Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

CartsBeforeHorses

Regulars
  • Posts

    243
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by CartsBeforeHorses

  1. And making such a bold claim about your opponent is yet another example of why I regard you as a troll. Let me break down "privilege" for you. Individuals are responsible for themselves. Privilege is irrelevant to individual success. Education and reason are relevant. Nothing is keeping black people from succeeding in America, or in Africa, except themselves... not their environment. Not racism from 50 years ago which not only no longer exists, but has actually been reversed. Nor the remnants of colonialism, AKA most of Africa's infrastructure that white people built for them. Next. And Craig, Professor 2046 forgot to mention that this should be at least six pages long, and is due by Friday. Hey man, you have no idea how many bottles of Mountain Dew died to give me the high energy to respond to all of your posts.
  2. While it is nice to see a Sanders-supporting socialist reduced to a blubbering mess, the reason for it was ludicrous. Mistaking "Hidden Figures" and "fences" and getting called a racist because both movies happen to have predominantly black casts? What a joke. People are trying so hard to find racism everywhere. Also even though this is anecdotal, I would still submit this as yet more evidence that blacks are on average less intelligent than whites. People mistake movies all the time and white people never collectively freak out about it. Because we're a smarter group than to take offense to an honest mistake. When your average IQ is 90, though, then you care about petty crap like that. It's okay to be smart. It's okay to be white.
  3. Imagine if you shouted "it's okay to be white!" in the middle of a BLM rally. You'd get beaten up, probably. All lives matter, but some lives matter more than other lives.
  4. Sure racism is okay. Just like Christianity is okay. It's not "great" or "right," it's just "okay." Being a racist (or a Christian) doesn't hurt anybody by itself. It's incorrect, sure. And if somebody acts on their racism and initiates force, then that's not okay. But racism itself is fine. And again, why shouldn't white people have their own nation? It would probably be the most prosperous nation in the world. And every white racist that you hate would move there and leave you alone. You've failed to tell me why White Nationalism is a bad thing. Sounds like a win-win to me. No, I equate disapproval with lack of acceptance. Part of Objectivism is accepting reality. All things are "okay" which are not prohibited by law. Doesn't make them right, or mean we shouldn't try to change people's mind if we have a chance and they're willing to listen. Luckily I have thicker skin than those college students, the word "monkey" might be misconstrued as racist.
  5. The concept of "truth." Whether a statement is divisive or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the truth, no matter how people feel about it. Emotions are not tools of cognition.
  6. One which an objectivist is having trouble seeing, because he's not being very objective.
  7. Extremism is an anti-concept. "Whiteness" is not, and "okay" is not. Why shouldn't you want white racists have their own nation? They'd all flock to it, and then there'd be less of them around to annoy you here in America--or wherever you live. Everyone wins. Sure it is. We have freedom of conscience in this country. Saying "okay" means that you accept reality as it is. It's not "yes" or "no," it's just "okay." Acceptance does not imply approval. And I open the package, take what I want, and disgard the rest because I'm selfish and I can do that.
  8. People who require counseling over a poster are "smart?" Maybe not never, but in this case, no. I'll say whatever damn thing I want, including "it's okay to be white." I will also judge what I will say and what I won't say based on many factors, including who else is saying it. In this case, a large, large, large number of non-racists are saying "it's okay to be white," including the Donald Trump subreddit, r/The_Donald. The meme has developed a life of its own apart from whoever started it. "The soul exists." That is something that Objectivism believes... man is a being of self-made soul. Is it not okay to say "the soul exists" just because Christians also believe that, too, and use it to try to scare peopple into joining their religion? That is his response, and my response, and you're reading right past it because you want to for some reason. How many times do we have to say that we're not racist and racism isn't cool before you get it? And before you bring up my point about IQ and race again, I'd kindly ask for even a single number which refutes what I've said. Some alternative data, maybe. Rather than labels like "pseudoscientific" which adds nothing to the discussion because you've failed to refute it. I can scream "anti-vaxxers are pseudoscientific" all day long if I'm debating with one, but that won't change his mind... maybe a figure on people who are vaccinated and don't contract deadly diseases might.
