Chris spent a lot of time in the last ROMA regarding my reference to Rogan as being an exception to the "mostly good, thoughtful people who seek to have (and actually do have) a positive impact on the world / other people" that Chris has on Tangentially Speaking.
Chris, I don't doubt that Rogan is a good guy in terms of how he treats people on a personal level, especially those that he likes, like you.
The issue with Rogan is "is he thoughtful?", and "does he seek to have, and actually does have, a positive impact on the world / other people?"
My opinion of the second is that he does not. Which implies for the first that he is not.
He has built and benefits from a huge listener base. Because of the guests that he has, he is no longer just providing entertainment. He provides a platform for public figures to promote themselves. In the old days, that would impose a requirement to do his due diligent research and analysis, and challenge when appropriate. He could take some lessons from you about asking probing questions.
Instead, he takes the lazy way out, maintains the "I'm just a good guy" persona, lets the guest say whatever they want, and in so doing, he enables damage to our public discourse. And at the end of the day boosts his listener numbers and $$$ raked in. You know what guests I'm talking about.
Chris - do you support this behavior? Do you think that Rogan has a positive effect on our society?
Or will you say "Who am I to judge?" - which I think is a dodge that you are better than to employ.
God, I hate that rhetorical move: “You’re better than that.” So fucking duplicitous. Aside from that, here’s how I see Rogan. He’s like a supermodel who just happens to be crazy-beautiful and gets way more attention than she ever asked for. He didn’t really work hard for this audience. It just happened. I think it happened largely because we’re in a time of bullshit saturation. Everything is tweaked and focus group tested for maximum manipulative advantage. Rogan was the antidote to all that. He presented himself as what he was: a pretty smart but uneducated meathead with a lot of curiosity and humility who was happy to shoot the shit with pretty much anyone, from flat-earthers to sex workers to astrophysicists. He never claimed to be any kind of paragon of morality or do “do his homework” before every guest. His huge fame/success/audience is an accident.
Does that huge platform mean he has to change his approach? Maybe, but from his perspective, I can see why he’d reject that. After all, his transparent, I am what I am approach has worked pretty well.
Maybe you’ll disagree, but you really shouldn’t cause you’re so much better than that!
Regarding Chris' question "Does it matter?", specifically "If you’ve got an exposé showing that Wim faked his barefoot marathons and Kilimanjaro climbs and that the data from his physiological experiments isn’t legit, then I’m all ears.":
I'm a skeptic about many things, so when I first listened to Chris' podcast with Wim Hof years ago, I was extremely dubious, and didn't give him another thought. But now that the subject has come up again, I am reminded of Chris' oft-repeated analytical tool "Look for the motive." Apparently over the years since Chris interviewed him, Hof has made his living by promoting his ice treatments and extreme exposure. So over time he has apparently become a "guru" of these treatments, and this lifestyle in general...and presumably makes his living from this. He now has motive to make it all look as great as possible .. and applicable to as many people as possible.
This significantly increases my skepticism of the man and his methods.
In response to Chris' challenge to find an exposé showing how Hof has faked data, consider the misrepresentations reported by Michael Marshall (of the Merseyside Skeptics Society in the UK) in his Skeptics podcast
I'm not going to fact check either Hof or Marshall's critique of him, because I have no interest in Hof's methods and prefer to avoid celebrity gurus anyway. Chris has often said (jeez, I feel like I'm quoting scripture ;-) that famous people are so often messed up in one way or another. Consider his comments about Elon Musk (which totally make sense to me). Similarly, I believe that a person as driven as Hof seems to be could also be really messed up, and could take that out on others.
My impression is that Chris has had on his podcast mostly good, thoughtful people who seek to have (and actually do have) a positive impact on the world / other people (that's why I listen to Tang Speaking). But I believe that there have been exceptions to this -- Rogan being notable among them.
I don't know which category Hof is in, but I hope that Chris will (continue to) be very circumspect about offering any defenses of past interviewees/friends, unless he can explain that defense using relevant facts and not relying on whatever impressions that he may have of the person's character, or leftover good feelings of friendship.
As a woman who has been the subject of judgmental jerks myself, I also agree with you Chris! Why the hell is it any of our business? Most likely the "news" is a half-lie or worse. There are always two parts to every story. To lose friendships, family relationships, and trust is bad enough without the whole world chiming in on something that should not be any of their business. We are all human in the end.
