Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by MisterSwig

  1. It looks like belief in the B-theory is not synonymous with denial of objective reality or change. A certain type of B-theorist rejects them, but many attempt to have their B-theory and change too. I suspect that belief in B-theory stems from subjectivism. Basically, you want the past and future to exist with the present, and so they do. The rest is silly rationalizing.
  2. You said it didn't seem possible to find his philosophy. I'm showing that he indicated several philosophical views, including being a "leftist," "socialist," and "Satanist." We have a general understanding of his views. The problem is linking them to his actions, because he apparently didn't leave any final testament.
  3. Did you read the article? It's obvious that he considered himself a "leftist" and a "Satanist." And mere days before the attack he agreed with an anti-Industrial Revolution tweet. Pretty strong stuff. It appears this guy was more reactive than proactive. He retweeted a lot. Satanism is a direct reaction against Christianity. And I wouldn't be surprised if his attack was a reaction to something that happened in the bar, or possibly a reaction to El Paso. The El Paso shooter, while responding to a perceived "invasion," primarily saw himself as the vanguard of a militant movement. He was collected enough to explain his actions properly. The Dayton shooter, however, gives the impression of a hotheaded follower. I don't see evidence for psychosis, but he was definitely disturbed.
  4. This thread isn't about the police or spreading ridiculous conspiracy theories. Just on those grounds, I ask the moderators to please delete his posts from this topic.
  5. Sloppy job, Dupin. Take your bullshit to 4chan.
  6. These recent mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton appear very similar on the surface level. Both assassins were young, white males acting alone. Each one left political messages on social media. Crusius posted his manifesto to 8chan, and we have since learned about Betts' political posts on Twitter. Neither one had a history of violent crime. In executing their attacks, both killers chose popular shopping malls as a target. Both used assault rifles and protective gear, displaying a level of proficiency and tactics intended to inflict maximum casualties in a short period of time. If not for unusually rapid and brave police responses, these two might have killed hundreds of unarmed civilians all by themselves. If we simply watched a film of both horrific events, we might think these two assassins belonged to the same rebel terrorist group, especially given how close they were in time. And yet Crusius hates Democrats, and Betts was a Democrat who liked Elizabeth Warren. Politically, they seem to be on opposite sides of the culture war. Except that when you look a layer deeper, the ideological similarity becomes evident. Both Crusius and Betts are anti-corporation collectivists. Crusius explicitly rails against corporations in his manifesto, and he spoke favorably of universal health care and UBI. Also, he agrees with the Christchurch shooter, who calls himself an ecofascist. Betts, of course, was a self-described socialist on the extreme Left. In addition to tweeting support for Warren, he also spoke out against the industrial revolution. So it seems that, like Crusius, he too was driven by concern for the environment. Admittedly, the fact that Betts killed his sister and apparently left no explanation for his rampage, that makes his motive less straightforward. Also, since he's dead, we might never figure it out exactly. But the actions speak for themselves, and the Twitter posts give us a sense of his beliefs beforehand. Based on these two extreme examples, it looks like the militant nationalists and militant socialists are meeting somewhere in the neighborhood of militant environmentalism.
  7. I'm not sure what you mean. Aren't flash mobs highly organized street entertainment? I don't think such a group would plan a violent conspiracy. I could see a militia group or street gang turning radical against society, like Islamic terrorist cells. But they would need a strong ideology and leader to guide them and maintain loyalty to the cause. Otherwise it'll just be one guy on his own or a couple close friends, because the more people brought into an unpopular, violent conspiracy, the more likely it'll produce a snitch.
  8. Why did you link to an article that contradicts your usage of "ethnicity"? You associated it with "skin-deep" physical traits... Yet your article associates it with cultural or regional characteristics. I'm more interested in your answer to my question about what aspects of "ethnicity" you perceive directly when you see someone. That'll help me grasp your concept.
  9. We make judgments within the context of our available knowledge. Lack of omniscience should not be a concern. If you think a relevant factor has been overlooked, then point it out. We're not trying to assign point values to cultures. We're simply trying to rank them better than others. For that we only need to evaluate the most important factors. And we determine those according to an objective standard of values.
  10. You can if you believe in a hierarchy of values. Any culture that values science and reason over mysticism and faith immediately climbs to the top ranks.
  11. It cannot make sense that I can see. You are aware I know, that our senses are the essential first contact with reality -- so while you speak of different food cultures that have varieties of dishes that please one's taste and smell - the ethnicities of the people who produced them are invisible to your vision? How or why does anyone do that? Notice your conflation of "race" and "ethnicity." When you look at your food-preparer, do you see his "ethnicity"? What does that mean? Which aspects of his "ethnicity" are hitting your sense organs? "Ethnicity" is an anti-concept that has ruined your thinking on this subject. It doesn't exist in reality. It's destroying your conceptions of race and culture, like "gender" ruins conceptions of sex and personality.