  9. Nature did that, not me. If I say, "aquamarine is a pretty color," that doesn't by itself imply that I've assessed any of the other colors. "Divisive" is an anti-concept just like the word "polarizing." Capitalism is divisive. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't advocate for it. No, all that will take is an end to Israel-worshiping. We can start with Yaron Brook and his "Israel-first" mentality.
  10. Alright, I'm going to riff this piece, Mystery Science Theater 3000 style. The piece is enough of a joke, might as well joke about it. Except for Odd Thomas, and the ARI. lol Well obviously, Trump loves Russia and Rand was from Russia. Makes total sense to the fake news mindset. Whole, as in "all." Quite a wager considering that Trump agrees with Objectivism on quite a few key political goals... preserving the 2A, repealing regulations, repealing Obamacare, standing up to the Global Warming fraud, destroying radical Islam instead of making excuses for it, etc. So what does our prophetess have to say exactly, Mr. Ghate? She obviously didn't foresee the rise of the Internet. Except for Ron Paul, a far more intellectual and principled candidate than Trump, which the ARI opposed because... uh, why exactly? A limit which apparently led for her to vote for Nixon, a far worse candidate than Trump, over McGovern, a far better candidate than Hillary. and who channel a dead woman... oh wait, that's the ARI. Yes, the first candidate in 30 years to not thank God in his acceptance speech, and who says that he has "nothing to be forgiven for" is a "mystic." He might as well be a closet atheist who pays lip-service to religion because politics and votes. No, what's illuminating is your attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole. You mean like government-sanctioned torture, or the Waco raid? That sort of justice? None of which are evident in Trump's decades of honest business dealings, Mr. Ghate would assert. If he had been a Madoff-like crook, surely evidence for it would have arisen by now. Apparently calling out fake news represents "disdain for the truth." Ah, Anderson Cooper, a bastion of journalistic integrity. Because he's not a liar. Apparently YouTube viewers don't count. Apparently respect for women involves denying one's own sexuality and the beauty of the female form. Ghate would have us equate spur-of-the-moment tweets with Trump's considered opinion. No, it's because none of the things you just mentioned were lies. Actually it captures basic marketing principles. The defenders of capitalism sure don't know much about how business works. Says the ARI, an organization which hired Carl Barney, former Scientology church owner and current college swindler, and takes his dirty money. Obviously they would assert that they only hired him because people can change. Well then, we had objective evidence that Trump no longer desired to be part of the swamp and only had to be in order to run his business effectively. Apparently concepts like slogans and the process for choosing them to reach mass appeal are alien to the ARI. No wonder there are so few objectivists. And apparently unless you constantly repeat those things, your own inherent goodness means nothing. "It's true because I want it to be true" actually perfectly captures the tone of this hit piece. I'd rather have a man who acts moral but never talks about it, than a man who never acts moral but preaches how moral he is. Fine people want to preserve their history for the sake of remembering, not tear it down for the sake of nothing. Not every person defending the confederate statue at that rally was a neo-Nazi. No other president actually stood up to North Korea and forced China to play nice. I'd call that quite an accomplishment. In addition to the hundreds of regulations that Trump has repealed. If Ghate and Brook had their way, Hillary would be president and these would still be on the books. Don't forget about Jesus and Buddha while you're making your fake list of people who Trump never said that he's better than. Or, you know, it was a joke. Yes, how dare he be loyal to America first instead of globalists. I guess that Trump's business achievements count for nothing. As opposed to the objective thing to do, which would be to hire men who would betray him. As it should be, given Comey's lack of fidelity to justice in the case of Clinton. What you're hearing is patriotism towards America, not tribalism. I know, it's hard to recognize for a member of an organization like the ARI that puts Israel above America. And Hillary apparently would've played no part in this drift. Political hucksters rely on strawmen, such as saying that Trump blamed "all" the country's problems on any particular group. By this logic we should never elect a county sheriff who pledges to crack down on criminals. That would be tribalism, apparently. You mean like Hillary calling half the country "deplorables?" Oh look, a nugget of truth! You're forgetting some qualifying adjectives. Illegal immigrants, dishonest journalists, globalist "free" traders, and corrupt elites. Trump opposed none of those things intrinsically. Sales should be soaring, but the ARI fails at marketing so they're not. With funny names like Floyd Ferris, Wesely Mouch, and Onkar Ghate. You mean like how Leonard Peikoff squandered Ayn Rand's intellectual heritage? That sort of progeny? I'd trust a snake oil salesman like Alex Jones before I'd trust Anderson Cooper or wherever Mr. Ghate gets his "news." And by letting in the entire Third World into America all at once. She also advocated that, apparently. America to Israel, America to globalists... just kidding, he doesn't say that. So this is what makes you happy? Writing baseless schlock about the president? What about the Convention of States? Oh wait, the ARI hates states' rights. I mean, I think that she would have said that too, but not in the way that you mean. After all that bloviating, this is the best you could come up with that Rand might have said?
