/liberty/ - Liberty

Post it on /leftypol/ retard

I have just watched until minute 29 and i think that the guy thinks that big business just appeared out of thin air.

>>17089

>Within 5 minutes he was already trolling the shit out of the guy. "Am I laboring now by talking with you?" Hooooooly shit.

That's some of the sneaky shit he does. He also gets people to implicitly admit they recognize self-ownership by referring to Stefan's arguments as "his arguments" or "Stefan's arguments," accepting that they are a result of his actions, which he is solely responsible for.

I dont really watch these videos by Stephan (ones where he is talking to a caller live) because most of the time the caller is a sperg who drops massive spaghetti about half way though, 15 min and this doesn't seem like its going to be any different.

Can anyone give me a TL:DW?

>>17096

Stef intentionally misinterprets everything and claims his victory while the commie completely BTFO him.

>>17078

>>524393

FIGHT white genocide

http://archive.is/kcusg

This March take part in our annual worldwide protest of white genocide

March Against WHITE GENOClDE will be held on

March 19th, the day before the Spring Solstice

Last years event was a HUGE success. People got out and got active all around the world.

We need EVERY pro-white to hit the streets or the internet on March 19th and tell the world that we will not lay silent while our race is being targeted for Genocide.

If you have any questions, please email me at laurafwg@gmail.com

FIGHT WHlTE GENOClDE

>>17096

>Stefan engages in a Socratic dialogue, asking the caller for a definition and presenting counter-examples

>Stef asks for a definition of exploitation

>Caller says, basically, "profiting off of something"

>Stef explains that the caller intends to profit off of the call, apologizing for being annoying but pointing out that being precise is very important in these dialogues

>Caller adjusts, okay, planning to profit economically off of a situation

>Stef tries to point out that it's fair for a person who puts in 1000s of hours, takes huge risks, and runs a business, to be paid and invest in his business via arranging a voluntary contract where a portion of employees' productivity becomes revenue for the business

>Caller tries to change subject

>Stef points out that, you can still have a definition of exploitation, but if you can't find exploitation within this VERY REAL situation, you have to admit that some forms of capitalism (wealth not inherited, etc.) are not exploitative

>Caller agrees, tries to rebut Stef's claim by saying a capitalist should be able to profit UNTIL the 1000s of hours building skills, investing, taking risks are paid off (this is hard to quantify but an interesting stance as principle)

>Stef rebuts that businessowners are constantly reinvesting, taking in new risks, increasing the productivity of workers by training and capital investment, and that it's an ongoing process

>Caller is basically forced to admit that in this situation, which was Stef's own experience, that workers are not exploited when the business owner takes an active role

>He tries to revise it by saying exploitation is profiting without putting any work in

>Stef's counterexample is babies, which profit off of parents without investing any work

>I do not remember if there was a definition revision after this, I think the caller tried to say that exploitation is profiting without working when the worker is only working due to a power disparity (lack of other options)

Lots of other stuff but this is the basic Socratic dialogue. I forgot how it ended exactly.

>>17098

>Stef intentionally misinterprets everything and claims his victory while the commie completely BTFO him.

LOL Solid argument there memelord

>>17099

Genocide is an exaggeration, people are biologically predisposed to be attracted to people with similar, but not extremely close, immune systems- this has been proven, and the clear implication is that it's one of many reasons that people prefer to date within their race.

Not to mention, people love people similar to them, so there's an inherent ethnocentrism. Diversity, meaning non-white proliferation and immigration, isn't going to be successful white genocide, but it may well help accelerate economic collapse as the burden is increased on the welfare state.

>>17114

>I'm not even angry. I'm impressed.

I knew it was spam from its complete irrelevance to the subject, probably a bot and not even a /pol/ crossshitposter. Nonetheless, the white nationalist meme of white genocide is irrational. There are rational concerns about third-world immigrants (higher crime rates, higher burden on the welfare state) but it's not feasible (without truly ridiculous levels) that immigration could result in the extermination of white people. I am also frustrated that bigots think they're being the rational ones in the race-IQ debate by countering the confident/unproven claims of anti-racists with confident/unproven claims themselves. The rational position is, worst case scenario let's say blacks for example are innately going to be less successful economically, academically, and more prone to crime especially if abused as children. To me, the policy conclusions one can reasonably draw from this is that a nation should prefer high IQ immigrants, and avoid low IQ immigrants. You can make an empirical case for segregation, not just by race but by ethnocentrism, since it's been shown that diverse communities have lower societal trust, civic engagement (charity/volunteering), higher crime (think about a community of 30% French 30% Polish 30% Russian vs. 99% Polish, the Poles will naturally feel safer, more trusting to others in their community.) Even with this, I wouldn't encourage segregation, the most radical conclusion I would draw is I would not treat people as subhuman Nazis for trying to form their own separate ethnic communities, even if they're white *gasp* and *even worse* they prefer to live with other white people. These are the radical conclusions I would draw, no rational person is going to say "muh rope day" if they are given 100% proof that blacks have 10-30 pt lower average IQs and might have a variant of the MAOA gene (2R) which makes abused individuals much more prone to delinquency.