  12. It's a combination of Al Gore and Hitler. The title, "The Inconvenient Truth," of course refers to Al Gore's ideas against pollution in nature. Then the anti-miscegenation sounds like Hitlerian ideas against spoiling the blood lines. There does appear to be an intrinsic value placed on a sort of natural purity or order.
  13. It's in this paragraph. Crusius is not a very good writer. His manifesto is hastily and sloppily written. His reasoning is out of order and twisted. But he claims to support Tarrant's manifesto, which more explicitly connected immigration and climate change. For example: What is the primary motive there? To save the environment. Crusius makes a similar argument. He says "our lifestyle is destroying the environment." He then runs through typical examples, even referencing The Lorax. Like Tarrant, he concludes that "the next logical step is to decrease the number of people." In his view, the choice is either change our way of life or reduce the population to a sustainable level. And since we aren't going to change our lifestyle, we must therefore "get rid of enough people." At this basic level, both Tarrant and Crusius believe their logic is sound. They are further motivated by racial, economic, and political beliefs that fit with their ecological beliefs. For example, Tarrant believes immigrants have unsustainable birth rates. And Crusius argues that the corporate desire for larger markets drives unsustainable immigration. It's like their other beliefs primarily serve as an aid in target selection. They don't motivate the killing itself. Of course, this might not be the case with other types of fascists or segregationists, who are less alarmed by man's effect on the environment.
  14. The ecological part is his basic, metaphysical view (overpopulation depletes resources and ruins the environment); the rest is altruistic ethics and collectivistic politics based on that foundational belief. His solution is a two-fold jihad against unsustainable immigration (class/race) and corporations (industry).
  15. Rather than make a new thread for the El Paso Walmart shooter, I'll post this article here, since the assassin apparently professed his agreement with the Christchurch shooter in a four-page manifesto. The NY Times quotes a line from the essay about getting rid of people (immigrants) to make our way of life sustainable. The Times, however, fails to mention that that sentence comes at the end of a long paragraph that echoes the ecofascist rhetoric of the Christchurch killer.
  16. I can't find evidence of Hoover using that sort of messaging. But Reagan did. Hoover was more about taking credit for the "prosperity" of the '20s. This is what Trump is going to do next with his "Keep America Great!" slogan. And if history repeats itself, we should expect a great depression in 2021.
  17. For those following along, this is the 1/3/61 letter. Starting on page 524 she offers her hypothesis regarding an epistemological error she suspects Hospers of making. Good catch, Dream Weaver!
  18. I like to learn from history, so I think it's worth some time studying. Also it would be helpful to understand the main reason(s) for his popularity, if only to better understand generally the people I'm trying to nudge.
  19. I saw this short interview on CNN: https://youtu.be/Tsy3ESLbzAo The host talks to Brian Rosenwald, who wrote a book called Talk Radio's America. Judging from the segment, the thesis is that conservative talk radio hosts are primarily responsible for Trump winning in 2016. Rosenwald argues that over the last few decades, entertaining conservatives like Rush Limbaugh have established an aggressive, anti-liberal style that voters found in Trump. I'm not sure how this explains Hillary winning the popular vote. I guess I'll have to read the book. Personally, I'm still of the opinion that Trump had a better campaign strategy. He wasn't focused on raising dollars. He was focused on winning.
  20. The relation to your story about gold's new property is critical, because it highlights the importance of the concept of contextual knowledge. If you're unaware of double diamond anvils and megapressures, for example, then you probably would have no context for conceiving of gold subjected to such a thing. Likewise, if you're unaware of someone else's thought process, you probably have no context for conceiving of an idea subjected to such a thing. And so you're stuck subjecting the idea to your own thought process. The key is exposure to the new context. But, in this case, we must rely on Jose to expose his own thought process, which was a particular problem due to his incoherence and evasiveness. And so we're stuck applying our own context or guessing at his.
  21. Okay, so you're talking about something like a catfish. A catfish has a noncontradictory characteristic of a cat (whiskers), but it's a fish, not a cat too. I think your goatapple would be like an apple with horny protrusions and maybe some pointy, beard-like fibers.
  22. Wouldn't a GoatApple be a real contradiction? It would be both animal and not animal, fruit and not fruit, etc.
  23. Perhaps "falsifiability" is being used as a stolen concept. It depends on the impossibility of contradictions, yet it's being used to challenge that fact.
  • Create New...