Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

All Activity

Showing all content posted in for the last 365 days.

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. If you engage in it even in your spare time, you're part of the problem. Reading it is fine, participating is not. I agree. I'm saying you are defending a collectivist style of coordination. The idea is that the true or false isn't only the truth value of a proposition. The error here is that you did not capture the meaning of IOTBW. Literally, yes, it is okay to be white, or any race. If you stop there, you will miss what's going on. You'll miss the philosophical trend.
  3. How Nazis Recruit Normie Conservatives For Meme Wars

    Wait, Jews are white? I thought Nazis hated Jews. I'm confused, please help.
  4. How Nazis Recruit Normie Conservatives For Meme Wars

    Not true. Have you watched my YouTube videos? They're light on the memes, heavy on the concepts, though explained in rather pedestrian language. I'm not concerned with going viral more than I'm concerned with getting people to think. Though obviously if I went viral it would be great--it would pay me good money through ad revenue--I will not compromise on quality of my argument. There's a saying about porcupines. During the winter they try to huddle together to keep warm, but their barbs prick each other. Even though they'd all benefit from huddling, they don't because of their barbs. You're being barb-y. You don't have to be. Objectivists would do well with coordinated, targeted actions to maximize strategic effect. United not as some "collective," but around a shared set of ideas that we all have. Does a business simply hire people in its marketing department who don't talk to each other, who each go off on their own marketing campaigns to market the same product? No. They interact on a united campaign, with the same sales literature, the same metrics, etc. Cooperation is a benefit. That is something I do in my spare time. It is purely recreational in nature. That is not part of any active campaign I'm engaged in. How about this... you go after the commies and the fascists, and I'll go after the leftists. Deal? We can coordinate; we each do what we're best at. "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." That's a common phrase. It's an idea. But it's a true idea in general, wouldn't you agree? You seem to espouse it yourself, that one person that you're eagerly engaged with one-on-one is worth whatever number of people you might "meme" at with unconvincing arguments out in the internet bush. It's true in many other areas of life. A great relationship is worth two first dates. An existing customer is worth two sales leads. Usually, it's far more than two, but the number can actually be measured in sales. I guess "A bird is worth 11.2 in the bush" didn't catch on as well. You don't need to know the underlying philosophy of the guy who first said "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" in order to evaluate its truth or falsity. You can incorporate its contents into your general knowledge. Sorry, I'll get it in the original Greek next time.
  5. How Nazis Recruit Normie Conservatives For Meme Wars

    Yeah, pro-white memes would never resonate with millions of conservative Christians.
  6. Yesterday
  7. How Nazis Recruit Normie Conservatives For Meme Wars

    Nazi messages don't resonate with conservatives any more than they resonate with communists, or other radically-opposed belief systems. Conservatism and Nazism are as incompatible as Nazism and Leftism. People make the mistake of calling Nazis "far right." They're not. They supported fascism, a system of government-sanctioned corporatism. The idea that government should pick winners and losers is a fundamentally leftist idea.
  8. The Audit

    I mention "ruthless logic" and "tough love" because if it is what I think it is then facing some cold, hard truths head-om might actually be the best thing for me, right now. And I'm sure I'll find some of those tomorrow.
  9. The "us" versus "them" is far from a rational fight with the "us" on the good side. The "us" in this case is collective identity. This is a strategy for collectivists, for collectivists, to beat other collectivists. It operates by appealing to emotion and strength in that collective identity. I don't care if memes reach bigger audiences. Take the fact I'm arguing with you here. I'm trying to reach exactly one person, rather than going on reddit or Twitter to go for a mass audience. You're measuring success in terms of total number, not net effect towards rational society. Persuasion takes a long time, I promise you, it takes a lot longer than getting a laugh to make the alt-right troll brigade sound like loads of fun. I'm playing the long game. So far, your argument is that neo-Nazi memes make liberals mad, and that neo-Nazis are impotent to go beyond propaganda. This is not persuasive here. This does not work when our concern should be philosophical trends. Right-ists or Left-ists are more dangerous at different times. But it's pretty universal for radical belief systems to reject liberalism of the modern era. Fascists hate liberals. Communists hate liberals. The point here is that you're mis-identifying threats by focusing on "beating the Left". You'll do great at stomping liberals. What will be left after that? Communists and Fascists, while we're left to rot away since we failed to develop a rational alternative. "No, to people like us who can evaluate the legitimacy of an idea independent of who originated it. " Again, you would need to know what it means and why it was said. The philosophy matters because it tells us how a person intends for those beliefs to be used. There aren't propositions divorced of contextual information. IOTBW has neo-Nazi belief and method embedded into it. The word-for-word meaning is true, but the implicit ideas underlying -that- phrasing mean a whole lot more. Stating a belief that "men and women are intellectually equal" is not comparable, as that's not Plato's phrasing. It is not imbued with an intent to push as gently towards Nazism. This belief here is rather neutral as far as its aims. If you meme-ified it for political ends, the context would be different.
  10. The Audit

