CartsBeforeHorses

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.

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.

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.

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.

Interesting use of aquatic puns. I raise you, the Swirling Eddies and a song about a "card shark."

You can use the word "slavery" for this if you want, but I don't think you'll get much traction when talking to others. I think the word stands apart from its originator, and has developed a usage in the wider English language apart from the few bad examples initially used to support the concept. Say, haven't we had this conversation before?

One of the best covers ever done IMO. Now for something a bit more post-grungy... Lifehouse - "First Time" "It's easier to be broken, it's easier to hide" AKA "Thinking and self-improvement requires effort, it's easier to evade."

If "groupthink" is not an adequate term to describe this phenomenon, then what would you propose?

Maybe some of them only embrace racism "half-heartedly," but many leftists outright call for the demise of white males. I'd dig up examples but I'd encourage you to do your own research. No, if they were full-hearted they'd call for extermination camps. Most of them just want to be left alone in a white nation. I say give it to them. If the Indians get reservations, then so should whites, blacks, or any other ethnic group. There's plenty of federal land we could sell them. Make a few bucks, get rid of Nazis. It's a win-win. Ourania seems to be doing fine. Unless you think that a small town of a thousand peace-loving Afrikaners is a "threat" to South Africa. And it had a broken, defeated country to take advantage of: post-WWI Germany which was unfairly saddled with all of the war debt. If you really want to stop Nazism, then you should want to stop America from becoming a cesspool where those sorts of ideas can take root. The left is actively turning America into a cesspool. If neo-Nazi ideology is a long-term threat, where are the neo-Nazi countries today? The only one that you could make a case for is Ukraine with its neo-Nazi battalions and glorification of Nazi war criminals, but Ukraine isn't not long for this earth at the rate they're going. You mean by killing off the Jews, the brightest minds in all of Europe? That sort of "weak and powerless?" The Jews might not have had any guns, but they were brilliant scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs. Hell, Jews practically ran Europe's banking for years because gentiles saw the collection of interest as "sinful." Nazism would've burnt itself out just like Apartheid South Africa did. No ideology which is anti-liberty is destined to live long on this earth.

Neither. I determine who is using groupthink by how similarly their arguments sound to one another. I've ran into Leftists, in particular, who seem to read off the same sheet of music without critically examining what it is that they're reading. DailyKos, Mother Jones, ThinkProgress, and other leftist rags will put out some article, and then I'll hear leftists in real life, and see them on the internet, parroting back whatever the article said, and they never bother to dig deep. The left's anti-Russia hysteria is one such example of groupthink. Despite absolutely zero evidence found of any Russian connection to the Trump administration, they keep insisting that one exists. Why? Because their leaders do, not because they've done any independent research or independent thinking on the matter.

Whether or not an idea is held by one man or the same idea is held by many men in a group, does not change its validity. The idea itself should be evaluated on its own merits. I think that is what you were criticizing in your original post. In that sense, using "oh, that's just groupthink" as a justification for dismissing the validity of an argument is fallacious. But it doesn't make groupthink an invalid concept. Reasoning must be done by an individual... each individual must reach his own conclusions through his own reasoning process. We all must think for ourselves. In that sense, "groupthink" denounces those who submit their own judgment to whatever the collective says. I think when used in that way, it is a valid concept because it stands for individual reason. None of us should desire to be a groupthinker.

That's why there is no point in denouncing white supremacy, as Trump proved when he denounced David Duke over. and over. and over again... yet they still called him a racist. Denouncing white supremacy is essentially an act of cunnilingus that the right is forced to perform on the left for nothing in return. Excuse the vulgarity, but we gain NOTHING by denouncing neo-Nazis except wasting our time... and pleasing the left that our own ranks are divided. I'm not a white supremacist, but I'm not going to waste my time fighting them on an irrelevant, backwater front of the culture war. The left is the biggest threat to our country and we should never lose sight of our enemy.

And your failure to grasp what the image is trying to convey suggests that you aren't thinking through this all the way. Here, let me explain the joke. Grames is pointing out that all "race" discussions led by the left end up turning into anti-white discussions. If you are a white person, there is nothing that you can possibly do (or refrain from doing) that won't get you branded a racist by certain segments of the left. They aren't anti-racist; they're just anti-white. By failing to acknowledge that all of the talk of race in this country is skewed against one particular segment of the population, you are essentially giving your sanction as the victim. The joke is on you.

That is a true statement. Neo-Nazis are not a threat in this country. They're just there, they have no political power or influence whatsoever to enact their agenda. The left is very much a threat in this country, and is entrenched in the Deep State. So who do you think we will spend most of our time attacking? Denouncing neo-Nazis? Fine, I denounce them. Now that I've mowed the lawn, can I put out the raging housefire the left has started in this country--including their anti-white bias? How do you propose countering their anti-white bias? If not memes, what do I have your permission to use? Also, it isn't just anti-white bias. It's anti-exceptionalism bias. It affects Asians too. DOJ launches probe against Harvard for its affirmative action policies that exclude Asian students https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/harvard-faces-doj-probe-over-affirmative-action-policies-1511260380

Apple diversity chief forced out after saying white men can be diverse, too http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-18/apple-diversity-chief-forced-out-after-saying-white-people-can-be-diverse-too Part of the anti-white campaign.