Behind the Bastards did a good investigation into Wim Hof. I like that they admit their own flaws and vices, but don’t make excuses for anyone. Like, we’re not talking about incidents when he’s had a little too much to drink and acted like a douche. We’re talking about proper abuse, misrepresenting his achievements and over selling the benefits of his teachings. All of this has caused real harm and should be called out.
The only caveat I’ll put on this is that I haven’t done any follow up to see if the resources hold their weight. By the same token I haven’t done any follow up research on the resources Hof has preached to see if any of his hold weight. I guess it all comes down to who do you trust more.
My sentiments exactly! Romantic liasions and famly relationships can get pretty bizarre, and outsiders are not in any position to make judgments. Exceptions are clear-cut instancdes of physical and sexual abuse, in which case legal authoriites need to be called in.
But if the allegations are true, which is the hypothetical assumption of the "Does it care"-part, it would be both physical and sexual abuse and the authorities were involved.
Isn’t it interesting that all the people defending him here are men? No it’s not at all surprising. This is exactly why women don’t report shit, because it all gets glossed over it when it’s some big important man. I’m really disappointed by your response. Yes it does matter if Woody Allen was incestuously, abusing his stepdaughter. Or if Wim Hof, the man who preaches meditation and Zen like calm is actually an abusive asshole. That matters a lot. That doesn’t mean that his methods aren’t valuable, but the man doesn’t get a pass No you don’t get to be a guru preaching self improvement when you’re an abusive narcissist. I’m really disappointed in this response. But sadly, it’s not a surprise that it’s coming from a white man defending another one. Or from man defending his friend. You think that every rapist’s doesn’t have make friends who think he’s a great guy and one on one? No, it’s only two women that he shows as abusive sadistic side You really should’ve sat this one out, because you’re not objective at all.
Assuming the accusation by his former partner is legitimate. We will never know. Using identity as part of your critique of the author, is pretty pointless, you made a good point without sinking to the white man accusation.
Why is it “sinking” to the “white man accusation”? Do you think sex confers power and privilege but race doesn’t?
White men have the most privilege of anyone in this world. So it's natural that they would defend each other from accusations of abuse. The victims don't have to be black for the whiteness of the accused to be part of his privilege and entitlement in this world. A black man would never get away with this shit. And he probably wouldn't have been defended quite as readily.
"A black man would never get away with this shit."
Sean Combs ring any bells?
I'm sorry, but these race/gender identity arguments are boring at this point. Africa is full of black men who abuse women and get away with it very easily. Misogyny is a huge problem. I'm with you there. I'm sorry you were triggered by the article.
"Triggered" - what a wonderfully patronizing way to dismiss a woman who substantively disagrees with your point of view. Why not be retro and say I'm “hysterical"?
I'm not even going to bother to refute your comment about an exception of a black man that only proves the rule. If you really think that white privilege is a myth - and that you and Wim Hof don't benefit enormously from it - then you're clearly not the intelligent thoughtful man I took you to be from your writings. My bad.
When you’ve said all of this, I got curious and I read further into the comments. I’m with you on misogyny and the patriarchy (my word). These structures and behaviors do need a dismantling and I’m with you for it.
There have been many instances where women have not been protected by those that cross boundaries and violate women. It’s a power play and in my opinion about dominance not partnership. What I am interested in is how men will protect others from the predator in the moment it’s happening and to call those men in with tendencies and behaviors that endanger others especially women are present. Is that some of what you’re saying?
I see your courage and respect that you spoke. I have benefited from your voice.
All over the internet your argument has been stated so many times, it's boring and not a reflection of reality. Identity politics has ruined plenty of intelligent minds.
And that somehow makes it acceptable? 90% of people out there preaching anything are assholes so we should give them a pass?
Here’s an idea: why don’t we ignore the 90% and only elevate the 10%? The men who not only have something to offer but are actually working on their own shit? Because misogyny is a really big fucking problem in this world. and no man should get a pass. If a man is a narcissistic dick to women, yes even to his partner (the source of most of the abuse and murder that women experience in this world), then he’s a dick period, and should be shut the fuck down. Because doing otherwise is how we ended up with a narcissistic abusive dickhead like the guy soon to move BACK into the White House.