    True; thank you. I probably should've stuck with the first thing I'd typed ("tough love"). It seems to be less about who's involved (although, now that you mention it, I think I may have a few examples of that to be audited) than what they'd think and/or feel about what I'm saying. Which doesn't seem like it's necessarily wrong (isn't that a pretty basic component of any communication?) unless it takes precedence over the truth. And if I'd automatized that inversion of priorities (which, causally speaking, seems right up the alley of "learning to deceive better") then that would explain without contradiction every symptom I mentioned plus a few more I identified at work this morning. I hadn't even included "good reasoning", at first - I'm not even sure what relevant lessons I could draw from it! Which isn't to say that there's nothing to be learned from it (which would almost certainly be false); only that I don't know what, off the top of my head. Yeah! You're right! I was only interested in "bad reasoning" - I only mentioned "good reasoning" to make the sentence Kosher for the hypothetical reader I had in mind! The Benevolent Universe premise and the massive emphasis on pursuing values (instead of escaping from disvalues) are the only specific reasons that come to mind, but it does seem to be one of the most frequently-recurring themes in Rand's fiction. Not anymore, but around this time last year I did. I honestly don't know. It should be easy to determine a lower bound, in the very least, after I really start auditing (tomorrow).
  11. How Nazis Recruit Normie Conservatives For Meme Wars

    Have you then forgotten the fact that the target demographic includes both sides of the political spectrum? You're focused on marketing cognitive dissonance to the Left. But the meme also markets cognitive resonance to the Right. So, why are you helping the Nazis resonate with conservatives?
  12. How Nazis Recruit Normie Conservatives For Meme Wars

    No. I'm not marketing IOTBW at all. I don't spread the meme at all around the internet. The most I do is upvote it on r/The_Donald when I see it, to see leftists' reaction to IOTBW trending. I love their salt. I take selfish pleasure in their pain. You're marketing cognitive dissonance. You're marketing making people squirm uncomfortably in their own filthy mind. It's meant to shock. Consider it the same as the graphic warning labels that certain countries put on cigarettes, except this is the free market of ideas at play instead of some crony regulator. Agreed. I won't dismiss it at all. Fallacies apply to reasoning, not to marketing. Marketing is an instance where genetics do matter. Rational consideration of an idea's truth or falsity is one instance where genetics do not matter. Like I said, marketing is all about exploiting what the consumer thinks. This is true whether or not the consumer is behaving rationally... which consumers rarely do entirely; most buying decisions involve some level of emotion, or faulty reasoning, or appeal to tradition, or what have you. Just because marketing is a useful way to sell an idea, though, does not mean that it is a useful way to consider an idea. The concept of genetics should not at all be smuggled into an individual's proper reasoning process.
  13. How Nazis Recruit Normie Conservatives For Meme Wars

    What are you marketing? White okayness? If so, why does it matter what the target demographic thinks? All you're doing is marketing the message itself. If not, if you have some other product you're marketing with the message, then it absolutely matters how that message was used in the past. You shouldn't want your message to be associated with another product. You shouldn't want to give that other product free advertising. And this is especially true if you morally oppose that other product. This stuff is all marketing 101. But you'll probably dismiss it as yet another example of the "intrinsic genetic fallacy."
  14. How Nazis Recruit Normie Conservatives For Meme Wars

