Stefan MolyneuxVerified account

Uh. No. We’ve never even met. I don’t disavow you. I don’t avow you. I don’t mean to be rude here, but I don’t even know you and barely know your ideas. That said, I do follow you...and note you don’t follow me. So...what is your beef with me? I didn’t follow the syllogisms.

I agree. @StefanMolyneux's provocation was but a clumsy attack with a view to creating a controversy and thereby getting a slice of the IDW pie. I was going to argue that point syllogistically, but meh. No need to debase myself like that

What "reason and evidence" do you present that proves that removing Nike-wearing friends and family from your life is good or smart or reasonable?

I think it's more to do with you being more on the tribal ideological side of things. You advance your own agenda and side, nothing wrong with that, but that is different from open conversation aimed towards approximating truth and new knowledge.

I don't agree Mr. Molyneux, we should still accept our fellow man even if our views differ, even if people reject reason and evidence we can still have them in our lives and our circles. To have differing views around us is how we grow intellectually

On the reason and evidence scale, @EricRWeinstein is above @StefanMolyneux Stefan, you should sit quietly and take notes.

Problem is you think your reason is enough to reject ppl for all of us. My reason is we have a constitutional right to peaceful protest and freedom of speech we are also capitalist so Colin can take a knee, I don't have to be for his cause but I am for his exercise of rights...

1 Stefan, the precise intent of the idw is to have conversation. Conversation can only happen if disagreements can exist on a fundamental level while not precluding participation. When you remark "cut them out of your life" you're rejecting the idw and it's premise.