3 ms·

It looks like a lot of people here don't understand how someone could possibly support Trump. If I were simply following the mainstream media's narrative, I'd b

It looks like a lot of people here don't understand how someone could possibly support Trump. If I were simply following the mainstream media's narrative, I'd be in a similar position. If you're really interested in trying to understand a viewpoint that differs from your own (which I believe is healthy for anyone, even if you don't plan on changing your views), I would suggest beginning by listening to Stefan Molyneux (https://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot/ https://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot/). Label him as you will - at least he makes a lot of logically sound arguments in support of Trump (which I honestly can't say for a number of other Trump supporters).

matt4077 10y ago
" According to Jessica Roy of Time Magazine Molyneux argued that violence in the world is the result of how women treat their children, and that "If we could just get people to be nice to their babies for five years straight, that would be it for war, drug abuse, addiction, promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, ... Almost all would be completely eliminated, because they all arise from dysfunctional early childhood experiences, which are all run by women." I fear for the future of society when 40% of the population are on that level. I would have never thought I'd miss GWB. Now, it seems only a matter of time until all pockets of civilization are overrun by those peddling comspiracy-theories on youtube.
- alva 10y ago
  Spend some time looking at some of the most well respected and researched philosophers in history. Many of their views are far more extreme that that quote, yet they are embraced by the mainstream and high academia.
- curiousgeorgio 10y ago
  See, you're falling into the trap of trusting what other people say about a person, rather than actually listening to that person's viewpoint. If you were familiar with Molyneux and his full line of reasoning, you'd understand quotes like that in context rather than how someone in the media wants to characterize him.
  - badsock 10y ago
    There are literally millions of voices out there proposing different ways to look at the world. It's physically impossible to listen to more than a small proportion of that number in your lifetime, so it's reasonable to have your first level filter be "is it easy to find examples of them saying things that are very obviously stupid".
    - curiousgeorgio 10y ago
      My point has more to do with the source of your information than the quantity of information you should consume. Regardless of your particular political views, you must acknowledge that the mainstream media is far from an unbiased source (recent leaks have made that clearer than ever). Thus, if your "first level filter" is only based on what the media says, you're looking at a small sample from a very skewed dataset. Everyone uses filters and makes judgements on limited information; the point is, you'll be better off looking to primary sources and listening to some of what people actually have to say before drawing conclusions. The media at this point is essentially useless for that purpose. If I were to judge your character based on a single quote from your lifetime, would you rather I ask your greatest enemy for that quote, or pick a random sample on a good day?
      - badsock 10y ago
        You raise a good point in your last paragraph. When you said "If you were familiar with Molyneux and his full line of reasoning", it sounded like you were making the argument that you have to get deep into an author before you can judge them.
      - matt4077 10y ago
        That's conspiracy hogwash. Replace "media" with "the medical community" and it sounds like a snake-oil salesman. Journalism today is better than it ever was. The bias of quality journalism today is simply a general, tentative consensus that the political and economic system of what you'd collectively call "the west" is working quite well in principle. I'm not going to look at idiots ranting into their webcams on youtube. Considering how easy it is for something good to "go viral", I'm quite happy to wait until the good stuff gets separated from the 99+% that is idiotic. I do talk to people, quite a lot actually considering a few volunteer engagements. Many of these people life vastly different lives than I do, from the homeless alcoholic to a guy who just inherited some 9-digit fortune. I have learned that a drunk lunatic ranting on the subway /is not/ suffering from the pain of his insights into the conspiracy controlling everyone's mind. He's just drunk, and wrong, and annoyingly loud. When I talk to journalists, they are almost without exception some of the most dedicated, well-educated, interesting and self-reflecting people. They mostly share a core set of believes ("no whiskey before noon", "someone bragging about sexual assault must never be president"), and I'm happy to share these with them, because otherwise they'd have to start every article at first principle. Regarding that quote: It isn't just something he once said. It's one of his pet theories, and I doubt that a well-adjusted person could even come up with something like that.
sagichmal 10y ago
Oh who's this Stefan Molyneux character, let me just check out his Twitter... https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/787530311299112961 https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/787530311299112961 :\
- curiousgeorgio 10y ago
  Have you actually listened to a significant portion of what Molyneux has said, or do you routinely judge people 100% based on tweets out of context? Please, do yourself a favor and start listening to alternative viewpoints. It's this kind of "let's judge a person by a tweet" mindset that is extremely dangerous to the pursuit of truth and improving society. The media thrives on one-liners (such as those found on Twitter), but I'd like to think we can do better.
- striking 10y ago
  Yeah, but you could say exactly that about the Pinboard guy and how much he hates Trump on his Twitter timeline. Just because they might be polemics doesn't mean they're wrong. It just means they have a strong opinion.
kingmanaz 10y ago
Here's a surprisingly fair attempt at understanding red-state Trump supporters from blue-state voter: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/ http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-on...