    I would never, ever, start off a reasoned discussion with a rational leftist who is willing to change their mind, by saying "It's okay to be white." Either in person or on the internet. I think we're all on the same page there. I might say it as sort of a strategy to use their own arguments against them, for instance by saying, "Fine, if race does indeed matter, then it's okay to be white, because it's okay to be any race." It would be part of a larger argument meant to persuade, not taken out of context as a meme. That's the problem, though. We're on the internet here. We don't have the time to make those sorts of longer, drawn-out arguments... unless you join a forum like this one. Take Reddit for instance. Even among people who might be willing to change their minds, you maybe get, at most, 5 or 6 replies of a few paragraphs each before the other side throws in the towel and says "I'm done with you" or if you're lucky, "Agree to disagree." If you're really lucky, you might get 8 replies. And on Twitter? You might get 20 replies but all of two sentences each. I've tried persuading people who I viewed as rational leftists on these sites, and it didn't work well. I didn't use memes or anything, just pretty standard libertarian/objectivist arguments. The only other alternative is forums. I've used more reasoned, longer approaches on forums... you'll find scant few out-of-context memes in what I write. But even here, people can ignore you. Invictus2017 ignored me for seemingly no justification other than that I "refused to use my reason," whatever that means. The ex-prisoner putting himself in a prison of the mind--he's the most basic of jokes. Notice that I still quote him and use the few of his ideas I agree with, because I don't care that they come from somebody who blocked me. I wish him and his city in the sky the best. Talk about lofty ideas. Which brings us to the genetic fallacy. Yes, origins of ideas matter... to certain people, in certain contexts. Origins do not intrinsically matter though. Some people are protesting the NFL because they sit for the flag, which originated with Black Lives Matter, which originated with a false claim of "hands up, don't shoot" by some thug kid. Are they right to do so? Well, it's their time to spend watching games or not. That's capitalism. As for me, I'll take any good idea that I agree with, that suits my purposes, and run with it... in certain contexts. Again, because I'm not an intrinsicist when it comes to ideas. Ironically, I don't care if it comes from the kind of intrinsicism, Plato himself... the man said at least a couple of things in his volumes of work that are true. Plato was the first philosopher to hold men and women as intellectually equal. If I say, "men and women are intellectually equal," that doesn't mean that I'm promoting Plato, even though he's where the idea originated from. Peikoff starts his History of Philosophy lecture on Plato by acknowledging the good in him. Leia: "Why must you confront [Vader]?" Luke: "Because, there is good in him, I felt it." So to wrap up this whole IOTBW meme. Do its origins matter? Yes and no. Yes, to certain people who are intrinsicist, guilty of the genetic fallacy, who judge an idea not based on the idea itself, but who said it. No, to people like us who can evaluate the legitimacy of an idea independent of who originated it. Alas, though, we have a marketing issue here. What we think doesn't matter in marketing. What your target demographic thinks matters in marketing. Conciseness, and being able to make a point quickly matters in marketing. How valuable is your attention, is another good thread on O.O. which gets into that. In that sense, people will judge an idea based on its origins. IOTBW is no way to promote Objectivism. That's why you don't see me actively spreading the IOTBW meme. I live 15 minutes from a college campus, I could easily hang up flyers there if I wanted to. I don't waste my time with petty things like that. I think it's fun to watch the left's hysteria in reacting to words that are essentially non-harmful... it not only proves them guilty of the genetic fallacy, but also the very racists they claim to stand against. Again, that's the only reason that I passively upvote IOTBW memes on r/The_Donald. Because it's fun to watch leftists stew in their own contradictions. It's fun to watch evil ideas destroyed. It's fun to watch statists eat each other. I see it as a spectator sport, like watching two boxers duke it out. Better grab more popcorn.
  15. How Nazis Recruit Normie Conservatives For Meme Wars