The following is about the "Does it matter" part, not the "Is it true".
>>For me, whether private matters are relevant largely comes down to hypocrisy.
Except for Wim Hof is a public figure. Self-chosen, not by accident. A public figure, who beside his physio-mental teachings also has a moral message or at least an attitude of humaneness , a spirit of love, etc. If he would have done all alleged crimes without admitting and owning them, that would make him someone very close to a hypocrite.
But even if you don't agree and would not consider him a hypocrite, he still would be a criminal, namely a violent one. And that would matter. How could it not? Why narrowing it down to hypocrisy?
I think this would matter for *any* public figure. Even more so in the case of someone in whom people put trust during extremes situations, not rarely people presumably with vulnerabilities, like mental or physical health issues.
If he would be anything like the person depicted in the article, he would be a person with severe mental issues, which would make him a very questionable teacher for a mental technique. Especially if the technique is as powerful as ascribed.
His past would, of course, not say anything about effectiveness of the Wim Hof method. It would not automatically diminish all good things he have might done with it.
It would not make him an all bad person. It would make him a violent offender *and* a healer, no more, no less. Or perhap,s instead of using nouns like "criminal" and "healer" I should say: it would make him a person who has been committing crimes and who has been healing people.
That would make him, despite his ability to sit in ice for ages, just another miserable fucker called "Mensch".
So, IMO, it does matter, but should not matter to the extent that we condemn.
We tend to over idealize people we admire, and then when we see the cracks in the lofty pedestals we put them on, and realize these are flawed humans like ourselves, we feel betrayed.
If Jesus was real, I bet his farts smelled as bad as anybody else's.
Ok fine, but your argument can also be used as a get out of jail free card for abuse of all kinds. Emerson commented once that slavery was based not just on a desire for riches, but on an autonomous “love of power, the voluptuousness of holding a human being in [in the case of slavery, the slavemaster’s] absolute control.” He did not link this pleasure to an intergenerational chain of misconduct or any other concatenation of abuse and suffering that is transmitted spatially or temporally from one person to another.
He was talking about slavery, to be sure, but I agree with him and think his observation applies generally. Hurt people may hurt people, but that is not the end of the story in every case. We’d be foolish to think otherwise, however difficult it may be to see inside others’ relationships. It is not automatically inappropriate to judge what’s going on in them, depending on the circumstances, not that I have any idea what went on in this one.
Well, your mention of "get out of jail free card" raises the question of whether incarceration is actually an appropriate response to such things -- a matter for another day. But yes, slavery. Do we judge slaveholders based upon what we've learned/unlearned in the last few centuries, or do we judge them within the contexts of their own times? It's not an easy question for me.
“Get out of jail free” was just an expression, not advocating incarceration. I just think it’s crucial to avoid a drift into pure relativism even if it’s not easy to judge the bad behavior of others and even if we want to avoid ventilating the worst authoritarian impulses of the right wing by judging too readily and too harshly, without sufficient knowledge, humility, or empathy.
Relativism in extremis, being too reluctant to judge, is the cardinal mistake that latter-day liberalism has made at a tremendous cost to its credibility (which I do not think is unrelated to the outcome of the presidential election).
Slavery isn’t a hard one for me partly because it’s plainly evil and at least half the society of the antebellum south, not to mention the slaves, opposed it on that ground. Even Aristotle, the progenitor of the idea that slavery was natural, had to contend with contemporary critics who rejected that proposition, and slave uprisings from Sparta to Rome obviously concurred with these critics. I suspect that happens a lot, where there is a dominant practice that is unjust but also “socially acceptable”, and it is rationalized by its contemporaries who like it, who many times are all we hear from because they write the history, and the objectors are either scarcer, don’t write, or they’re cowed, or they don’t come down to us with the same historical prestige or at all (none of which is the case with U.S. slavery), so it deceptively appears as if there were more of a unified contemporary view of the issue than there was, which ironically seems to make the task of judging it from our contemporary perspective more complicated than it actually is.
Needless to say we also have to insist on evidence before judging anything. Woody Allen and Kevin Spacey, for example, seem to have been innocent victims of rank smears by opportunistic, amoral, and devious careerist snakes with an agenda to destroy their reputations and careers.