You want to get complex, eh? Well, you've asked the right accountant. The standard of value is life, but how do you measure your life and its three (or more) aspects? If it can't be measured, it can't be controlled. You have to have a readily-identifiable metric to track what you want to measure. Otherwise you're just comparing apples to oranges. One metric that you could use is money measured in dollars. I would suggest that you track the money that you spend and budget it based on what you value in life. I've done this for myself and it's helped me to see the bigger picture. In doing so, I've separated mandatory spending vs. discretionary spending. Watching a movie is discretionary spending, it fulfills a want. Buying groceries is mandatory spending; you must eat to stay alive, it fulfills a need. Hopefully you enjoy your food, nonetheless it's still mandatory spending. I use an accounting app to track the amount of money that I spend, and then break this down into categories by expense. Here is how much I spent in 2017 on ten various categories, plus other. I've bolded items which are discretionary. As you can see, the vast majority of my money goes to rent, healthcare, and groceries. This is money that I have to spend... while I can control it a little bit, I am not comfortable with spending any less than what I do. I would have to live in a bad neighborhood, or go to a quack doctor, or eat ramen noodles to reduce any of these. It's only when you get to entertainment that you come to discretionary spending. "Pleasure" as you would categorize it. I could spend less on entertainment, but I enjoy entertainment and I'm not willing to reduce my expenditures in that area. I'm not spending so much on entertainment that it eclipses any of my necessary expenses, I.E. rent, healthcare, and groceries. Thus I'm fulfilling my values in this area in a balanced way. As for knowledge, a good portion of my interest expense is for student loans. A second metric that you could use is time, measured in hours. Unlike money, time is a non-renewable resource. You can keep a journal of how much time you spend each week on each thing that you value. Work, exercise, fun, etc. Then you can see what areas you need to spend more time in, and what areas you spend too much time in. I'm not an expert in time management, so I'll leave that to somebody else to address. Your goal should be to limit it to categories that are useful to you. I can't tell you how many aspects you need... five, or fifty. I've used ten above, plus one for "other," because these are all useful for me to know. These 10 categories might not be useful to you. Part of the discipline of accounting is presenting relevant information to the client that they need to know.

You are dealing with a contradictory philosophy here, so it's important to acknowledge the contradiction. Some people deny the validity of the senses, while others deny that A is A... however those people usually rely on the thing that they don't deny. Many people deny the validity of the senses, including those who say that senses are untrustworthy, they don't directly show us reality but something else. (I.E. just "our brain's interpretation of reality.") However, I don't think most of them would deny that A is A... they would deny that we are capable of percieving A qua A. Some of the quantum mechanical mystics would posit that A is not A... for instance that it is possible for a subatomic particle to have two contradictory attributes at a single time. But far from denying the validity of the senses, these same people actually posit that the senses, AKA observation, creates reality. That by observing a particle, we force it to collapse into having particular, definite attribute.

I have only been on this board for a couple months, but I find you to be a particularly bright, intelligent individual with a happy sense of life. Whatever you might have been in the past, you have obviously changed for the better. I would recommend reading Dr. Joseph Murphy's "The Power of Your Subconscious Mind." I should warn ahead of time that the book is from a New Age author who was an ordained Jesuit minister, so there are references throughout to the "law of attraction" and miracles... Nevertheless I still recommend the book because Murphy does the best job of any author that I know of describing 1. the nature of the subconscious mind, 2. how to change its contents, and 3. how to harness its power. For only $1 on Kindle, I would consider that money well spent. Also know that "Life is practice." The learning and refinement process never ceases. It is a continual journey and you will gain wisdom along the way, knowledge of what you did wrong and how you could do better in the future. In that sense you are never a "finished product" and should never hope to be so... that would mean that your personal development has come to a stop. I wish you luck on your continued journey--and know that you will not be alone. I too am constantly refining my reasoning process, and my psycho-epistemology... I think Huey Lewis put it best... "All I wish for tomorrow, is to get it better than today."

Brent Bourgeois - "Dare To Fall In Love"

As an experiment, I tried to consciously will my attention at all times for about a month this summer. I would not let my mind wander... I could not let it wander, not even for a second. While I came to some great realizations during that time, what I ultimately learned was that you simply can't function in life if you're trying to be hyper-focused all the time. You have to let your mind wander at some point.

Art is an achievement. It is an expression of yourself that nobody else could have made but you. Both of those pictures above, I could have made myself... and I'm no great painter. I'd consider a preschool finger painting more of a piece of art than Pollock or Warhol.

Ever hear the phrase, "life is about the journey, not the destination?" I think that's a false dilemma... but constantly looking towards the future and delaying your own pleasure in the now is not the way that I have ever personally achieved happiness. I think that you should admire yourself as much as you possibly can, so long as your life is on the right track. That includes now when you are nothing, and someday when you become something. Exactly. I will not accept that I don't "deserve" to admire myself because I don't yet measure up to some external standard. I measure up to my own internal standards... ones which are informed by Objectivism, but are still unique to me. Ayn Rand rarely smiled. Why do you think that is? Was she just happy internally, and didn't choose to externally display it?

Having a good attention span is critical, if you have a short attention span then you will never fini

Half a decade ago I made a music video for this song, that was how much I liked it. I still do... Charlie Peacock - "One Two Three (That's Okay)"

Attention is a key component in volition, which is the one fundamental free choice that man has, to focus his consciousness or not, to think or to evade that effort. She was indeed a very deliberate speaker. I actually found Peikoff's recorded lectures to be more helpful than Rand's own recorded words, as he seemed to articulate her philosophy very well. It means that you are unfocused in life, or your focus is on something that it shouldn't be. Meditation and achieving bliss, which I elaborate on in this topic. Curious to hear your thoughts. I also like to have a bit of fun every now and then... something that I enjoy for itself, and not necessarily because it serves any greater purpose in life.