Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Eiuol

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Who said I didn't grasp what it means? When did I say I support liberal interpretations? When did I say that there weren't people also racist against whites? What I said is there is no rational reply to liberals - there are just memes and bromides that many people might not realize originate in deeply racist ideologies. A rational reply would be to reject racial pride, or offer a philosophy that doesn't rely on bromides and memes. You seem to think I'm a liberal. You seem to think that I don't notice that talk of race is irrational a lot of the time. But that's wrong. I'm saying no one talks about it rationally. I'm saying not even Grames is meeting standards of rationality. In other words, I don't feel a need some form of white pride to stand against racism. Same for black pride and all that. I feel a need to obliterate racist thinking altogether.
  5. Grames, the point is that there is no -rational- reply to discussions on race. Using a phrase made by neo-Nazis ("it's okay to be white") would willfully ignore the clear philosophical roots. Part of their means is to use benign-sounding phrases without calling for critical thinking on race. They would rather claim "white pride" is just as valid as "black pride". The rational reply is to say the deep errors of racial pride, and pointing out the arbitrariness of race as a classifier. No one here would say there is an original sin of a race - we'd all rather eliminate racism. You're good about epistemology, but it looks like you are taking one bite out of the alt-right message until one day you'll be the Heidegger of Objectivism. You posting an image without explanation suggests you are throwing away rational discussion on race. Wouldn't you rather engage an argument or tell us your own position?
  6. How Do You Achieve Bliss?

    My thinking is that it often reflects an insecurity to tell oneself "I'm great" as a form of meditation is going as far as to say emotions may be willed. What I tried to say earlier is that this isn't so good, and I say so from a point of view where I'm in a state where I feel balanced and successful.
  7. Depends if the rudeness is mean. Personally I'm always respectful in terms of arguing and not using insults. But as far as interacting with certain authority figures or higher ranking people, I tend to be rude in terms of treating them as an equal and not obeying the usual norms of formality. It's not mean or cruel, but some people get upset when I don't "know my place". I don't do this to be rebellious, but to get at the truth better. I think rudeness is rarely justified towards peers. Worth noting is that the Hannibal example isn't about being kind or not using insults. When Hannibal says that, he means ignoring social norms like how to make a nice gourmet meal. In that case to Hannibal, it's rude to wear baggy clothes to that event or eat a steak by jamming a fork into it without cutting it first.
  8. The Moneyman Behind The Alt-Right

    Perhaps, but it's important to note that the founders who supported anti-Federalism lost the debate to Federalists, who had a lot more to say than a mere statement of balance, piety, and patriotism. The comparison I'm making is that the alt-right is making the same type of argument. They 'd rather argue for an ethnostate in the sense that ethnic and cultural unity is fundamental to a proper society. They'd see a solution as some sort of pullback on the Federal government. I'd argue that that any Bill of Rights or Tolerances is just to appease people who fear "big government" for no other reason than it's "big" - whatever that means. If anything, good foundational principles will be lost to concrete-bound Buzzfeed articles listing "The 10 best rights". My wider point is that Regnery is a false ally. He may seem to be bad and good, good as far as promoting freedom of association, bad as far as being racist. But that's the thing. Freedom of association demands people to be condemned on moral grounds, in the spirit of Hamilton (contra Jefferson who didn't like conflict). The enemy isn't a neoliberal who wants egalitarianism, but an alt-rightist (and his ally's) who stands against how the Constitution was actually supported and argued for. I support the Constitution not as a relic, but something that has grown from its whole history of discussion.
  9. The Moneyman Behind The Alt-Right

    I'll talk about it if you start a separate thread. There is a role for state government I think for geographical reasons for some local laws, but not much past that. The Federal government ought to be primary in order to keep its role constrained and running well - and to avoid groupthink or over-valuing "comfort" among one's tribe.
  10. The Moneyman Behind The Alt-Right

    "Tolerate" is perhaps the wrong word, but it fits as far as how, all things being equal, one should accept the errors of others on a political level even if distasteful. CRA is misguided in method, but it's far from "the most evil". There was and is a lot worse out there.
  11. The Moneyman Behind The Alt-Right