matt4077 10y ago

" According to Jessica Roy of Time Magazine Molyneux argued that violence in the world is the result of how women treat their children, and that "If we could just get people to be nice to their babies for five years straight, that would be it for war, drug abuse, addiction, promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, ... Almost all would be completely eliminated, because they all arise from dysfunctional early childhood experiences, which are all run by women." I fear for the future of society when 40% of the population are on that level. I would have never thought I'd miss GWB. Now, it seems only a matter of time until all pockets of civilization are overrun by those peddling comspiracy-theories on youtube.

alva 10y ago
Spend some time looking at some of the most well respected and researched philosophers in history. Many of their views are far more extreme that that quote, yet they are embraced by the mainstream and high academia.
curiousgeorgio 10y ago
See, you're falling into the trap of trusting what other people say about a person, rather than actually listening to that person's viewpoint. If you were familiar with Molyneux and his full line of reasoning, you'd understand quotes like that in context rather than how someone in the media wants to characterize him.
- badsock 10y ago
  There are literally millions of voices out there proposing different ways to look at the world. It's physically impossible to listen to more than a small proportion of that number in your lifetime, so it's reasonable to have your first level filter be "is it easy to find examples of them saying things that are very obviously stupid".
  - curiousgeorgio 10y ago
    My point has more to do with the source of your information than the quantity of information you should consume. Regardless of your particular political views, you must acknowledge that the mainstream media is far from an unbiased source (recent leaks have made that clearer than ever). Thus, if your "first level filter" is only based on what the media says, you're looking at a small sample from a very skewed dataset. Everyone uses filters and makes judgements on limited information; the point is, you'll be better off looking to primary sources and listening to some of what people actually have to say before drawing conclusions. The media at this point is essentially useless for that purpose. If I were to judge your character based on a single quote from your lifetime, would you rather I ask your greatest enemy for that quote, or pick a random sample on a good day?
    - badsock 10y ago
      You raise a good point in your last paragraph. When you said "If you were familiar with Molyneux and his full line of reasoning", it sounded like you were making the argument that you have to get deep into an author before you can judge them.
    - matt4077 10y ago
      That's conspiracy hogwash. Replace "media" with "the medical community" and it sounds like a snake-oil salesman. Journalism today is better than it ever was. The bias of quality journalism today is simply a general, tentative consensus that the political and economic system of what you'd collectively call "the west" is working quite well in principle. I'm not going to look at idiots ranting into their webcams on youtube. Considering how easy it is for something good to "go viral", I'm quite happy to wait until the good stuff gets separated from the 99+% that is idiotic. I do talk to people, quite a lot actually considering a few volunteer engagements. Many of these people life vastly different lives than I do, from the homeless alcoholic to a guy who just inherited some 9-digit fortune. I have learned that a drunk lunatic ranting on the subway /is not/ suffering from the pain of his insights into the conspiracy controlling everyone's mind. He's just drunk, and wrong, and annoyingly loud. When I talk to journalists, they are almost without exception some of the most dedicated, well-educated, interesting and self-reflecting people. They mostly share a core set of believes ("no whiskey before noon", "someone bragging about sexual assault must never be president"), and I'm happy to share these with them, because otherwise they'd have to start every article at first principle. Regarding that quote: It isn't just something he once said. It's one of his pet theories, and I doubt that a well-adjusted person could even come up with something like that.

sagichmal 10y ago

Oh who's this Stefan Molyneux character, let me just check out his Twitter... https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/787530311299112961 https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/787530311299112961 :\

curiousgeorgio 10y ago
Have you actually listened to a significant portion of what Molyneux has said, or do you routinely judge people 100% based on tweets out of context? Please, do yourself a favor and start listening to alternative viewpoints. It's this kind of "let's judge a person by a tweet" mindset that is extremely dangerous to the pursuit of truth and improving society. The media thrives on one-liners (such as those found on Twitter), but I'd like to think we can do better.
striking 10y ago
Yeah, but you could say exactly that about the Pinboard guy and how much he hates Trump on his Twitter timeline. Just because they might be polemics doesn't mean they're wrong. It just means they have a strong opinion.

kingmanaz 10y ago

Here's a surprisingly fair attempt at understanding red-state Trump supporters from blue-state voter: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/ http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-on...