The listener call in stuff is usually omega/beta men calling in with horrible mics and complaining about their life.

I usually avoid most of his videos nowadays in favor of guys like Elliot Hulse and Roosh and friends but that doesn't mean hes not great. Tell me if you watch / read any other philosophers, I'll check them out.

Post: #2

The search function will yield many threads about him.

Post: #3

Windbag who thinks he knows far more than he actually does.

Post: #4

He's an intelligent guy and he presents many good ideas in his videos. He someone that you can learn from. The only negative I see is that his videos tend to be long.

Post: #5

Clearly a well-read and intelligent man.

Just because you don't agree with 100% of what someone says, doesn't mean you need to dismiss them. There is a lot you can learn from people, and he clearly is quite knowledgeable about many topics.

Post: #6

After years of checking out his podcasts I'm finally a paid subscriber. I pay because I've found value in a lot of his work. Some of his stuff is mind blowing, and some I'll just roll my eyes. What I truly love is the show notes where he lists his sources for you to check out for yourself.

Post: #7

Definitely respect his success; he has come literally out of nowhere to become one of the biggest vloggers on Youtube.

With that said, I can't tell where he sits on issues sometimes; is he a libertarian, a conspiracy theorist, a business focused objectivist, etc?

Post: #8

He is Red Pill, but he seems to miss a good portion of the 'Sphere and makes the impression of ignoring/denying Game.

Plus his libertarian economic viewpoints are too limiting to me.

But of course I agree with many of the points he makes, since he is an intelligent Red Piller. Don't listen to him though, since I have little to gain from his insights.

Post: #9

Upsides: Smart man, high verbal reasoning/intelligence. Very well thought out views. He appears honest and he is funny.

Downsides: Intense guy. Very,very big ego and I think he doesn't entertain alternative views very well.

Some of his videos are amazing though. The "cult of friendship" and "cynicism as scar tissue" have been saved on my youtube!

Post: #10

He had an interesting theory about Greece, IQ, emigration, and earnings on the Greece thread.

Made me think about the US. Stefan mentioned the impact of earning potential per marginal IQ point. Since the US youngsters seem to be getting dumber (IQ is part genetic and part environment - but I rarely come across a smart single mom, and since there are so many more of them now) - so the future GDP may headed downward unless we allow more smart people to immigrate here.

Post: #11

Post: #12

A very smart man.

People often look for someone to be perfect and if they're not will focus on their flaws.

Obviously every human throughout history has had many many flaws and no intellectual has ever been 100% right about every single thing.

But focusing on that is crazy, he will make you think for sure, a very well read man. I love watching his videos. Even if you disagree or think he's off base, the reading and learning he will make you do to confirm your own beliefs is very valuable.

Post: #13

Love some of his videos, especially the one where he talks about the real reason Robin Williams offed himself. Other than that the only thing I really don't like about him is his atheism (agnostic? I dunno). It kind of puts a dark cloud over the rest of what he says if that's the case. Then again maybe he will have a Saul-like conversion someday.

He also seems fond of putting down southern conservatives (think Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, etc).

Post: #14

You don't don't have to agree 100% with someone in order to find value in them. There are plenty of things I don't agree with that are advocated by Stefan Molyneux (disown your parents), Roosh, Roissy (Mexicans are evil), etc etc, but there is plenty that I do agree with and plenty of value to find with all of these guys. You take what resonates with you and build your own life philosophy.

Post: #15

I prefer Pat Condell

Post: #16

I tend to prefer when Stephan shows up on other podcasts. I subscribed to his for a while, but found them too long and I had to make some hard choices. But he is intelligent, a good philosopher, and you can learn a lot from him.

Like other said, I don't agree with everything he has to say, but I agree with him enough to get a lot of value from him. He's a good voice in the red pill/libertarian/anarchist camp.

Post: #17

I've very strong mixed opinions on Stefan.

My strong positive opinion is that he helped me understand just how bad my childhood was and motivated me to discover how to fix it.

My strong negative opinion is that he's very bad at indicating what needs to be done. Arranged in order from best to less good, The Last Psychiatrist, Roosh, Mike Cernovich, Roissy, and Rollo Tomassi are miles better than Stefan at providing workable daily solutions to this formerly-broken man's problems.

My other strong negative opinion is that he denounces Pick-Up Artistry while giving advice that Pick-Up Artists and Game Practitioners would gladly endorse. And he does this while admitting that his knowledge of Game / Pick-Up Artistry is extremely limited.

