dadmonson

I don't know for sure if it's racist or not. Nicky, that's a good question. It probably is more of a demographics issue and less of a racist issue... The majority in the U.S. Is white so that is why there are not that many minority films? I still think it has to be tough being a minority actor... What would you say to a minority actor who isn't getting that many roles because there aren't that many roles out there for his race? And the roles that he does get are stereotypical. This is important I think because a lot of minority actors are buying the "Hollywood is rigged" notion.

I was on the fence on this topic until I read this article:. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/working-hollywood-youre-not-white-859697 I just want to see what the majority of this board thinks when it comes to this topic. Do you think the majority of Hollywood is racist? Why or why not? Why do you think no blacks were nominated for this year's Oscars? What would you tell a young non-white actor who is not getting that many roles or is only getting stereotypical roles? Please read at least half of the article before you post. It seems that to make money films have to appeal to a wide range of people this includes appealing to racists so the bigshots in Hollywood put blacks into stereotypical roles. It seems also that the potential movies, where blacks are playing regular everyday people (like in a black romance movie) those types of movies rarely gets picked up. So yes, I think some people in Hollywood are racists. I would tell the young non-white actor that "yes, it's harder for you because of your race, but if this is what you want then you have to keep at it..." Only thing I don't agree with in that article is the notion that blacks can't be racist.... I think a lot of racist blacks are that way because they are insecure for some reason... What that reason is and what they are insecure about I have no idea, maybe one of you psychology majors can enlighten me.

This is incredibly complex and difficult subject. In order to answer it I think a wider integration beyond politics alone needs to be exercised. It is hard for an outsider to guess what the effect of oppression and marginalization can have on one individually and collectively (seeing others being treated badly even if you are lucky to escape... still affects you). Certainly a longing for justice, a wish for escape, restitution, all are there. An earthly power, such as the state, could be seen as having potential for being sympathetic and able to mete out some form of justice (even if only according to populist conceptions of what justice is), and as such likely provides hope. This over history has shuffled between the political parties of Lincoln and FDR in accordance with policy and perception. Racism is real today and it was much worse in the past. Individuals, families and communities currently and in the past have had to cope with this reality. One thing you may have noticed is the greater level of importance of, belief in, and active practice, in religion by (for lack of a "better" term) blacks in America. This is not stereotyping it is true: http://www.pewforum.org/2009/01/30/a-religious-portrait-of-african-americans/ Systematic malevolence of a society of course would be a likely factor to search for solace and peace in a belief that, even if life here, now, on Earth, were unjust and wicked, the afterlife in heaven will serve as a release from bondage, a reward to the humble and down trodden. The religious messages of supernaturalism, and in particular Christianity, are very appealing emotionally to the downtrodden. I think that both the communities and the individuals have in the past and currently do turn to religion in order to cope with slavery (now gone), political and legal marginalization (mostly? gone), and racism (still prevalent). Objectivism, a purely rational this worldly philosophy with no comfort of the supernatural, likely makes it a hard sell. Can one encourage replacement of a comforting crutch with a flagpole raising a banner of individual rights and selfishness? Coincidentally, I have often thought, that were this to happen systematically in the black community, a wide-sweeping empowerment from rationality and the discovery of Objectivism, it would unleash a tide of pride, of productiveness, of all the rational virtues, this would be the "real" march of individuals, not a collective march on a political mission, but individuals marching towards the highest echelons of achievement on all the avenues of opportunity life presents ... it would be a wonder to behold. In a real sense, it is the last of the false mental and spiritual prisons, the ones the black community for the most part remain in thrall, from which Objectivism and Rand's discoveries are poised to finally set them free. So it really is white people fault that black people are voting Democrat now.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=15324&p=233319 I like that guy's response because I believe it to be true but what do you think? Why do you think most blacks vote for Democrats/statism? and how would one go about getting them interested in Objectivism?

Thanks for the reply but I don't think I have adequate information in order to do what you said. I went on ahead and gave an answer similar to the one in the op.

I know next to nothing about the global financial crisis and I am just now learning about cognitive bias. This was a homework question. How would you answer this question? Here is what I'm going to say: "Cognitive bias could have played a huge role in the financial crisis but only because of government involvement. If people were free to make mistakes because of cognitive bias, then only those people who made the mistakes would suffer, not the whole nation."

