- Joined
- Apr 2, 2021
This nut has been ranting about the same damn things year after year, made a cult following, and NOW you think hes a sociopath?
Careercow Stefan Molyneux and the free domain Radio podcast - NOT AN ARGUMENT
- Thread starter x.eight.six.systems
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2019
One of the things Atheism Is Unstoppable did was go to Banned.TV.
The 2019 video might have been before he was yeeted off YouTube.
I think that Stefan got really comfortable and forgot how to hustle. This is what happens when you completely rely on YouTube as your income. This will happen to all of them eventually.
OH SHIT.
He wrote a NOVEL- he reads it himself here https://streamanity.com/video/qoURTmczFVHp
The 2019 video might have been before he was yeeted off YouTube.
I think that Stefan got really comfortable and forgot how to hustle. This is what happens when you completely rely on YouTube as your income. This will happen to all of them eventually.
OH SHIT.
He wrote a NOVEL- he reads it himself here https://streamanity.com/video/qoURTmczFVHp
Last edited:
Geoff Peterson
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
Not sure if I just imagined this or not, but I remember seeing a Molyneux video where he was going on about career women ignoring their biological clocks and a good portion of it was just him making clock sounds and saying "Your eggs are dry" or something. Anybody else remember this?
Tick. Tock.
Your eggs...
Tick. Tock.
Are dry...
Tick. Tock.
Nobody wants dry eggs...
Tick. Tock.
Your eggs...
Tick. Tock.
Are dry...
Tick. Tock.
Nobody wants dry eggs...
basket case
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2020
He was saying simliar weird things about Taylor Swift a few years ago.
I found out about him during the 2016 Presidential elections because he made alot of "TRUTH ABOUT DONALD TRUMP" videos, i haven't followed him much in the past few years because it all was the same o and I didn't want to watch him play minecraft with his daughter.
I remember he always whined and got angry when people watched his videos without donating.
Seems like he is much like his butt buddy Mike Cernobitch, and both were just grifting the entire time using Trump and MAGA to promote and enrich themselves. Now he no longer wants to talk about politics because he's been deplatformed and its harder to grift? hmmm
o well.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2021
What's the deal with all those coomers obsessing over Swift? First Greer, now this one...
StraightShooter2
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2020
Not sure if this guy qualifies as "white supremacist" or not, but I've heard that some Neo-Nazi and white supremacist virgins think that Taylor Swift represents some "Aryan ideal" (even though she doesn't - she has Italian ancestry, and everyone knows that Italians are descended from n****rs).
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2021
I think she was rather quiet about her political affiliation so some right and alt-right groups decided she must be supporting their ideas.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2015
I think think that was some kind of reverse cancel culture gambit. By glomming on to her they'd get her ostracized and then she could just as well join up with them.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2015
Hey one dollar man how's things Going?
Last edited by a moderator:
Systemsprenger
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2021
Some brief commentary on Molyneux's output in recent months.
Disclosure - I do occasionally listen to him - May go against the prevailing wisdom here, but I do agree with his stance on several specific areas, including his concept of peaceful parenting, resisting the increasing acceptance of single motherhood, over-reliance on psychedelics and his general attitude towards cryptocurrency. Other things warrant an essay of rebuttals or qualifications.
I was a fan of his very briefly in 2015, until I did my own digging into the race-IQ stuff.
There have been three general trends that I've observed:
Namely, Molyneux is only hosting these roundtables (with their current structure) and ramping up his crypto coverage to;
a) remain relevant post-deplatforming,
b) increase his exposure in a growing ecosystem,
c) indirectly increase the price of BTC through what's left of his content creator web of influence as a HODLer himself (a la Saylor),
d) simultaneous masking of his own (willful?) ignorance of the inner-workings of BTC and other cryptos through his young newb callers, in addition to receiving bitesize recommendations or news from his own fans
Playing Devil's advocate temporarily against each of the above;
a) he would be foolish to exclusively focus on Agony Aunt style relationship content, given the increased penetration of crypto into the mainstream and his newfound avoidance of politics
b) previous point repeated (foolish move)
d first) If I recall correctly, Molyneux's cancer situation occurred around the time of the Block Wars. Also, the 2016 election was ramping up right afterwards. Therefore, reasonably, personal health and a more immediate threat/opportunity would override any call for an intricate analysis, or involvement in, the BTC civil war. Given he's demonstrated ignorance, the question rests on will, and there's good reason to assume his ignorance is not willful.
c) Given the ignorance and the above, his focus on BTC is understandable - Happens to have large amounts of the 'patient zero' crypto, just so happens to know the most about it, the outcome is self-evident.