So he comes across as one of those alpha naturals who doesn't realize that he's an alpha natural. And so he thinks all Game is manipulation, all the time.

Post: #18

As a philosopher, I'd expect him to do better with categorizing game concepts. It bugs me when you mention any aspect of game, and somebody immediately commits the category error of lumping all of it into "pick up artistry". That's only a narrow segment of the whole thing.

I like that Roosh came up with (or at least took the idea and ran with) neomasculinity. I look forward to more philosophical development on that idea.

Post: #19

(07-09-2015 10:04 AM)emuelle1 Wrote:  I like that Roosh came up with (or at least took the idea and ran with) neomasculinity. I look forward to more philosophical development on that idea.

Agree with this so much. Roosh's neomasculinity will combine Philosophy and Game into a meaningful template that'll improve so many men's lives.

Game without Philosophy is just empty hedonism.

Philosophy without Game leads to angry, entitled, bitter men.

Game and Philosophy leads to a neomasculine man.

Post: #20

He is a douche bag and master manipulator. Watch this debate to see how he get's ripped apart:

Post: #21

(07-09-2015 01:44 PM)turuk Wrote:  He is a douche bag and master manipulator. Watch this debate to see how he get's ripped apart:

I watched that and I came out thinking both those guys were assholes. Molyneux did his characteristic attempt to "interrupt until the opponent gives up" move, but the other guy just employed a polysyllabic word salad.

Seriously, who the fuck says "You're operating under a truncated frame of reference!" instead of "You don't understand my argument."?

Post: #22

I've been watching a lot of Stefan's videos in recent months and listening to some of his podcasts too.
It's an astounding body of work he's built up.
Its interesting to see some people (predominantly SJW types) referring to him as a 'cult leader'.
I will admit, there is an addictive quality for sure to his work, and he certainly has an army of followers at this stage, but much of the criticism of him seems to focus on a couple of clips where he suggests that if people are holding you back, even family members, then you should disassociate yourself from those people and how this is the kind of message that David Koresh, Jim Jones, etc would have given to their sect/cult members.
This seems like a pretty ridiculous comparison. Molyneux may be very arrogant and self important at times, but it seems like he genuinely wants to help people and has no nefarious intentions going on behind the scenes.

There's only been a couple of times where I've heard him say something that doesn't seem to hold up.
One was where he stated that homosexuality was 100% due to nature, not nurture.
I don't have any studies right now to back this up, but I'm almost certain this is not the case.
Yes, nature plays a significant part, but nurture is also involved, this can be seen in how many people 'turn gay' when they become older, sometimes when they've been burned too much by the opposite sex and turn to their own sex for comfort.

I'd also have to say that his videos that relate to PUAs are not his best work.
He gets the concepts for sure but is quite disparaging about men who regularly go for women much younger than them, even though it is a perfectly normal biological urge in a man, to go for young women in their prime, which is late teens/early twenties.
It's one of the few times where I've thought he's not been logically consistent here, he's letting his own personal biases dictate his comments to callers.

Overall though, I'd rate him as one of the most important voices out there at the moment, not only on economic and other societal issues, but also just in temrs of encouraging people to think rationally, take personal responsibility and seek truth and virtue in life.

Post: #23

Smart guy, solid evidence for his claims. I'm also stoked that he continues to churn out content at a consistent rate. His podcasts are kind of great for the commute to work.

Post: #24

I like his stuff.

Just don't fall for the de-foo-ing shit.

Post: #25

(01-27-2016 04:05 PM)Maciano Wrote:  I like his stuff.

Just don't fall for the de-foo-ing shit.

I've listened and watched probably a hundred of his clips/shows by now and I still haven't come across one example of this defooing thing.
I did see the clip on Joe Rogan where he got a bit pissed it and denied it.
From the clip, it looks like he's actually denying is the meaning that some people took from it, and on that, I completely agree with him.
People can draw whatever meaning they want from words depending on their agenda.
People like Ana Kasparian and Peter Joseph come across as butthurt and have tried unsuccessfully to discredit and ridicule him.
Ana is just a woman trolling for attention and sympathy but Joseph efforts at one-upmanship are embarrassing, he comes across as a giant beta dweeb trying to win the battle of the super brains and failing on just about every count.
As for this 'defooing' thing, if my own family's values and opinions were actively harming me, I would start to distance myself from them.
Call it whatever you want but to me that is plain common sense.