What about Nestle using slave labor? There are victims in that case so should anyone go to jail? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nestle-admits-to-using-slave-labor-groups-hope-other-companies-will-come-forward_5655cec6e4b08e945fea9729

I'm just curious how an Objectivist would handle this debate... Is it convincing to you? "A reader of Thank You for Arguing wrote saying he had been tongue-tied during an argument over the minimum wage. "My opponent, whom I had only just met, claimed 7 million Americans would lose their jobs if we raised the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, while I said that number wasn't supported by the data. We both claimed the same CBO study as our reference point, which made for a "yes it will/no it won't" farce. Attempts to move the argument along kept being brought back to the fanciful job loss number. It wasn't fun, or convincing, for anyone. And now I think my colleague's wife hates me." When a spouse is nearby, the best thing to do is simply to pour more wine and ask about the kids. But if you really want to argue in a situation like this, try skipping the statistics. One technique the Greek sophists used--it helped get Socrates a death sentence, mind you--is to seek definitions. I sent the reader the following suggested dialogue. Let me know what you think. Opponent: Raising the minimum wage would cost 7 million jobs. You: 7 million! That's a lot of jobs. Opponent: Right. You: So what do you mean by "jobs," exactly? What defines a job in your view? And is a job always a good thing to have? Opponent: What kind of question is that? A job, obviously, is work that earns a paycheck. You: So work that doesn't earn a paycheck isn't a job? I have a friend who runs a hospital. She works seventy hours a week for a dollar a year; she doesn't need the money. Yet she works really hard running an important institution. She doesn't have a job? Opponent: You're splitting hairs. Most people work for a paycheck. You: My friend gets a paycheck. It's one dollar. Opponent: Your friend is a volunteer. You: So if she made $50 a year, would that make her employed? Would her work count as a job? Opponent: Not really. What's she going to do with $50? You: I guess what I'm trying to establish is how much money counts as a paycheck that defines a job. Opponent: That depends on the work, of course. A kid in Bangladesh might be happy to earn $3 a day in a sweatshop. You: So that kid would, by your definition, have a job. Opponent: Sure. You: My son is 12 years old. He doesn't work in a sweatshop. In fact, he doesn't have a job at all, by your definition. He just goes to school. Opponent: So? You: If given a choice between going working in a sweat shop and going to school, I would guess he'd prefer school. Opponent: Of course he would. You: So in his case, not having a job is better than having a job. Opponent: Well, that's different. He's a kid. He's a student. You: My parents are retired. They don't have a job either. Opponent: Well, they earned their retirement. You: The Koch brothers don't have a job either. They just invest. Opponent: What's your point? You: I'm wondering why jobs are so important to you. Opponent: Without jobs we wouldn't have an economy. You: But the economy has risen above pre-recession levels, while jobs haven't. So the health the economy doesn't necessarily depend on jobs. Opponent: OK, not entirely. You: And if people get money in other ways--from parents, or investments, or retirement income, or the government... Opponent: The government shouldn't pay people not to work! You: Including my parents? Half their income comes from Social Security, and their health care is almost entirely paid for by the government. Opponent: That's different. You: OK. You said that raising the minimum wage would cost 7 million jobs. But you never fully defined a job. Is a job work for a paycheck someone could live off? And if the person can't live off it, what' the point of the job? And if the economy doesn't depend simply on the number of people employed...tell me again why jobs are the highest priority. Opponent: So people can work. You: Whether they want to or not? Opponent: Every able-bodied person should be required to make a living. You: Except for my able-bodied son and my able-bodied parents, presumably. OK. But we still haven't established the definition of a job. If a job is nothing but work, then millions of slaves lost their jobs after the Civil War. Most of them didn't seem to mind. Opponent: I said that a job is work for a paycheck! We're not talking slavery! You: But when I mentioned my friend's one-dollar paycheck, you said that wasn't a job. You mentioned the sweatshop pay. Is $3 a day the minimum that defines a job? Opponent: I don't like talking about minimums at all! You: Well, then you need to do better in defining what a job is. You still haven't, you know. And while you're at it, you might define what a job is for. Is it because you're offended by able-bodied people--certain able-bodied people--not working? Why does that offend you? Probably, you'd drive him crazy. So there's that." http://www.jayheinrichs.com/blog/2014/4/29/c18l9ow2t4vtgizgbfl5gn9pbb5wao

This is old but I'll post my question anyways. I just found this out. Coca Cola paid millions of dollars in a lawsuit because they used to put benzene in their product and nobody went to jail. Would an O'ist government handle this case any differently? Should someone go to jail in a case like this? http://www.supermegamonkey.net/2006/03/new_benzeneflavored_cola.shtml

This isn't really a philosophical question but I don't know where else to get my answer. Here it is: There is this Hispanic girl that I saw a few years ago at my university... Our professor taught both of our classes and one day he had her class and my class take a test together... I haven't seen her since that day but for some reason she's been constantly on my mind. Even though I don't know her I still have this weird intense urge to see her... To the point where it is uncomfortable sometimes. The professor has since left the school and I'm about to graduate next semester so I'm thinking about shooting my shot and asking one of the faculty/staff in the business school if they can provide me with the roster of the class she was in. How should I go about asking for a roster or her name if I want to limit the creepy factor and augment my chances for success? What should I say and how should I ask? Does anybody have any suggestions on where else I could post this question to get better answers?