The truth is probably somewhere between the two extremes, though I have a hard time accepting the proposal that his current (flawed) roundtable structure is entirely innocent, nor is the implied BTC maximalism.
Welcome further thoughts - Feel free to disagree/agree.
Disclosure - I do occasionally listen to him - May go against the prevailing wisdom here, but I do agree with his stance on several specific areas, including his concept of peaceful parenting, resisting the increasing acceptance of single motherhood, over-reliance on psychedelics and his general attitude towards cryptocurrency. Other things warrant an essay of rebuttals or qualifications.
I was a fan of his very briefly in 2015, until I did my own digging into the race-IQ stuff.
There have been three general trends that I've observed:
- Almost without fail, Molyneux seems to instinctively steer at least one tangential monologue mid-conversation towards his mass deplatforming from social media.
I'd understand that on an emotional level in the first few days/weeks/months, but we're now approximately one year after that event occurred - It'd arguably be a passable action if said event was directly relevant to the discussion. Yet, some inner process compels him to rehash the event. This isn't the sign of an individual who has accepted an adverse event (I'm no psychiatrist, but this unusual pattern is reminiscent of adjustment disorder).
- Cryptocurrency has become a staple of his post-deplatforming content, now.
Being fair to Stefan, he definitely was an early observer in BTC's 2012-13 days IIRC, and he certainly did recognize its potential applicability, at least in a macro sense.
However, his lack of interest in BTC's most formative period (including the Block Wars) is incongruent with his self professed tech background - Surely, a former programmer who also understands the macro would attempt to make an earnest contribution, particularly at such a pivotal period?
Stefan had, for the majority of the ensuing years, limited his coverage of BTC to the macro view (particularly juxtaposed against the status of fiat, especially the Greenback). This was (and remains) an easy case to repeat ad nauseum.
This trend has continued post-deplatforming - A suspiciously generalist presentation from someone who'd likely known about BTC for at least double the time that his audience would have, on average.
As an additional point, Stefan did not appear to be aware (up until quite recently) that a hefty number of the use-cases for BTC (per Satoshi's writings) have either been rendered defunct in later versions, or later projects (e.g. Monero/XMR) have specifically captured an element of the original, proposed domains of function. Once more, that state of ignorance from 2014-2021 is... Puzzling.
- A regular feature of Molyneux's cryptocurrency content are his 'crypto roundtables'.
I haven't seen anyone else online review these, so I have the dubious 'honor' of being the first (LoL).
In these, Molyneux typically features everyday enthusiasts of cryptocurrency as a whole - These folks may be generally split into three categories (rank newbies, specialists in a specific aspect of cryptocurrency, specific advocates of one or several cryptocurrencies).
In all fairness, these are probably quite useful for absolute newbs looking for tactile immersion, although there are far more authoritative and comprehensive resources out there, especially as some of the self-professed crypto veterans in the early roundtables couldn't convincingly define basic terms (e.g. hard vs soft forks, proof of work vs proof of stake).
Aside from the utility issue beyond the newb stage, Molyneux has resisted bringing on any current heavyweights from the Youtube crypto circuit. Unclear why he wouldn't have a Michael Saylor or other BTC maximalists on (despite that being his own orientation). Suits his maintained narrative and would permit additional bleedover traffic from their social media presence. Alternatively, he's tried and failed (reputational fears?). Would explain why he's resorting to reading Nasseem Tlaib draft essays, perhaps.
There have been a few debates within these roundtables, but these generally stem from ignorance, semantics or rhetoric jostling (fex. a Tezos advocate versus a BTC maximalist).
After having lurked the crypto threads here, I doubt that the average poster would learn much from these. Absolute newbs probably will, depending on the episode. However, I cannot honestly recommend anyone who has access to any of the 'classical' publications on BTC, crypto or blockchain should opt for these instead.
One frequent irritant is the citation of Molyneux's particular brand of 'anarcho-capitalism', or indeed the deplatforming, which happen quite often in these talks.
Summarized, Molyneux has found himself a fairly robust niche in a landscape that's fairly saturated with long-form crypto analysis and news. However, the knowledge depth is generally quite shallow, and the absence of a single, fixed crypto generalist who could satisfactorily address basic crypto terminologies or concepts is a glaring weakness (blind leading blind scenario), as is the conspicuous absence of crypto heavy hitters as guests.