But after the evidence is in - again, I don’t know if or how any of this applies to what happened with your friend - I do believe we must at least try to proceed and not throw up our hands.
I agree these are difficult questions. I always return to Orwell’s essay, Inside the Whale, on Henry Miller when I think about them. Wallace Shawn’s play, The Fever, also comes to mind. I have no trouble with the idea that people can and should do more than many typically do to oppose and stop what is plainly evil, like the stuff you mention, or the genocide in Gaza. And I include myself in this assessment. But I’m also skeptical of an indignation that arises too quickly at those who do not “do enough”. But the judging must go on.
Interesting points. By the same logic, what is our culpability for the wide-spread oppression of billions of animals in factory farming? Will future generations be justified in judging us for not doing more to end it? What about the cruelties of capitalism where millions of people are still, essentially, slaves today? Or the wanton destruction of ecosystems while we distract ourselves with other things? Aren't these things "plainly evil?" I don't have answers, just lots of questions.
I find it an interesting test to ask yourself the following question: Is that question of context or not equally difficult for you when your thinking about the ancient Romans?
It’s funny I recently looked up “Wim Hof Method news”, hoping to find some new development or study involving the method and its beneficial effects on health. Instead I found articles and more articles describing the allegations of abuse. I was saddened by it, but like you, I didn’t know what to think…
I have dealt with my own health issues, and I can say from experience this method is life-changing. I believe this man is a hero. No one can tell me otherwise, because I know the effect he had on my life. He has helped me heal, find my own inner strength and power, and recognize that there are alternatives paths to healing our species that don’t come in the form of a pill or a blade.
And I think this is what you’re getting into at the end, that WIM’s contribution to the world is not how good of a father or husband he is. To be honest, I really don’t give a fuck (in this specific context). I think too many people today give a fuck about too many things. It’s much easier to worry about everyone else, than yourself. The best excuse to ignore taking care of yourself is that you have to help others. I think we also act like we’re perfect and would never do this or that. We lack empathy. We lack perspective. We lack understanding.
Not to say that when someone fucks up we should pat them on the back. But, we also shouldn’t banish them to walk the plank. There should be a path back. (Of course there are exceptions)
But, I find it funny how there has been no recent developments with the method. Almost like everyone lost interest. “Yah this is cool but… there’s no money here.” It’s ironic that I go looking for news, and all I find is the distraction.
It’s almost like they want to discredit him. Instead of Wim being remembered for changing healthcare and wellness of human kind, he’ll be remembered as a wife-beater.
Instead of a university or research center reaching out to open a study for 1000 participants with chronic disease to test the effectiveness of the WHM, oh no, we can’t be seen or associated with a man as controversial as yourself… I hope you can understand.
I felt the same way about Huberman. The information he has provided to the public, free of charge, is invaluable. It has the ability to transform the health of our society. And a hitpiece comes out detailing his relationship with many different women. Okay, he may not be a great guy. But, what does that have to do with the value he brings to the world? Or is it that some “entity” wanted to knock him down a few pegs.
Again, with Russell Brand. A guy calling out Big Pharma, Big Food, government corruption, censorship, corporate media, military industrial complex, etc. and boom… he gets targeted. There were hundreds of hit pieces written about him. I’m not aware of any evidence or charges thus far. So what? He’s name, image, and reputation have already been dragged through the mud. Trial by media. He was a movie star drug addict womanizer. I’m sure the lines were blurred. But again, it has nothing to do with what he’s currently working on… the attacks are clearly to blur his message and make him irrelevant.
Now, when I bring Wim up at thanksgiving am I going to get eye rolls? Does a mention of Andrew Huberman extract a scoff? How about a little Russell Brand for a gasp!
Chris spent a lot of time in the last ROMA regarding my reference to Rogan as being an exception to the "mostly good, thoughtful people who seek to have (and actually do have) a positive impact on the world / other people" that Chris has on Tangentially Speaking.
Chris, I don't doubt that Rogan is a good guy in terms of how he treats people on a personal level, especially those that he likes, like you.
The issue with Rogan is "is he thoughtful?", and "does he seek to have, and actually does have, a positive impact on the world / other people?"
My opinion of the second is that he does not. Which implies for the first that he is not.