I have to say this before I respond to your post, Jon. I think when I make threads like these (I play devil's advocate a lot) some members on here get automatically on the offensive and think I'm trying to troll them or that my motivation is bad/poor (evidenced by the fact that people rate me a one star and what not) but that is not the case. This is a genuine question! I'm not trying to be hostile. I am on your side... I come in peace and with an active mind my brothers and sisters... Jon: The Fountainhead is fiction but I see your point. Actually, I've read the Fountainhead twice, maybe it's time for another revisit. Since I haven't completely comprehended and discovered all the nuances of Objectivist literature by now, like many of the posters on this forum seem to have, I do think something is wrong with my brain (need to get that checked out). I do have difficulty with reading critically but I am working on my critical reading skills at the moment. I do agree most likely I missed (or forgotten) something. I get that people who are rational will recognize a person's talent and/or hard work but from what people are saying around me it seems that in most industries irrational people are the ones calling the shots. For instance, I hear people say all the time, that they know a person in some industry who was promoted over another person of superior ability just because the person who was promoted was related to some bigwig in the field and the other was not. I realize that this is just what people are saying and should be taken with a grain of salt. They very well could just be influenced by today's dominant philosophy and that has swayed their perception of things. However, I don't have much experience yet so that's pretty much all I can go by, I think. I don't like the idea that hard work and talent are not the most important factors in determining someone's success in a field. I can see the statement being sort of comforting to someone who is some sort of failure in life but I don't like the statement because it, to a degree, decreases my own motivation to want to work hard and cultivate my talents. This is why I asked this question on this forum. I'm not willing to say that all of what people say about success in their industry is bologna because it is certainly very possible that people can be irrational. Also while I'm at it... how about a field where the talent is so close that it is hard to differentiate based on talent alone... like in acting, or modeling? Does the forgone statement apply even more so there?

The question is in the title... I think that statement holds a bit of truth to it especially when one talks about the arts (The music industry in particular) but I don't like how it undermines the importance of hard work and/or talent. If this topic or something similar to it has been discussed before can you please link me to the thread(s)?

I was speaking to someone very close to me about the San Bernadino shooting and they said "it doesn't matter if the killers were Muslim. What all killers have in common is a desire to kill." We then proceeded to argue about gun control. Do you think it matters if murderers are motivated by Christianity, Islam, Nihilism, anger etc.? Why or why not?

yup, you got it. assume the person you are debating against is a regular democrat college student (whatever that might mean is up to you guys to decide) and the college students in the audience are clueless about politics, morality, social systems in general... They think Ayn Rand is a breakfast cereal.

This is a hypothetical situation. If you absolutely had to debate someone on the morality of Capitalism (if you don't do it you would die) and you could only read/study 5 essays/articles/short videos in preparation for the debate... Which essays/articles/short videos would you choose? The essays/articles/short videos could've been written by anybody. Pretend you know next to nothing about Capitalism. If you could give your reasons for your choices that would be sincerely appreciated also.

For example: I know it is right to cut grass, do homework, clean my room, etc. and most of the time I do what is right but not without some urge to do what I think is "wrong" at that moment in time i.e. lay in bed, daydream, aimlessly search the Internet, play video games etc. I used to be VERY lazy and would just do things that required very little effort, but ever since I have discovered Ayn Rand I have been striving to better myself. I noticed however that almost every time I went to do something that required more than a little effort I would experience a very negative emotion. I don't know how to describe it... Maybe someone else knows what I am talking about and can label it. This feeling makes doing most things that are productive harder than they should be. It's a constant every day struggle for me not to give into it.

It's a struggle for me because every day I have to struggle not to give into my emotions.

...if a man wants to live as his nature requires (be morally perfect) is his life supposed to be a constant struggle? Why or why not? That is all.

*** Post copied from old version of forum. - sN *** I want to know the truth for myself, kind of like a scientist, but I also want others to know the truth and the world to not be so ignorant of it. That is why I want to be an effective debater/teacher and help fight the good fight. There are selfish reasons for debating/teaching as well. So for instance like this? "Do I really believe Capitalism is the only moral social system? Yes. Why? Because it is the only social system that leaves every man free to act on the knowledge that he gains through the moral process of thinking. In order to survive man must act and before he can act he must gain knowledge. The only way man can gain the knowledge and then choose the actions required for his survival, is by a process of thinking and that is why thinking is moral. If a man is not free to choose his actions then he is not free to think. His thoughts are being controlled. Instead of being free to truly think you’re going to spend your money on new shoes, the policeman’s gun forces you to think you’re going to give your money to the Government."