    Yes, it's a Nazi trap! They get everyone accepting a Nazi meme, then they say, "By the way, we've been saying this for years. Why don't you check out some of our other great ideas? Oh, you don't like the GAS THE KIKES meme? How about WHITE PRIDE WORLD WIDE? We have a white pride rally coming up. You should check it out. We get to piss off liberals."
  16. The Audit

    I'm assuming this means that at first you actually did write the thesis sentence like this: My efforts would benefit enormously if I had more examples of bad--than good--reasoning. And then you changed it to this: My efforts would benefit enormously if I had more examples of good--but moreso bad--reasoning. And you changed the emphasis from bad to good reasoning because it didn't "feel right" due to your understanding of Objectivism being largely about "positivity and optimism." I asked you about this one sentence because I suspect that it reveals something substantial about your thinking process. At first it struck me as very odd that you would put the main point between the dashes. And now that you've told me why you did it, I'm even more convinced that it reveals a serious problem. The truth seems to be that intellectually you don't care about examples of good reasoning, since you did not mention them again in the following paragraphs. Yet emotionally you do. When your intellect and emotions conflict, there is a serious problem that goes to the root of your being, and you should focus ALL of your attention on that issue. Why do you think that "positivity and optimism are a big part of Objectivism"? Do you think that being positive and optimistic is more important than being clear and intellectually honest? And: How often do you allow your feelings to overrule your intellect?
  17. For one, that's the liberal left. The Communist left does not like identity politics and engages in class warfare. For the sake of identifying threats properly, you need to know who you're arguing against - we don't want to fight Communism by fighting liberals. The racial stuff is mostly liberal, filled with contradictions. The more important thing to do, at least when making arguments, is to state the position rationally. It would be better to dismantle an ideology alongside an alternative, rather than only point out stupid ideas. If people don't engage you, that's their problem. By doing that, you attract persuadable individuals. Yes, they exist. There's no need to say you'd need a therapist to do that. Appeals to rationality are appeals to people who might care, even the minority of good people who in fact will make a difference. Appeals with memes attracts the lowest common denominator, the people who don't care to think deeply. Sure, they are amusing sometimes, maybe even correct. The issue is that they are still shallow. This is what propaganda relies on, hoping you don't care where it came from, getting you to think the issue is as simple as the image. This is fine to a small degree as motivation where an issue really is that simple. Except, Nazis get that the issue is complex. So they simplify. Make it sound benign. Let people who don't know better keep saying IOTBW, they won't know the point is to slowly make white identity seem important and dominate the race war. No, most people who say IOTBW aren't neo-Nazis. That's the point. It hides the fact that neo-Nazis are running that dialogue. It makes the phrase defendable. An important thesis of Objectivism is that philosophy drives the course of history. It matters where ideas come from. It matters that IOTBW is from neo-Nazis. For this reason, we need a better strategy than to regurgitate a neo-Nazi phrase. The worst reply would be to say you don't care where IOTBW came from. You'd be saying origins of ideas don't matter.
  18. The Audit

    Ruthless logic cannot constitute abUSE. If the logic is correct, then as such, it can be USEful (whether or not it can be classified as ruthless). Avoid fixating on personalities, and who happened to say something (in the past) you disagree with, and focus on the content of what is now being said, by anyone, everyone, and even those who have said other things (in the past which you happened to disagree with) and use independent judgment to assess the usefulness/truth etc. of what is now being said. Subconscious ad hominem is probably the least excusable of the involuntary logical fallacies, and is incredibly counter productive when attempting to objectively analyze ideas because it keeps diverting the focus from the substance of the idea to the originator of the idea. Although context demands at least keeping in mind who said something and why, to the extent such a misdirection interferes with independent logical assessment, it is to be stamped out completely.
  19. The Audit

    Ah! It's almost as if I've automatized the direction of my attention, while under observation, to the anticipated responses of my observer (instead of to the facts involved)! That simplifies things. I take back what I said about abuse: bring on some ruthless logic! I think I'm actually going to enjoy this.
  20. What are you listening at the moment?