He has built and benefits from a huge listener base. Because of the guests that he has, he is no longer just providing entertainment. He provides a platform for public figures to promote themselves. In the old days, that would impose a requirement to do his due diligent research and analysis, and challenge when appropriate. He could take some lessons from you about asking probing questions.
Instead, he takes the lazy way out, maintains the "I'm just a good guy" persona, lets the guest say whatever they want, and in so doing, he enables damage to our public discourse. And at the end of the day boosts his listener numbers and $$$ raked in. You know what guests I'm talking about.
Chris - do you support this behavior? Do you think that Rogan has a positive effect on our society?
Or will you say "Who am I to judge?" - which I think is a dodge that you are better than to employ.
God, I hate that rhetorical move: “You’re better than that.” So fucking duplicitous. Aside from that, here’s how I see Rogan. He’s like a supermodel who just happens to be crazy-beautiful and gets way more attention than she ever asked for. He didn’t really work hard for this audience. It just happened. I think it happened largely because we’re in a time of bullshit saturation. Everything is tweaked and focus group tested for maximum manipulative advantage. Rogan was the antidote to all that. He presented himself as what he was: a pretty smart but uneducated meathead with a lot of curiosity and humility who was happy to shoot the shit with pretty much anyone, from flat-earthers to sex workers to astrophysicists. He never claimed to be any kind of paragon of morality or do “do his homework” before every guest. His huge fame/success/audience is an accident.
Does that huge platform mean he has to change his approach? Maybe, but from his perspective, I can see why he’d reject that. After all, his transparent, I am what I am approach has worked pretty well.
Maybe you’ll disagree, but you really shouldn’t cause you’re so much better than that!
Regarding Chris' question "Does it matter?", specifically "If you’ve got an exposé showing that Wim faked his barefoot marathons and Kilimanjaro climbs and that the data from his physiological experiments isn’t legit, then I’m all ears.":
I'm a skeptic about many things, so when I first listened to Chris' podcast with Wim Hof years ago, I was extremely dubious, and didn't give him another thought. But now that the subject has come up again, I am reminded of Chris' oft-repeated analytical tool "Look for the motive." Apparently over the years since Chris interviewed him, Hof has made his living by promoting his ice treatments and extreme exposure. So over time he has apparently become a "guru" of these treatments, and this lifestyle in general...and presumably makes his living from this. He now has motive to make it all look as great as possible .. and applicable to as many people as possible.
This significantly increases my skepticism of the man and his methods.
In response to Chris' challenge to find an exposé showing how Hof has faked data, consider the misrepresentations reported by Michael Marshall (of the Merseyside Skeptics Society in the UK) in his Skeptics podcast
https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2024/10/wim-hof-the-self-described-ice-man-whose-extreme-health-claims-leave-many-cold/
I'm not going to fact check either Hof or Marshall's critique of him, because I have no interest in Hof's methods and prefer to avoid celebrity gurus anyway. Chris has often said (jeez, I feel like I'm quoting scripture ;-) that famous people are so often messed up in one way or another. Consider his comments about Elon Musk (which totally make sense to me). Similarly, I believe that a person as driven as Hof seems to be could also be really messed up, and could take that out on others.
My impression is that Chris has had on his podcast mostly good, thoughtful people who seek to have (and actually do have) a positive impact on the world / other people (that's why I listen to Tang Speaking). But I believe that there have been exceptions to this -- Rogan being notable among them.
I don't know which category Hof is in, but I hope that Chris will (continue to) be very circumspect about offering any defenses of past interviewees/friends, unless he can explain that defense using relevant facts and not relying on whatever impressions that he may have of the person's character, or leftover good feelings of friendship.
Great article! The world could use a lot more empathy and a lot less judgment.
As a woman who has been the subject of judgmental jerks myself, I also agree with you Chris! Why the hell is it any of our business? Most likely the "news" is a half-lie or worse. There are always two parts to every story. To lose friendships, family relationships, and trust is bad enough without the whole world chiming in on something that should not be any of their business. We are all human in the end.
Behind the Bastards did a good investigation into Wim Hof. I like that they admit their own flaws and vices, but don’t make excuses for anyone. Like, we’re not talking about incidents when he’s had a little too much to drink and acted like a douche. We’re talking about proper abuse, misrepresenting his achievements and over selling the benefits of his teachings. All of this has caused real harm and should be called out.