I want to know the truth for myself, kind of like a scientist, but I also want others to know the truth and the world to not be so ignorant of it. That is why I want to be an effective debater/teacher and help fight the good fight. There are selfish reasons for debating/teaching as well. [quote name="JASKN" post="338135" timestamp="1441667503"] For what purpose do you want to achieve this end? Writing eloquently isn't necessary if you just want to understand something for yourself, but it is necessary if you want to communicate effectively to a certain subset of people. As Jack mentioned, focusing on arguing, convincing, or communicating is hitting the gas before the starter, if you don't first have some end you're looking to achieve. That said, I, too, wanted to communicate better some years ago, half because I just wanted to win arguments. Eventually, I realized that winning arguments isn't possible unless you're interested and honest enough to consider many facts and viewpoints. That caused me to stop caring as much about winning the arguments, and to start caring more about knowing the truth for myself. Soon, I also began caring more about which truths I focused on, since I was now learning for myself rather than others. The single most helpful thing I did (biggest bang for the buck) was making myself stop and think (even when I was embarrassed and didn't want to), "Do I really believe this? Why?" It may amaze you how little you actually know about something, if you stop to think about it. But that thinking will become habit, and soon produces compounding positive results for any given thing on which you choose to focus. So for instance like this? "Do I really believe Capitalism is the only moral social system? Yes. Why? Because it is the only social system that leaves every man free to act on the knowledge that he gains through the moral process of thinking. In order to survive man must act and before he can act he must gain knowledge. The only way man can gain the knowledge and then choose the actions required for his survival, is by a process of thinking and that is why thinking is moral. If a man is not free to choose his actions then he is not free to think. His thoughts are being controlled. Instead of being free to truly think you’re going to spend your money on new shoes, the policeman’s gun forces you to think you’re going to give your money to the Government."

Many people on here write so eloquently and seem to know everything. I remember first coming on this forum when I was having trouble debating a Marxist on another forum. I posted the argument the Marxist was making on here and the members of this forum dissected and picked apart that argument like it was child's play. I want to be like that. I want to be able to find answers through reason instead of having to look up what people such as Leonard Peikoff said on a topic or post a question on here about it (I often play devil's advocate). I want to have more structured thoughts and be able to put things more eloquently in my own words and write persuasively, instead of just quoting from Ayn Rand. Does anybody here have any advice for me? Has anybody here intentionally improved their thinking? If so, how? Are there any specific exercises I can do? Book recommendations would also be appreciated. I don't have too much time to devote to this though since I'm in school (finance/accounting not philosophy).

I guess a better way to put my question is... "Has your life improved because of Objectivism? If yes, then how so?" I want to hear some more success stories/testimonials like the one I posted. I never heard of Objectivism promoted as a "self-help" philosophy... it's the only philosophy that's tailor-made for that kind of thing, if your goal in life is to not only to live but to flourish. I think we need to get O'ist books in the self- help sections in the bookstores. People should be thinking "If I want to be as clear-minded, successful, and happy as so and so... I should start studying and practicing Objectivism!"

Seems there was a glitch of some sort... Anyway here is my post: This guy on another forum makes a claim that philosophy has helped him become more productive: Quote http://selfmadevip.com/my-recent-success-s-college-student-t13998-5.html I'm curious and wonder how many other people have become more productive because of philosophy. Since discovering O'ism have you become more productive? This could be another way to promote the philosophy.

"It's a fact that blacks are targeted more and stopped by the police more often than any other race in the U.S. http://baystatebanner.com/news/2014/oct/08/aclu-study-finds-blacks-disproportionately-targete/ That's why I don't see why people get so bent out of shape when blacks say "black lives matter". Black lives is what the focus should be on right now since blacks are the ones who are targeted and killed by the police. Why would any other race want to be included? They aren't the ones being targeted unfairly and killed by trigger happy cops. Blacks are the ones and this is what the protest is all about. It is not saying that other races don't matter, it's just saying that in this protest, black lives is what the focus is on since blacks are the ones being killed by police. Also America wasn't talking about Baltimore when they were peacefully protesting... Why does it take burning down buildings in order for America to hear their cry?"

In addition to this, I've adopted the following mantra: "If I want to become a great person then I have to reach my goals everyday." I'm a disciple of causation!