  11. If you could have any superpower, what would it be? Flight? X-ray vision? Super speed? Super intelligence? Time travel? Something else? Would you choose a superpower that allows you to make money? Change the world? Just have fun? Would you keep your superpower secret? Or would you openly use it and hope that others accept you and don't label you as some sort of freak, X-Men style? My personal pick is probably teleportation. It would be so convenient. No more driving places. Visit the world in the blink of an eye. Visit other worlds in the blink of an eye... presuming that you know about them I suppose. I would definitely keep it secret, though. I don't really desire fame for fame's sake.
  12. The genre and CGI just screams "early 2000's ska." The quirkiness screams "Aussie." The Cat Empire - "One Four Five"
  13. It doesn't "require" a university context. A university context is where the message was posted up, and where people reacted to it with the same level of revulsion as if somebody had posted "god hates fags."
  14. That by itself does not downplay personal responsibility. Nothing that I have said applies to the individual. An individual should always strive to better his circumstances, regardless of his race, regardless of his inherent capabilities. I have an outright disability and I've still succeeded in life, because I believed that I could and I set my mind to it. Blackness is not a disability or any sort of handicap, and even if it were, it would not be a barrier to success. Dog breeds have arisen since humans have been around. In an even larger number of generations, we are to expect that no significant differences between groups of humans have arisen? Of course they have. Skin color, sickle cell anemia, and hair texture are just some of these heritable characteristics. Intelligence is another such heritable characteristic, and on this science does largely agree. Applying it to race is just as trivial as applying it to families. The failure of "scientific consensus" to reach the racial conclusion is a byproduct of political correctness... the same with other "scientific consensuses" about things like secondhand smoke or global warming. Look at where the $$$ for much of science comes from... government. That inherently biases the results that government-funded scientists reach. We're in a scientific environment that is more toxic than the environment in which Galileo asserted, against the church, that the earth revolved around the sun. Of course not. That is the only item which matters in the context of Objectivism. Objectivism is silent as to the differences between groups of men. In fact Ayn Rand even commented on the white man vs. Indians more harshly than anything that I've said...
  15. How does merely saying "it's okay to be white" create any sort of division? If they are saying that it creates division, then they are in fact the ones creating division by saying so. IOTBW should be as non-controversial a statement as "A is A." I'm re-quoting this because I think it got lost in all of the noise. This is all the evidence that we need that there is an anti-white bias which needs to be addressed. A counseling session over encountering a poster with a true statement on it? Are white people that scary?
  16. And you're the kinda dude that passively trolls people and gets away with it because of the toxic environment that people like you have created... and perpetuate. You respond to legitimate arguments not with legitimate arguments, but with genetic fallacy assaults on things' alleged origin. And then you fail to consistently apply your fallacy... I agree that BLM has a legitimate set of grievances, but the movement has been infiltrated by cop-killing terrorists. It also originated based on the "hands up, don't shoot" lie of Michael Brown who attacked a cop and witnesses report did not have his hands up at all... and officer Wilson was exonerated. If you oppose saying "its okay to be white" because of a few bad apples, then you should also oppose "black lives matter" under the same circumstances. At least I am consistent in saying that both phrases, and both groups, have legitimate grievances apart from the few crazies in the movement. And IOTBW doesn't have a legitimate set of grievances? There isn't an anti-white bias in our culture? When movies and shows like Dear White People exist? When white people are blamed for every mass shooting carried out by a white person? When affirmative action exists? Still waiting on you or anybody else to give me a single number which disproves anything that I've said.