The only caveat I’ll put on this is that I haven’t done any follow up to see if the resources hold their weight. By the same token I haven’t done any follow up research on the resources Hof has preached to see if any of his hold weight. I guess it all comes down to who do you trust more.
You write: The older I get, the more I see of the suffering people are facing, the less I feel able to judge anyone for almost anything.
Truer words were never spoken, Chris..
My sentiments exactly! Romantic liasions and famly relationships can get pretty bizarre, and outsiders are not in any position to make judgments. Exceptions are clear-cut instancdes of physical and sexual abuse, in which case legal authoriites need to be called in.
But if the allegations are true, which is the hypothetical assumption of the "Does it care"-part, it would be both physical and sexual abuse and the authorities were involved.
I do not like to deal with hypothetical situations. But if the abuses were true. of course the assaulted parties should go to the authorities.
Isn’t it interesting that all the people defending him here are men? No it’s not at all surprising. This is exactly why women don’t report shit, because it all gets glossed over it when it’s some big important man. I’m really disappointed by your response. Yes it does matter if Woody Allen was incestuously, abusing his stepdaughter. Or if Wim Hof, the man who preaches meditation and Zen like calm is actually an abusive asshole. That matters a lot. That doesn’t mean that his methods aren’t valuable, but the man doesn’t get a pass No you don’t get to be a guru preaching self improvement when you’re an abusive narcissist. I’m really disappointed in this response. But sadly, it’s not a surprise that it’s coming from a white man defending another one. Or from man defending his friend. You think that every rapist’s doesn’t have make friends who think he’s a great guy and one on one? No, it’s only two women that he shows as abusive sadistic side You really should’ve sat this one out, because you’re not objective at all.
Assuming the accusation by his former partner is legitimate. We will never know. Using identity as part of your critique of the author, is pretty pointless, you made a good point without sinking to the white man accusation.
Why is it “sinking” to the “white man accusation”? Do you think sex confers power and privilege but race doesn’t?
White men have the most privilege of anyone in this world. So it's natural that they would defend each other from accusations of abuse. The victims don't have to be black for the whiteness of the accused to be part of his privilege and entitlement in this world. A black man would never get away with this shit. And he probably wouldn't have been defended quite as readily.
"A black man would never get away with this shit."
Sean Combs ring any bells?
I'm sorry, but these race/gender identity arguments are boring at this point. Africa is full of black men who abuse women and get away with it very easily. Misogyny is a huge problem. I'm with you there. I'm sorry you were triggered by the article.
"Triggered" - what a wonderfully patronizing way to dismiss a woman who substantively disagrees with your point of view. Why not be retro and say I'm “hysterical"?
I'm not even going to bother to refute your comment about an exception of a black man that only proves the rule. If you really think that white privilege is a myth - and that you and Wim Hof don't benefit enormously from it - then you're clearly not the intelligent thoughtful man I took you to be from your writings. My bad.
When you’ve said all of this, I got curious and I read further into the comments. I’m with you on misogyny and the patriarchy (my word). These structures and behaviors do need a dismantling and I’m with you for it.
There have been many instances where women have not been protected by those that cross boundaries and violate women. It’s a power play and in my opinion about dominance not partnership. What I am interested in is how men will protect others from the predator in the moment it’s happening and to call those men in with tendencies and behaviors that endanger others especially women are present. Is that some of what you’re saying?
I see your courage and respect that you spoke. I have benefited from your voice.
All over the internet your argument has been stated so many times, it's boring and not a reflection of reality. Identity politics has ruined plenty of intelligent minds.
"No you don’t get to be a guru preaching self improvement when you’re an abusive narcissist."
I'd wager that covers about 90% of everyone preaching anything.
And that somehow makes it acceptable? 90% of people out there preaching anything are assholes so we should give them a pass?
Here’s an idea: why don’t we ignore the 90% and only elevate the 10%? The men who not only have something to offer but are actually working on their own shit? Because misogyny is a really big fucking problem in this world. and no man should get a pass. If a man is a narcissistic dick to women, yes even to his partner (the source of most of the abuse and murder that women experience in this world), then he’s a dick period, and should be shut the fuck down. Because doing otherwise is how we ended up with a narcissistic abusive dickhead like the guy soon to move BACK into the White House.