    An interesting thing to note is that way back in 1786, some anti-Federalists supported states' rights or a focus on lower-level government in order to gain more harmony among local regions and comfort among those people and like-mindedness. Federalists, in particular Hamilton, did not like that because it would incline people towards groupthink. He preferred a system where people would argue and all that, perhaps to extreme ends (not violence) so that no one would just accept what one hears without someone dissenting. In other words, Hamilton was for something like a "national discomfort" as far as how the government operates. "Comfort" and "harmony" is dangerous despite its attempt to be kind.
  12. I'm saying IQ does not and cannot be used to explain differences in beliefs (even on a cultural level) or intelligence as far as intelligence as a whole. Race is minor at best, on top of how there are methodological issues with applying an IQ tests to people who don't attend decent schools.
  13. No, you just don't notice that your belaboring is -showing- the very things I'm saying you're wrong about. The more you say to justify your claims, the more racist (read: tribalist) you appear. It is absolutely fine to say there are populations which have a lower average IQ, but that's not the problem. The problem is attempting to generalize that information to explain why capitalism did not develop in Africa. Such reasoning is invalid. The problem with it is that it is not possible to explain beliefs with IQ. To do so would be racist because it depends on saying race plays a major role in one's beliefs or abilities in life. You would be able to say "white people are on average smarter than black people". This is an abuse of IQ. Although you claim the opposite, you are also saying that some content is inherited or heavily influenced by genetics. That's the only way your claims could work.
  14. I don't think anyone misunderstands you or is prejudiced. Either you truly don't understand the implications of your words and where it logically leads, or there is some willful compartmentalization going on. Do you really think we're all just prejudiced? No - there are some huge errors and people point that out by saying what it is: "race realism". The doctrine that any observed social differences between cultures is necessarily rooted in inborn genetic-based attributes. It appears very smart and scientific by mentioning IQ and statistical information, but this is why people not well-versed as scientists think it makes a lot of sense when they see arguments. That's all that happened here. But you aren't so responsive to argument and other signs suggest you are really are taking a racist perspective and embracing it. I don't suffer racists nor should anyone else. No more than we suffer Communists railing against capitalism all the time. Some points: -IQ doesn't "correlate" with intelligence. It IS a measure of intelligence, and only one of several. It measures strictly deductive sorts of intelligence and not spatial, lateral, or proper work ethic. Plus IQ is not meant to apply to all populations. If you study a tribe in the Amazon, a typical IQ test is hard to administer or properly measure their IQ. -People with high IQs are just as easily going to be socialists as anyone else. Marx was no dummy, and neither was any other big name Communist. In other words, IQ is not going to tell you a lot. -If you are mentioning that poor education in Africa for hundreds of years is why capitalism didn't grow there, that's fine. But IQ is not a plausible reason, nor can IQ be generalized to a population as big as "black people". The line is so blurry that even dividing on European and African descent is arbitrary. And make no mistake: African in this context is going to apply to black Americans as well. -"African nations have a lower IQ score than European nations." What, and we're supposed to forget African nations are a huge proportion black, that blacks in America have ancestors in those same countries, and you're really hammering in genetic arguments? Anyway, it may be farewell now, Carts.
  15. But the claim you made is that African's -by nature- have lower IQs than European people. More specifically, you are saying -white people- are by nature smarter than blacks. You didn't say that Africa has poorer education. You're saying black people are stupid. There are many issues and errors with "race realism".
  16. How Do You Achieve Bliss?

    I wasn't asking for you to answer. My point is that anyone deserving to be happy is not a given. Your bliss technique relies on assuming you or anyone else is good as undeniably true and true because you are alive. If you want to just feel good, fine, but doesn't mean all methods to get there are good. That is, telling yourself no one's opinion matters and you are of course wonderful is not a path to honesty or authenticity. I know you mean in the moment, but that's why I'm saying you or anyone else doesn't need the reassurance of a mantra. I didn't say that there is a single ritual. I'm saying this ritual of yours seems half good and half not so good. Authenticity means a sort of effortless honesty I'd say, where not even bliss needs to be willed. It's mind-body unity. It's not supposed to get you there on its own. There is no fast-track to feeling bliss, it takes time. What it gets you is centeredness so that you are able to stay in a happy state. Monks who do it smile and laugh a lot. Not that I endorse a Buddhist monk's lifestyle, but their meditation methods work well with the nature of the mind. I'm glad you're striving for bliss, so I'm offering ways to help get you there by improving what you start with.
  17. How Do You Achieve Bliss?