Namely, Molyneux is only hosting these roundtables (with their current structure) and ramping up his crypto coverage to;
a) remain relevant post-deplatforming,
b) increase his exposure in a growing ecosystem,
c) indirectly increase the price of BTC through what's left of his content creator web of influence as a HODLer himself (a la Saylor),
d) simultaneous masking of his own (willful?) ignorance of the inner-workings of BTC and other cryptos through his young newb callers, in addition to receiving bitesize recommendations or news from his own fans
Playing Devil's advocate temporarily against each of the above;
a) he would be foolish to exclusively focus on Agony Aunt style relationship content, given the increased penetration of crypto into the mainstream and his newfound avoidance of politics
b) previous point repeated (foolish move)
d first) If I recall correctly, Molyneux's cancer situation occurred around the time of the Block Wars. Also, the 2016 election was ramping up right afterwards. Therefore, reasonably, personal health and a more immediate threat/opportunity would override any call for an intricate analysis, or involvement in, the BTC civil war. Given he's demonstrated ignorance, the question rests on will, and there's good reason to assume his ignorance is not willful.
c) Given the ignorance and the above, his focus on BTC is understandable - Happens to have large amounts of the 'patient zero' crypto, just so happens to know the most about it, the outcome is self-evident.
The truth is probably somewhere between the two extremes, though I have a hard time accepting the proposal that his current (flawed) roundtable structure is entirely innocent, nor is the implied BTC maximalism.
Welcome further thoughts - Feel free to disagree/agree.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2021
You must admit he's gotten lots of mileage out of "PROTECT THE EGGS!"
He used to adopt leftist talking points, but stripped all potential out of them. Nowadays, you'll see plenty of Fox News grandpa takes that'll probably turn you back off of him.
Last edited:
Hellbound Hellhound
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
I'm not sure if Molyneux ever actually worked as a programmer. He held the position of Chief Technical Officer at the company his brother founded, but his background before that was in history and theatre. Based upon what I've been able to find out, I'm inclined to think that Stefan's self-professed background as a "software entrepreneur" is largely embellished, and that he most likely landed the job with his brother thanks to nepotism.
It's worth noting that his brother has quite an impressive resume in the software field, and went on to found another company immediately after selling the one that Stefan worked at, while Stefan's tech resume is literally just the one job he had at his brother's company.
Last edited:
Systemsprenger
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2021
I really appreciate your input here, as I (and no doubt many others) had taken Stefan's personal narrative regarding his tech background at face-value. Hadn't rationally appraised this interesting situation before.
Distinctly recall him stating in prior FDR episodes that he'd been involved at the code level with some project(s?) in the past, in addition to marketing for tech projects in the past.
I'm not in the tech field, so I don't know whether any of the above is in line with a CTO's responsibilities (a Google search indicates probably not?).
If it isn't standard fare for a CTO, then:
a) He (for whatever reason) had additional roles beyond a CTO that remained undocumented
b) He was initially involved in programming and marketing, and was then bumped up to a more senior position (possibly at his brother's behest, underperforming in the other roles?)
c) He did have those marketing and programming experiences, albeit with another entity (if so, which. and where's the evidence for this?)
d) The programming and marketing experience he cites is an embellishment of his actual role, and he'd passively acquired familiarity with the tech world through exposure to actual programmers (ie. brother)
Perhaps unsurprisingly, his brother's also keenly focused on cryptocurrency.
However, unlike Stefan (who's now been reduced to a C-tier commentator on all things crypto and basically little more than another HODLer), the brother is leveraging blockchain-based applications through his second company (the one you'd cited, Refined Data Solutions), and is presenting his company's work at conferences.
One has to wonder whether he views Stefan the way Smithy Cole observably sees Chris-Chan.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2019
I'm no tech expert, but I know enough to know a lot of things he said never sounded quite right. This makes a lot of sense.
Last edited:
Hellbound Hellhound
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
The only programming language I've heard Stefan claim he worked with is COBOL, which is pretty much exclusively used in business administration. It's possible that he may have acquired some skills in the area of coding, but it's probably a stretch to say that he has a professional background in it.
Stefan has been extremely vague about his work history outside of the time he spent at Caribou Systems (the company his brother founded), and even then, he's been very inconsistent about the number of years he actually spent there. On his LinkedIn page, he claims to have been there for 6 years (1995 to 2001), yet on episode 2498 of his podcast (at around 1:36:00), he claimed to have been at the company for "8 or 9 years". This doesn't seem to add up, since Hugh founded Caribou Systems in 1994, and left the company just 5 years later.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2021
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2020
All those opinions correlate pretty neatly with extreme free market advocacy.
I am four days off from arguing with a year old post.
Anyways, here goes:
I wholly agree that the free market and free speech is linked. But free speech doesn't always mean what you think.
When a person can say whatever they want about trans ideology: That's free market and free speech.
When masses of people get mad about above person and demands the release from their position: That's free market and free speech.