Tbh, that was my first reaction, too.
The following is about the "Does it matter" part, not the "Is it true".
>>For me, whether private matters are relevant largely comes down to hypocrisy.
Except for Wim Hof is a public figure. Self-chosen, not by accident. A public figure, who beside his physio-mental teachings also has a moral message or at least an attitude of humaneness , a spirit of love, etc. If he would have done all alleged crimes without admitting and owning them, that would make him someone very close to a hypocrite.
But even if you don't agree and would not consider him a hypocrite, he still would be a criminal, namely a violent one. And that would matter. How could it not? Why narrowing it down to hypocrisy?
I think this would matter for *any* public figure. Even more so in the case of someone in whom people put trust during extremes situations, not rarely people presumably with vulnerabilities, like mental or physical health issues.
If he would be anything like the person depicted in the article, he would be a person with severe mental issues, which would make him a very questionable teacher for a mental technique. Especially if the technique is as powerful as ascribed.
His past would, of course, not say anything about effectiveness of the Wim Hof method. It would not automatically diminish all good things he have might done with it.
It would not make him an all bad person. It would make him a violent offender *and* a healer, no more, no less. Or perhap,s instead of using nouns like "criminal" and "healer" I should say: it would make him a person who has been committing crimes and who has been healing people.
That would make him, despite his ability to sit in ice for ages, just another miserable fucker called "Mensch".
So, IMO, it does matter, but should not matter to the extent that we condemn.
People are people
Scary Monsters.
Two things can be true.
David Bowie made brilliant, meaningful art which made many people, many of them queer alienated youth, feel seen, validated and empowered.
David Bowie was a Nazi obsessed Coke fiend who liked to deflower 15 year old girls.
The first thing doesn't excuse the second, the second doesn't cancel the first.
It must be a fine thing to pass the moral purity tests we set for others.
People are terrible, people are beautiful.
We tend to over idealize people we admire, and then when we see the cracks in the lofty pedestals we put them on, and realize these are flawed humans like ourselves, we feel betrayed.
If Jesus was real, I bet his farts smelled as bad as anybody else's.
Ok fine, but your argument can also be used as a get out of jail free card for abuse of all kinds. Emerson commented once that slavery was based not just on a desire for riches, but on an autonomous “love of power, the voluptuousness of holding a human being in [in the case of slavery, the slavemaster’s] absolute control.” He did not link this pleasure to an intergenerational chain of misconduct or any other concatenation of abuse and suffering that is transmitted spatially or temporally from one person to another.
He was talking about slavery, to be sure, but I agree with him and think his observation applies generally. Hurt people may hurt people, but that is not the end of the story in every case. We’d be foolish to think otherwise, however difficult it may be to see inside others’ relationships. It is not automatically inappropriate to judge what’s going on in them, depending on the circumstances, not that I have any idea what went on in this one.
Well, your mention of "get out of jail free card" raises the question of whether incarceration is actually an appropriate response to such things -- a matter for another day. But yes, slavery. Do we judge slaveholders based upon what we've learned/unlearned in the last few centuries, or do we judge them within the contexts of their own times? It's not an easy question for me.
“Get out of jail free” was just an expression, not advocating incarceration. I just think it’s crucial to avoid a drift into pure relativism even if it’s not easy to judge the bad behavior of others and even if we want to avoid ventilating the worst authoritarian impulses of the right wing by judging too readily and too harshly, without sufficient knowledge, humility, or empathy.
Relativism in extremis, being too reluctant to judge, is the cardinal mistake that latter-day liberalism has made at a tremendous cost to its credibility (which I do not think is unrelated to the outcome of the presidential election).
Slavery isn’t a hard one for me partly because it’s plainly evil and at least half the society of the antebellum south, not to mention the slaves, opposed it on that ground. Even Aristotle, the progenitor of the idea that slavery was natural, had to contend with contemporary critics who rejected that proposition, and slave uprisings from Sparta to Rome obviously concurred with these critics. I suspect that happens a lot, where there is a dominant practice that is unjust but also “socially acceptable”, and it is rationalized by its contemporaries who like it, who many times are all we hear from because they write the history, and the objectors are either scarcer, don’t write, or they’re cowed, or they don’t come down to us with the same historical prestige or at all (none of which is the case with U.S. slavery), so it deceptively appears as if there were more of a unified contemporary view of the issue than there was, which ironically seems to make the task of judging it from our contemporary perspective more complicated than it actually is.