    Yeah, that's not a sensible view. You don't just deserve to be happy - what are the reasons you deserve it? In other words, mantras like the one you suggest only encourage yourself to see yourself as amazing without further thought. The point of any meditation is either in the sense of focusing on givens, or the other sense of the word as deep reflection. Your opinion is not the only one that matters. I'm reminded of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ldAQ6Rh5ZI I'll put it this way. Any emotion you can "will" into being is by definition not authentic. Authentic emotions arise automatically from habits. Focus on the chair in front of you. On the tree. On the backyard. On concretes. No abstractions. This type of focus orients your mind to existence as it is. You would then be better at making rational judgments when you are no longer meditating. Better yet, you wouldn't need platitudes like "I deserve to be happy" you use for your bliss meditation. Essentially, mindful meditation (your 1 and 2) is training in attention and the choice to focus. This will lead to happiness, as long as you apply your growing skill to rational judgment.
  18. How Do You Achieve Bliss?

    Some of this is good. Your intent here is the value of meditation. It's not about feeling happy per se, but being content and focused. On the other hand, points 3 to 4 are honestly a lot of vanity. One, telling yourself you're just wonderful because you're you is empty. Who says you deserve to be happy? Also, you will not be able to make yourself feel this way by saying so. I'd avoid all three - they're exercises in vanity. Again, meditation is good. But you don't need mantras to say you're purely amazing. Just focus on existence.
  19. Donald Trump

    When you call someone like Hillary a Socialist rather than a neoliberal, you don't know that much about the political landscape. Americans DO vote mostly Democrat as it is, but you seem to resist the idea that most Americans are for welfare statism. Been that way a long time. You didn't even provide native-born voting stats, or that somehow immigrants fail to assimilate. Your idea seems to be that it must be the IMMIGRANTS must've taken us away from liberty. There is no causal story. I don't care about your position per se - I care that your view is seeing the worst around you, blaming outsiders, assuming the worst of people especially immigrants. On top of that, you didn't even talk about real immigrants and why I'd want to believe you that they usually fail to assimilate. Stats are correlations, not causal evidence.
  20. I don't directly - but I regularly speak of doing one's best, doing good for your own sake, and all that good stuff. I don't use insults when talking to people directly. I don't see the un-fun-ness, perhaps it's the environment you pick. You're probably right that Peikoff has a grouchiness to him, and Rand too, but these are public personas. Some people are better at that than others.
  21. Donald Trump

    Perhaps, perhaps not. I don't know about you, if I break a rule, I don't always have ill intent or no respect for the institution making the rules. As far as breaking laws, I'd only do so after reasoning out that there are substantial barriers to living my life well that goes beyond simple dislike. So, why would someone immigrate illegally? One reason might be that immigration rules are not made rationally but otherwise the country is substantially better. On top of that, it isn't any overt harm - and it's hard to demonstrate harm (unless we believed in collective property). Ill intent is one reason to break immigration laws too, so there is no singular reason to break immigration laws. In other words, there is not enough to judge that illegal immigrants plan to initiate force. Not to mention that the majority don't as it is. It's not the illegal-immigrantness that's the issue. Part of the problem any of us has isn't about illegal immigrants. I do not think you reasoned out so well about immigrants in the first place. I think you're letting in bias by paying more attention to worst-case scenarios than equally likely not-bad-at-all scenarios.
  22. Donald Trump

    This is a pretty big deal. The main idea is that there many reasons one may immigrate, but the fact is that desire to leave makes them notably different from people in their home country. There is no singular culture in a country as it is, it's not monolithic, so it's not as simple as bringing another culture. You seem to be treating immigrants as culturally equivalent to their home country, but there's no good reason to do so. There's overlap of culture, sure - but historically immigrants develop their own subcultures just as anyone else does among similar people in new environments. And if people aren't hostile to immigrants, assimilation will happen at least for the next generation.
  23. Donald Trump

    It is not up to the state to evaluate the moral stature of individuals as far as government function or laws. We don't get to a non-welfare state by resorting to a violation of individualist principles even if this is an emergency. As long as a Chinese immigrant does not violate rights, it does not matter what groups of them do. That only means you know who to talk to and persuade. I don't think there is evidence that American-born citizens would reject welfare-statism, not to mention that you underestimate how unprincipled many Americans are as far as individualism. It's not immigrants' fault, it's the fault of citizens who are mostly all American-born. Any worry of "importing Communism" could properly be done with more stringent citizenship rules as opposed to tribalist/racist (policies can be tribalist) group-based rules. China is Communist, not Socialist. People who leave China want to know something else (students from China are not citizens so they cannot vote) so they leave. Anyway, that 73% was only the 2012 presidential election - it's safe to say this easily reflects how most voters preferred Obama to Romney. Breitbart is not a reliable source. It just isn't. Either way my point is that -being- illegal immigrants puts them in the shadows, thus are in more dangerous situations where there is less law enforcement.