  17. I would consider it to be racist, too... but his opponents wouldn't have. Objectivism holds that individuals have the capacity for free will... to think or not to think. That is a form of causation itself which is dependent on the individual, not on his environment. I'll grant you disease, but the general state of education and warfare are human-caused events. Why is it a problem that persists among many African countries and almost no European ones? MisterSwig says it's the Enlightenment. But Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea never had an Enlightenment, and at one point all of them were just as war-torn and uneducated as Africa. Nowadays they're doing very well for themselves. Why is Africa lagging behind? I apologize for using that tactic... as you can see, even saying "it's okay to be white" is controversial. If I actually said, "blacks are genetically intellectually inferior to whites" then how do you think that would go over around here? Not very well. Plus it is an incomplete explanation of my views. I do agree with you that a good portion of the difference in IQ is environmental. I disagree that all of it is environmental. It might not be that much, maybe only 10% genetic. But to say that it's all environmental ignores that the difference persists across vastly different environments, such as Africa and the United States. But if fairies had been scientifically demonstrated to pollinate other flowers, we would have to ask ourselves if fairies had pollinated the flowers we were looking at. Except they're treated better than whites. They're given welfare handouts at a huge rate, and are given preferential treatment in college applications and many private sector jobs through affirmative action. Racial discrimination has been illegal in the US for 50 years. "Black is beautiful" is an acceptable thing to say. Now you could argue that these things are actually deleterious to blacks... and I would agree... but to say that it would negatively affect their self-esteem? And negatively affect it to an extent that they couldn't succeed at high school, or IQ tests? That's quite a claim to make. I was bullied relentlessly throughout high school and I suffered from a disability, and I had low self-esteem, I still graduated not only high school, but college as well... with exemplary grades. Additionally, what about the other side? Our society piles a lot of guilt on white people. Why shouldn't that negatively affect white IQ scores in the same way? Why are only blacks affected by this environmental factor of being "treated differently" and having "low self-esteem?" Also, why does this self-esteem issue not show up for blacks in suicide rates? Blacks are actually three times less likely to commit suicide than whites in the United States. You'd think if they were treated so badly, they'd be more likely to kill themselves. I see no good reason why Africa can't lift itself out of poverty just like the Asian Tigers did.
  18. Attacking me won't make it so that more Africans can read and write. Attacking me won't make Nigeria become a patent powerhouse. Attacking me won't make more Africans or black inner-city kids graduate from school. Attacking me won't make IQ scores go up. Calling these numbers "pseudoscience" doesn't make them go away. Tell me, do you have a single number that you can point to which says that I'm wrong? I never made the assertion that anybody in here had said "it's not okay to be white." However, you said that it is NOT okay for me to say "it's okay to be white." Because a few other people also said it who are racists.
  19. 'Twas a joke, brah. One of these things is not like the others. One of these things is under attack by the Left in this country. The others are not. That makes it non-trivial. Where am I supporting Hitler, or neo-Nazis? Do you have a problem with me saying "it's okay to be white?" Then you're part of the problem.
  20. Because the science is being influenced by politics. This would not be the first time that scientists have been afraid to speak out in fear of being ostracized politically. The science is certainly present, and you don't need to be a scientist to observe a correlation between race and IQ. This interview that Sam Harris conducted with the author of the 1994 book The Bell Curve should give you an indication of the state of science today. This man supports affirmative action and was still called racist for his book's findings. That is why I have also used other metrics, such as the patent application rate, the educational attainment rate, and high school dropout rate. I have presented a plethora of numbers to back up my case... my opponents in this thread have presented zero numbers. The assertion you are making here is that 100% of the difference between race and intelligence can be attributed to environmental factors. This is quite an extraordinary claim since genetics are already known to influence IQ quite heavily. What environmental factors would you propose that are so strong that they can account for the difference? Also bearing in mind that even correcting for every known environmental factor still results in a racial IQ gap in the United States. I would not characterize it as a sub-human categorization, nearly or otherwise. A human is still a human regardless of his intellectual capacity. However a basic level of education is required in order to grasp capitalism and why it is a superior--and necessary--economic system. Many Africans are illiterate. How can you grasp these concepts if you cannot even read about it? Perhaps if more of them learned to read, more of them would be able to grasp concepts like capitalism. Africa is not forever doomed to failure.
