A well known Anarchist argues that history is all a lie and that Anarchy totally worked and was wonderful guys?
I'd believe it was propaganda if anyone but Stefan Molyneux was trying to tell me about it, because he was a meme and a known grifting liar before 90% of the people here were paying attention.
Funny, he never mentioned anarchy, but yes factual information ceases to be relevant if it's presented by someone you don't like.
He never touched on Christianity either, the real reason why these people maintained "civilised" even as they left "civilisation." Feel free to ignore his presentation of history and continue to believe the wild west was "lawless" and dangerous because that's what some communists put in your school curriculum.
He didn't need to because I know who he was and that he has an angle to begin with. He has written numerous books on the topic and has been incredibly opinionated on that fact, which makes any presentation on examples of it working (even if not directly named) about as trustworthy as the communists telling me communism can work.
He was also a famous atheist back in the era when those were popular (which is why he got big to begin with), and considered "faith" a literal scourge on humanity and was one of the key figures of the movement. And I'll level with you, I think anyone who helped contribute to the rejection of God holds more than plenty responsibility for the current state of the world. Which means its more than "someone I don't like."
See, when you actually know who the people speaking are, instead of just believing them at their word because they say what you want to hear, you can recognize when they have extra motives behind their words.
Okay, you have lots of reasons to dislike him, and I never did say I agreed with his conclusions. I don't.
But in this one specific video, the only thing I have ever seen of the man or cared to, he brings plenty of receipts to prove the very simple point that the WW was not anywhere near as dangerous and lawless as many have been lead to believe through nothing more than repetition of the worst of it.
In the United States we have massive amounts of records, genealogies, newspapers, biographies, contracts, legal and court records, to trace the entirety of the so called wild west, and in those records we have the safest cities, with the lowest crime levels, to have ever existed on earth.
Exemplifying the "wild" part of the wild west has served at different points: the advancement of federalism, the marxist 'noble savage" narrative, and the push for "progress" in the form of degeneracy and the welfare state.
If I cared to make videos I would have linked you mine. But I can separate presented facts from the presenters bias without much issue and it is a failure of mine to expect the same of others.
And in this discussion on the mindless savagery of the Indians, and Mexicans, of the time we have countless proof that there were times and places where that was not the case as well. The West was a massive chunk of land. Both sides of this coin can be true with all the proof necessary to do so.
The Presenter's Bias is more than just what conclusions they bring. Its also which facts they bring and which they don't. The same way that any crying about how Jews were treated by Nazis will leave out the degeneracy they were promoting and pushing at the time. And given Stefan's ideology, he will undoubtedly bring the facts that paint history as sympathetic to his belief's and very unlikely show the ones that disprove him.
As in, what he has always done. But I guess if its what you want to hear you'll believe anything from any charlatan without a second thought or wonder if they are credible
A well known Anarchist argues that history is all a lie and that Anarchy totally worked and was wonderful guys?
I'd believe it was propaganda if anyone but Stefan Molyneux was trying to tell me about it, because he was a meme and a known grifting liar before 90% of the people here were paying attention.
Funny, he never mentioned anarchy, but yes factual information ceases to be relevant if it's presented by someone you don't like.
He never touched on Christianity either, the real reason why these people maintained "civilised" even as they left "civilisation." Feel free to ignore his presentation of history and continue to believe the wild west was "lawless" and dangerous because that's what some communists put in your school curriculum.
He didn't need to because I know who he was and that he has an angle to begin with. He has written numerous books on the topic and has been incredibly opinionated on that fact, which makes any presentation on examples of it working (even if not directly named) about as trustworthy as the communists telling me communism can work.
He was also a famous atheist back in the era when those were popular (which is why he got big to begin with), and considered "faith" a literal scourge on humanity and was one of the key figures of the movement. And I'll level with you, I think anyone who helped contribute to the rejection of God holds more than plenty responsibility for the current state of the world. Which means its more than "someone I don't like."
See, when you actually know who the people speaking are, instead of just believing them at their word because they say what you want to hear, you can recognize when they have extra motives behind their words.
Okay, you have lots of reasons to dislike him, and I never did say I agreed with his conclusions. I don't.
But in this one specific video, the only thing I have ever seen of the man or cared to, he brings plenty of receipts to prove the very simple point that the WW was not anywhere near as dangerous and lawless as many have been lead to believe through nothing more than repetition of the worst of it.
In the United States we have massive amounts of records, genealogies, newspapers, biographies, contracts, legal and court records, to trace the entirety of the so called wild west, and in those records we have the safest cities, with the lowest crime levels, to have ever existed on earth.
Exemplifying the "wild" part of the wild west has served at different points: the advancement of federalism, the marxist 'noble savage" narrative, and the push for "progress" in the form of degeneracy and the welfare state.
If I cared to make videos I would have linked you mine. But I can separate presented facts from the presenters bias without much issue and it is a failure of mine to expect the same of others.
And in this discussion on the mindless savagery of the Indians, and Mexicans, of the time we have countless proof that there were times and places where that was not the case as well. The West was a massive chunk of land. Both sides of this coin can be true with all the proof necessary to do so.
The Presenter's Bias is more than just what conclusions they bring. Its also which facts they bring and which they don't. The same way that any crying about how Jews were treated by Nazis will leave out the degeneracy they were promoting and pushing at the time. And given Stefan's ideology, he will undoubtedly bring the facts that paint history as sympathetic to his belief's and very unlikely show the ones that disprove him.
As in, what he has always done. But I guess if its what you want to hear you'll believe anything from any charlatan without a second thought or wonder if they are credible