When a company is legally able to sack a person simply because the above mass of people demand that person is fired: That's free market and free speech.
You know why you never hear of cases from mainland Europe about people who were banned for calling transwomen men? That's because (among other reasons) there are labour laws in place, restricting the free market, that forbids companies from firing people over their opinions.
Cancelling people over their opinions of any kind is far rarer in mainland, western Europe than it is in USA/UK because the free market does not have the same hold in those places. And therefore the twitter crowd cannot cancel people by the virtue of using the free market.
An authoritarian country can of course also ban people for their opinions. But the free market is just as bad at punishing people for supporting wrong opinions.
If we go into the very specific topic LGBT and gender ideology the free market is HUGELY in its favour.
Why are trans issues such a huge political topic in USA? Because healthcare is private and therefore medical companies can earn a huge dime pushing new medical practices that countries with public healthcare do not care for.
Soviet Union? Communist China?
All those nations were hugely authoritarian and banned homosexuality. In fact, the USSR started out decriminalizing homosexuality and later banned it as it grew increasingly totalitarian. China had a view of homosexuality similar to that of antique Greece and only banned it after the rise of communism.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2021
He was a glibertarian when it was fashionable. Then he drifted off into Y'all-qaida, as all failed pick-up artists do.
Autopsy
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2017
I popped in to see what shit Molyneux was up to since he vanished off my radar ages ago, but I think this is worth addressing.
You touched on Europe when talking about cancelling, and you are right to assume that cancelling people is in part a public affair, but you didn't address the heavy legal subtext. Tightening of hate-crime laws predates the phenomenon of "cancelling," specifically the idea that class action lawsuits can hold employers for not firing known perpetrators of "hate-crimes" when they are brought to attention.
This should not be misconstrued as the same manner of thing as boycotts or other civilian action, it's strictly a government measure, and businesses avoid government even if they have to act as petty (unpunishable) cops to do so. It's way safer than letting the rabid civil prosecutors step in to rip your company apart, or having to pay your own lawyers to do their awful, awful job.
This is also why HR departments in real companies have tripled in size, can't hire anyone without a long ass background check, force employees to sign tons of waivers that say they'll be good boys, girls and others, undergo a ton of training to make sure it "sticks," and have to file seemingly endless paperwork to prove they are creating a safe and inclusive space, with zero "malicious actions." It is un-ironically cheaper and safer than the feds getting involved.
Government interference and insistence on insurance, payer problems, and state defined ethics means that any observation you can make on public health for public vs. private will be extremely muddy. State and federal institutions are involved in every element of applied and research medicine. There is no easy "capitalism did this, state did that" assessment you can make, because there is interference from top to bottom, and market failures from top to bottom. It's like if you got a couple of IKEA tables and swapped half the parts from one box with the other. Neither one comes out looking right.
Medicine in the US is far from some pure private market, and the generations who remember a private healthcare market anywhere across the planet are slowly dying off.
The US is trailing European countries with more thorough public healthcare in studying and implementing gender-affirmative care, because what elements of a free market it has, also means personal liability without state-controlled shields & financing. You act as though the free market is the driver, but in places where there are no consequences for cutting dongs off willy nilly, it happens more readily and with less public outcry. That is to say, "medical companies" can only make money from this, because the state has said that you cannot prosecute doctors for ruining your life by administering HRT or cutting off your dong and replacing it with a flesh wound- blaming it on the US' private market makes no sense, when the same thing has happened in Europe and most of Asia.
Meanwhile, if your premiums did go up because of tranny malpractice suits, you better believe consumers would cry out. If you weren't alive before 2000 AD, do some reading on life and health insurance and AIDS for this exact reason. Private insurers rebelling against HIV/AIDS provisions and forcing off gays from their services was a massive motivator in the government getting involved; it did not "like" the market's risk assessment, as it doesn't with the myriad doctors who object to HRT and transgender surgery.
If anything, like this the free market (as it exists) has been a bulwark against gay issues, including and especially transgender issues. LGBT issues are costly and unproductive to a peoples in a way few other socially popular causes are, so in the US (and the U.K., which has some similar social and economic outlooks to the U.S.,) they've been slow walked even while every other social issue, no matter how vapid or dumb, has chugged onwards. Conservative attitudes aren't actually that hard to budge, it seems, but the citizen's pocketbook and personal wellbeing absolutely are.
If you want to point to how capitalism intersects with transgender advocacy, you should instead point to the preponderance of wealthy, mostly conservative trannies who fund and finance lobbying and media propaganda efforts, and how that might be a factor of things like abnormal sexuality, excessive amounts of free time, and intelligence.