正在加载视频...
视频加载失败
Lindsay Clancy Jury Deadlocked! Philosopher Stefan Molyneux talks about the deadlocked Lindsay Clancy jury and what it means if hormones get used as an excuse for violent acts. He also covers how men and women think differently about conflict and approval, and why so many systems now just push... show more
14,307 次观看 • 26 天前 •via X (Twitter)
9 条评论
Stefan Molyneux opens with a long account of his internet outage and repeated calls to the provider. He describes being told that the problem is with an outside cable and that a work order has been filed, but says weeks pass without any repair. He criticizes the repeated use of notes, escalations, and other administrative steps that do not solve the problem. He then shifts into a broader complaint about institutions that, in his view, no longer solve problems directly. He argues that staff should contact the subcontractor, get answers, and keep working until the issue is fixed. He compares this to police or other services being present but not actually resolving the emergency. From there, he moves into a longer discussion of the Lindsay Clancy case. He says the case is being treated as evidence that women can become too emotional or hormonal to be fully responsible, and he argues that this conflicts with earlier feminist claims that women are fully capable of rational decision-making. He says the legal and cultural implications could be significant if hormones are accepted as an excuse for violent acts. He also discusses gender differences in how men and women think about conflict, approval, and principles. He claims men tend to focus more on winning and on direct confrontation, while women are more likely to think about social approval and avoidance of conflict. He connects this to jury deliberation, public reaction, and how women may be influenced by fear of social backlash. He then turns to a broader critique of society, employment, and the male loneliness issue. He says many systems now reward form-filling over problem-solving, and he argues that people should persist until a problem is actually fixed. He also discusses dating, monogamy, and what he describes as a “harem” dynamic in modern relationships. In the closing section, he answers live comments, discusses depression, sadness, and evil, and says he sees depression as sometimes linked to biology, loss, victimization, or wrongdoing. He ends by thanking listeners, noting an upcoming break in programming, and signing off.
Transcript:
Your argument repeatedly jumps from group averages to individual motives, from anecdotes to population-wide claims, and from "some women cite psychiatric factors" to "women can't reason from principles." You speculate about jurors' minds while accusing women of abandoning reason.
So awesome! Listen to Stefan vent for a half hour about his internet provider!
Get starlink as backup 👌
12 Angry Men has turned into 2 Crazy Bitches
I get what you're saying about fixing problems vs filling out forms. But corporate culture is such that customer service reps are often penalized for not following the NPC script. Some manager is sitting around listening to call samples for "quality control" with very specific guardrails on what a rep can and can't tell the customer.
I agree totally, but a large part of the problem appears to be that Massachusetts law is stupid and places the burden on the prosecution to prove insanity instead of the defense like it is most other states
PPD for baby killings is as old as stories. There is a type of ghost called a lady in white. We have always given them a pass, most of the time they commit suicide. But I think a mother killing her children is of course criminally insane person because it's that against nature