  21. Also he forgets to mention affirmative action and racially-imbalanced welfare transfers. Apparently the sins of the father are only the sins of the son if you're white. No, how dare you say that! Hitler said the same thing! That means that you're literally Hitler!
  22. Where exactly have I demonstrated such tone deafness? 2046, meet the Genetic Fallacy. Genetic Fallacy, meet 2046. Of course I'm going to spread the message because it's in my rational self-interest to do so. It's okay to be white. It's okay to be black, too... it's okay to be a member of any race. There are those who say that it's not okay to be white because of white privilege. I'm refuting those people. None of which have existed in this country for half a century. We've also had affirmative action and massive redistribution of wealth in the form of the welfare state.
  23. I never said "black skin causes a lower IQ" or anything even remotely similar. I'd challenge you to find a quote of mine where I said that.
  24. How is it that people end up arguing in unison against something that I never said, or a belief that I never espoused? Is there some secret strawman playbook that you're all reading from? Yesterday I was accused of arguing for race realism; today I'm accused of arguing for racial causation of intelligence. I suppose that I'll get accused of supporting eugenics next. People really need to start reading my posts not for the argument that they hope that I'm making because it's easier to attack, but for the actual position that I am defending. If you're trying to determine: which breed of dog is faster on average, a chihuahua or a greyhound, you don't take two greyhounds and compare them to each other. You take a group of greyhounds and a group of chihuahuas and race them on a track, then you compare the results between the two groups and correct for confounding variables. Maybe the track was colder on the day that the greyhounds raced. Maybe the chihuahuas were fed different dog food. But scientists can design studies to correct for confounding variables. That's how IQ studies are designed. They compare across variables. Also, dogs are the same species yet they can have vastly different levels of speed, size, intelligence, etc. depending on their breed. Same thing with cats, horses, elephants, and many other animal species. Why is the same thing not true of human beings? It would be a form of special pleading to argue that we are different from all other animals when it comes to variation within our species, which all other species have, that we don't have. It would also be special pleading to say that, okay, maybe those differences do exist with respect to certain heritable traits (incidence of lactose intolerance among Asians, or sickle cell anemia among blacks) but not other heritable traits (intelligence). Especially in the face of overwhelming evidence such as high school dropout rates, educational attainment, IQ scores, and number of patents per capita. Every indicator but the kitchen sink. Are you telling me that they're all 100% environmental? As I said, nothing I have posted is about causal efficacy. I do not know the cause of lowered IQ among black people, but it's not their skin color and I never said that it was. The cause of darker skin color is the sun and genetic adaptation in response to the sun. The cause of lowered average IQ is unknown and requires further research. However, we can still say that the two are correlated. A correlation is all that we need to defeat the notion that black people haven't succeeded in America as well as whites because of some evil racist plot to keep them down. They haven't succeeded because they are less intelligent on average. I am still waiting for somebody to present me evidence that, in fact, black people on average are just as capable as whites are intellectually. But as you claim, they do need it because no correlation can be shown to exist. You say that derisively. Do you believe that it is improper to blame a man for his own failures? That it is improper to blame a group of men for their own failures? That is what Objectivism is all about, personal responsibility. There is no room in Objectivism for white guilt--or white pride. There is merely room to say that it's okay to be white, because there is nothing "wrong" with being a member of any race. It indeed would be ironic, but that wouldn't change reality. Lots of things are ironic and also true. It's ironic that transgenderism is increasingly a thing in an age where gender roles matter less and less and we would expect more people to be happy with whatever gender they are. It's ironic that the death penalty is being abolished in many countries around the world just as DNA evidence is coming about that makes a guilty conviction more of a sure thing than it was when we hung men left and right without any such evidence.
×
×
  • Create New...