Originally Posted by jwb (Post 2154937)

Not exactly, more that it's not necessarily always bad. That some amount of hierarchy is necessary for society to function but it should be questioned to prevent tyranny. Like I said, very mundane stuff. I was on a lot of drugs and like i said he was very verbose about it all so after a year of listening to him it got old and he started repeating the same tropes and i realized it wasn't that deep, just dressed up with language. I agree with you that he's a grifter. But when people take the message that he's promoting social darwinism and that kind of thing they are misundersanding what he says which is sorta what made me ignore the haters for so long because they sounded like they had no clue what he was even saying. Once I saw the videos about what post modernism actually is then i started to see the grift. Then the benzo thing just put the nail in the coffin. RIP

Originally Posted by jwb (Post 2154933)

No because the naturalistic fallacy is saying something is morally good because it's natural. He's not saying that. He's saying that its not just an arbitrary social convention, that it emerges in nature in quite primitive forms of life based on basic utility.

Originally Posted by jwb (Post 2154940)

Yeah. And then made a video talking about how he became addicted and how it was a physical addiction not a psychological addiction, a distinction that is supposed to detract from the stigma of being an addict. Which is stupid. Because there's no such thing as a physical dependency without a psychological dependency. You can have a psychological dependency without a physical dependency, as in no withdrawal symptoms, but if you get to the point of a physical dependency then you absolutely also have a psychological dependency on that drug. You have triggers and patterns of use etc that will outlast any physical withdrawal symptoms. I think he just made that distinction to make him look less hypocritical for preaching the self help **** and clean your room **** while his room was on fire. I don't respect that at all.

Originally Posted by Marie Monday (Post 2154942)

If that's the definition of a naturalistic fallacy then sure, but like Bat said it seems like he's implying that that means hierarchies tend to be useful to us, or that they're more or less inevitable, and that is at least adjacent to a naturalistic fallacy. I see how it's being misunderstood though.

Originally Posted by OccultHawk (Post 2154944)

Have you ever listened to the guy?

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 2154941)

I'm not talking about the internal consistency of his position but that his conscious approach to communicating his position was to dog whistle to people who'd be buying his books a basically naturalistic fallacy.