    I'll saw your Swirling Eddies and call with an eddy of the planets. Gustav Hoist - The Planets - Mars, the Bringer of War
  21. The Audit

    http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/topic/30896-we-should-be-fun-people-we-arent-lets-change/&do=findComment&comment=352166 I'm not sure this was right. Specifically: are there any subjects one morally shouldn't consider (no matter how silly)? I don't have time to fully unravel it at present but that seems very wrong. The pandering to anonymous strangers' judgements of "guilt by association" isn't my implicit moral collectivism; it was Rand's and Peikoff's. Still, that's not a valid reason to perpetuate it. There's much more here but I'm out of time.
  22. Editor's Note: I am taking the next couple of days off from blogging. Happy Thanksgiving, and I'll see you Monday. Dollars and Crosses recently pointed out a 2009 review, by Steven Pinker, of Malcolm Gladwell's What the Dog Saw -- and Other Adventures. The whole review is thought-provoking, but I'll make do here with an excerpt of an excerpt: Image of pop culture "igon" via Wikipedia An eclectic essayist is necessarily a dilettante, which is not in itself a bad thing. But Gladwell frequently holds forth about statistics and psychology, and his lack of technical grounding in these subjects can be jarring. He provides misleading definitions of "homology," "sagittal plane" and "power law" and quotes an expert speaking about an "igon value" (that's eigenvalue, a basic concept in linear algebra). In the spirit of Gladwell, who likes to give portentous names to his aper├žus, I will call this the Igon Value Problem: when a writer's education on a topic consists in interviewing an expert, he is apt to offer generalizations that are banal, obtuse or flat wrong. [bold added by Dollars and Crosses]Given that anyone, including Gladwell, could simply look these terms up (excepting "igon value", a term Gladwell, a mathematician's son, grossly misspells), this is more than jarring to me. In fact, it reminds me of the following quote about Donald Trump, by Onkar Ghate of the Ayn Rand Institute: On cable news, it's now a regular feature for reporters like CNN's Anderson Cooper to catalog Trump's latest lies. But to call them lies misses the point. A liar retains some respect for the truth: he tries to conceal his lies, weave a web of deception and make it difficult for his victims to discover the facts. Trump does none of this.Having a terminal degree, I have had my share of experiences hearing people holding out on things in my field that I can instantly see they know nothing about. But at least in many such cases, it would take more than a quick internet search or peek in a dictionary or checking back with an expert to correct the problem -- unlike, say, finding a definition of some term. On top of that, Gladwell was writing a book. Pinker goes on to note that a "common thread in Gladwell's writing is a kind of populism," and I must agree. I guess I now have an answer to an old question I raised here some time back, regarding another unflattering review: Being less-than-familiar with Gladwell's work, I can see his reaction as either one of annoyance at an unjust attack by an "expert" who disagrees with him -- or a sneer aimed for his lay audience to deflect valid criticism.Pinker concedes that there can be value in Gladwell's writings, but cautions against his longer-form writing. I suppose so, but would say that my advice goes double in that situation: "[O]ne should never take just one person's word, however glib or authoritative, for anything." I suspect that many of the same cultural factors that make Gladwell a popular writer are also responsible for the rises of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, each of whom shows disdain for easily-discoverable truths in his own way. -- CAV Link to Original
  23. The Audit