Needless to say we also have to insist on evidence before judging anything. Woody Allen and Kevin Spacey, for example, seem to have been innocent victims of rank smears by opportunistic, amoral, and devious careerist snakes with an agenda to destroy their reputations and careers.
But after the evidence is in - again, I don’t know if or how any of this applies to what happened with your friend - I do believe we must at least try to proceed and not throw up our hands.
I agree these are difficult questions. I always return to Orwell’s essay, Inside the Whale, on Henry Miller when I think about them. Wallace Shawn’s play, The Fever, also comes to mind. I have no trouble with the idea that people can and should do more than many typically do to oppose and stop what is plainly evil, like the stuff you mention, or the genocide in Gaza. And I include myself in this assessment. But I’m also skeptical of an indignation that arises too quickly at those who do not “do enough”. But the judging must go on.
Interesting points. By the same logic, what is our culpability for the wide-spread oppression of billions of animals in factory farming? Will future generations be justified in judging us for not doing more to end it? What about the cruelties of capitalism where millions of people are still, essentially, slaves today? Or the wanton destruction of ecosystems while we distract ourselves with other things? Aren't these things "plainly evil?" I don't have answers, just lots of questions.
I find it an interesting test to ask yourself the following question: Is that question of context or not equally difficult for you when your thinking about the ancient Romans?
Clever title by the way lol
It’s funny I recently looked up “Wim Hof Method news”, hoping to find some new development or study involving the method and its beneficial effects on health. Instead I found articles and more articles describing the allegations of abuse. I was saddened by it, but like you, I didn’t know what to think…
I have dealt with my own health issues, and I can say from experience this method is life-changing. I believe this man is a hero. No one can tell me otherwise, because I know the effect he had on my life. He has helped me heal, find my own inner strength and power, and recognize that there are alternatives paths to healing our species that don’t come in the form of a pill or a blade.
And I think this is what you’re getting into at the end, that WIM’s contribution to the world is not how good of a father or husband he is. To be honest, I really don’t give a fuck (in this specific context). I think too many people today give a fuck about too many things. It’s much easier to worry about everyone else, than yourself. The best excuse to ignore taking care of yourself is that you have to help others. I think we also act like we’re perfect and would never do this or that. We lack empathy. We lack perspective. We lack understanding.
Not to say that when someone fucks up we should pat them on the back. But, we also shouldn’t banish them to walk the plank. There should be a path back. (Of course there are exceptions)
But, I find it funny how there has been no recent developments with the method. Almost like everyone lost interest. “Yah this is cool but… there’s no money here.” It’s ironic that I go looking for news, and all I find is the distraction.
It’s almost like they want to discredit him. Instead of Wim being remembered for changing healthcare and wellness of human kind, he’ll be remembered as a wife-beater.
Instead of a university or research center reaching out to open a study for 1000 participants with chronic disease to test the effectiveness of the WHM, oh no, we can’t be seen or associated with a man as controversial as yourself… I hope you can understand.
I felt the same way about Huberman. The information he has provided to the public, free of charge, is invaluable. It has the ability to transform the health of our society. And a hitpiece comes out detailing his relationship with many different women. Okay, he may not be a great guy. But, what does that have to do with the value he brings to the world? Or is it that some “entity” wanted to knock him down a few pegs.
Again, with Russell Brand. A guy calling out Big Pharma, Big Food, government corruption, censorship, corporate media, military industrial complex, etc. and boom… he gets targeted. There were hundreds of hit pieces written about him. I’m not aware of any evidence or charges thus far. So what? He’s name, image, and reputation have already been dragged through the mud. Trial by media. He was a movie star drug addict womanizer. I’m sure the lines were blurred. But again, it has nothing to do with what he’s currently working on… the attacks are clearly to blur his message and make him irrelevant.
Now, when I bring Wim up at thanksgiving am I going to get eye rolls? Does a mention of Andrew Huberman extract a scoff? How about a little Russell Brand for a gasp!
Idk man. I hope I’m onto something here.
Good one Chris.
"Wimsomeness."