Basically the race/IQ debate has been taken over by dogmatists, not scientists. Neither dominant position, namely "fuck anyone who considers this (racial IQ differences) a possibility"/"fuck anyone who skeptical of this possibility" is rational, but I'd rather associate with the anti-bigots, if I had to choose between the two, for obvious reasons, like being able to get a job. I prefer the third option, though, which is to avoid people who not only accept these 2 competing narratives but actually care to talk about them, though I've yet to meet someone in college who shows a strong interest in politics, current events, philosophy, economics, or the ramifications evolutionary biology and recorded history have on those.

>>17115

Oh, also white nationalists are so fucking retarded about one thing in particular: Jews. Not only do they fail to ascribe their disproportionate success and representation in power seats with high IQ, they think that Jews are just inherently traitorous. What the fuck? This is like feminists who say stupid shit about men, clearly they've had a lack of good experiences with their fathers, apparently polacks have never paid attention to any nice Jews they've met. Wagner, for instance, was substantially helped in his career and later turned out to be an anti-semite, could you fucking imagine if Wagner was Jewish, helped by a Christian in starting his career, and later turned out to hate Christians? This would be disgraceful, but the average polack won't see the problem with the reverse. The idea that some genes Jews have has made them inherently evil is retarded, the idea that Jewish culture is just particularly shifty is similarly retarded, I guess their idea for an "inside leak" to prove this shiftiness is that one crazy faggot Brother Nathaniel, ex-Jew and currently a polack or at least a fellow traveler.

>>17116

I think the lack of Jews in America, as opposed to a prevalence of them is what has enabled a minority of people to hold a great deal of hatred towards them; that and the political stuff Jews have participated in, failing to realize the fact that Jews (in power or not) generally favor policies that support Israel and weaken its opponents can be ascribed to a conspiracy in the same way that you can ascribe conspiracy to hungry people eating food placed in front of them, people act on the basis of their self-interest, and self-interest is determined by a mix of needs and wants, including wanting what they view as their homeland to be safe (something that's extremely admirable in a white person but treacherous in a Jewish person.)

>>17116

>they think that Jews are just inherently traitorous

There is a screenshot floating around in which the anon talks about how Jews often don't think about long term consequences for their actions and just do whats best in the moment. This of course leads to the perception that they are traitorous because of the disastrous long term effects of their actions when there wasn't any original malicious intent on their behalf except when it comes to people like George Soros, he needs to hang.

>>17121

>There is a screenshot floating around in which the anon talks about how Jews often don't think about long term consequences for their actions and just do whats best in the moment.

If that was the case, they wouldn't be successful in academics. People who don't think long-term don't go on to have successful careers.

>>17122

>If that was the case, they wouldn't be successful in academics.

The guy's example was specific to business, I don't know if it would be applicable to academia.

>>17124

>The guy's example was specific to business, I don't know if it would be applicable to academia.

Vague proclivities like "short-term thinking" in business can not be ascribed, with accuracy, to an entire group of people, without justification.

That post was just a big pile of claims, without any facts or argumentation to back it up. You can call it short-term thinking to work within a system that's doomed to collapse and not expecting it to last, I call that working within the existing system.

>>17126

Also, that post has horrible historical inaccuracies.

>Jews get kicked out of places in Europe because they ruin the economy

Good meme, except the real reason was envy, Christians hated that the Jews did better than them economically, even when Jews faced a greater challenge due to discriminatory policies. Jews were hated by Nazis for the same reason they were hated by medieval Europeans, the same reason slightly above average (in terms of wealth) peasants ("Kulaks") in Russia were executed by the communists, envy. That's all it takes. Envy, then confirmation bias and selective retention to paint the Jews as le ebil explogbiodters!

>>17127

>Envy, then confirmation bias and selective retention to paint the Jews as le ebil explogbiodters!

Same thing with non-Jew business owners today.

>>17096

It's true that he makes them look like spergs, but it's for a reason. He's deconstructing the caller's arguments, reason and logic through the socratic method to know what the other person is actually talking about. He's not trying to win online debates, he's trying to make a connection with other people. If he doesn't connect, the caller's mental immune system (denial of facts) will kick in and then the whole conversation becomes pointless.

Here's a person who's trying to connect with a stranger in just an hour. The problem is people are in "water cooler chat" mode and will not open to an stranger on live radio. The other day I was listening to an episode where you got a teacher saying that he wants to "have an impact on children" and "teach them to think on their own", blah blah blah… Of course they all say that. My teachers who made me a socialist feminist cocksucker also said that and taught me bullshit.

This episode (1 hours and 20 minutes) is the one that made me understand why he makes his callers so uncomfortable by asking questions: it's because he wants the truth out of people not just a well-prepared script that they tell everyone.

>>17099

/thread