    Okay! I can't seem to find where I said that I no longer thought that position correct. Maybe I'd just changed my mind (and forgotten even to mention that to anybody) but maybe not. Without the other post I can't tell what error (if any) I've committed! I'll try digging for it again, though, when I have a few spare minutes. Firstly, "too much" of something implies some goal (which is the thing's purpose and which dictates its standard of "too much" or "too little", etc). For the purpose of writing my own philosophical ideas, to be read by people who've voluntarily read Ayn Rand (recall the sheer size of Atlas Shrugged), I don't think I'm too talkative. For the purpose of combing through my previous ideas, finding all the wrong ones and finding the most essential wrongs among those (since that's the shortest route to what I really want to know), I've been far too talkative for one person to audit. @Nicky (whose posts seldom exceed a single paragraph apiece) could probably audit himself all by himself, if he wished to, but I can't. I'm not beating myself up about it (I never imagined I would be trying to do this when I wrote any of the things I've posted before) but it is a fact. Secondly, I never actually said "too talkative"; just "talkative". Thirdly, what makes me think I am talkative? My user history. It's not necessarily a bad thing, in the usual context; it just makes my current goal a hard one to reach by myself. Yes, and life is a process of motion - but I'd like to know that I'm moving in the right direction! I have some very good reasons to think that I haven't been (that, in fact, I've been moving in all the wrong directions) and I'm not beating myself up about that, either - I can't change the past. What I am doing is trying to learn from it. My dad used to say: "don't tell me you're sorry for it; just don't do it". I've apologized for many of the things I've posted in the last few weeks, as I should've, but I can't stop doing the things I'm apologizing for until I understand their nature and causes. And that is specifically what I made this thread for: to help me gain a better picture of what I've been doing wrong and how to start doing it right. I will! I start work in a few more hours, here, but I already have a list of 'likely suspects' in the back of my head, which I'll start linking to the next time I'm able (probably this afternoon). Well, in this particular case I think the examples of bad reasoning would be much more helpful. You're all welcome to let me know how awesome any of my conclusions are (I certainly won't stop you) but I really don't have any trouble with accepting or being proud of that. That's just my default response to my own ideas; even ones I've since discarded -such as Satanism- I still feel vaguely fond of (like previously-favorite toys which I happen to have outgrown). It's the opposite that I'm struggling with; realizing when my objectively amazing brain happens to produce garbage, and then treating the garbage for what it is. I know that positivity and optimism are a big part of Objectivism, though, so it didn't feel right to post it in the order in which I'd originally typed it. So I swapped them around at the last minute. I'm not sure. I've noticed a few common symptoms but I don't know what they'd point to (if anything). Firstly, I don't tend to have too much trouble with abstract principles, as such; the majority of the difficulties arise when I try to remember, off the top of my head, how they're integrated into my whole worldview, or to apply them to some concrete. For example, I know that productiveness is the virtue of rearranging the material of your background to suit yourself. That's very clear in my mind, as are several of its connections to other concepts and principles (such as the fact that all "creation" as such means a new rearrangement of old materials). However, some of its connections are hit-or-miss (such as the relation of independence to productiveness - "your life is yours to live, which means your life is your own responsibility" -Yaron Brook); some days it's there and some days it simply isn't. Similarly, sometimes I can properly apply the virtue of "productiveness" to a given situation, and sometimes I can't. For example, take someone who tries to get a raise by flattering a boss they despise (like Peter Keating); some days I'll be able to see how that's not actually productive at all, and some days (like right now) I can't. I know it's the wrong answer but for the life of me I can't remember why. Secondly, although at times I'll ramble on and on about something irrelevant (which seems pretty common among even the best of us), sometimes -particularly when I'm trying to stay on track- I'll do something much worse, without realizing it: I'll start saying things that aren't true. It's not lying. I believe what I'm saying, in the moment that I say it, but if I remember it the next day I have to wonder where in the Hell I managed to pull THAT out of. It's not a conscious action and I usually don't even notice when I'm doing it (although in the past two weeks I actually have, and have managed to correct it on-the-spot, a couple of times); one minute I'm discussing some idea or some state of reality and the next I'm describing -with fully righteous conviction- something that's completely in my own head. It's something I remember doing all the time, when I was little, but since I really got into Objectivism this is the first time I've noticed doing it again. And it only ever happens when I'm talking to someone. When I'm thinking about something, by myself, it just doesn't happen (not ever, in any slightest way); if I'm talking to someone then I can start doing it hours and hours before I know what I've been doing. Because of that I suspect that it's the result of learning to lie too frequently, for too long (which is why I mentioned dealing with "normal people" or "envious morons" - I've spent many years simply trying to deceive them into leaving me the Hell alone) but that doesn't tell me the identity of the flawed cognition I'm struggling with, nor (what's REALLY important to me, here) how to retrain my self out of doing it. God. This was one of my favorite songs when I was a kid; hearing it now, I can't stop thinking about Robert Stadler. But I didn't bring this here for moral support but for the fastest possible cure, which I'd only retard by any omission. When I think of why I started consciously learning to lie I think of this song.
  24. How Nazis Recruit Normie Conservatives For Meme Wars

    And they're all on their last legs. The genie has been let out of the bottle for reason, atheism, free thought, liberty, and representative government. Those ideas were not formulated centuries ago, so the darkness persisted in the absence of light. Now they are formulated, and humanity is more interconnected than ever, so there is no getting rid of these ideas. Even North Korea has an estimated 10-20% of the population who consumes Western media, and they're the most tightly-controlled regime on the planet. Saudi Arabia has announced its intention to reform into a moderate version of Islam--I'll believe it when I see it, but they've made some encouraging moves in the last two years such as allowing women to vote, and to drive. They've also arrested dozens of princes with alleged ties to terrorism... who knows how much of that is legitimate, but if even one of the princes was tied to terrorism then it's a step in the right direction. While it's possible that we are headed into a second dark age, as Invictus2017 might proclaim, I tend to take a more optimistic view. Even if America itself does not survive, there will always be some place on earth where man can live qua man, where freedom reigns. And if not earth, there is always the stars above.
  25. How Nazis Recruit Normie Conservatives For Meme Wars

    I apologize for implying that. I was under the impression that Grames didn't provide an explanation for his picture because no explanation is needed. Apparently I was mistaken and quite a bit of explanation is needed, even to non-leftists such as yourself. Leonard Peikoff, when advocating for the validity of the senses, uses the anti-reason philosophers' own (false) arguments against them. He said, and I'm paraphrasing here, "such an argument against the validity of the senses would even apply to God, if he existed. You could simply say to God, 'well, you're not directly perceiving reality, you're just perceiving what the divine sensory apparatus gives you.'" In the same way, IOTBW uses the left's own false argument against them. The left says, "you should feel guilty for being white" and "you should face lessened opportunity because you're white." I could say one of two things in response. 1. "Come on guys, we're all just human beings, this whole race discussion is irrational.. can't we all just get along?" That is an eminently rational statement, but it will get approximately zero traction. We are in a culture which promotes to kids, from the day that they're born, that race A. Exists, B. Matters, and C. You shouldn't hate on people for being a certain race... (unless they're white, the left would add). You can't erase decades of conditioning with a simple appeal to rationality qua rationality. As Invictus would say, you need a therapist to do that. If it were as simple as appealing to rationality, we'd have won by now. More importantly, even when you make the case that race doesn't really exist, you get accused of being "blind to racism," AKA a racist yourself. There is no way out of the left's quicksand when you are constantly forced to perform acts of apologetics with them, constantly saying "no, I'm not a racist." 2. "It's okay to be white." This essentially throws their entire argument up in their face. It points out that they're being blazing hypocrites, because if anybody of any other race said, "It's okay to be X," they wouldn't have a problem with it. By doing this, I am essentially saying to them, "You are the most basic of jokes." The only sticking point with this meme, as others have pointed out, is that it originated with neo-Nazis. I say, fine. The left already thinks that we're all racists anyway. If they're stupid enough to believe that everybody who is posting IOTBW is a neo-Nazi, then they're beyond rationality anyway; they've abandoned reason and there is no persuading somebody who has done so. They have free will to think or not to think.
  26. How Nazis Recruit Normie Conservatives For Meme Wars

    And as a result, even the neo-Nazis who don't support death camps are accused of supporting death camps secretly. I can't read their minds, so I don't know what their ultimate goal is. Because housing discrimination is illegal. The government is actively trying to keep neo-Nazis in our country instead of allowing them to do what they would naturally do otherwise... self-segregate from the rest of the population. I'm not implying that every last one would move away... but a good number of them would as they have outright stated that white nationalism, AKA a nation for white people, is on their agenda.
  27. How Nazis Recruit Normie Conservatives For Meme Wars

    I guess Hitler wasn't a full-hearted Nazi, because he didn't publicly call for extermination camps and tried to keep them a secret. I don't have a problem with racists buying a town and keeping to themselves. Why don't the neo-Nazis do that? Oh, yeah, because they aren't full-hearted racists.
  1. Load more activity