Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
CptnChan

Why it's so hard to talk to white people about racism

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Alchemy said:

2046, "white privilege" and "social justice" are tools of altruists and collectivists...and you wield them with quite a bit if skill considering you're on an Objectivist forum. 

Tools such as these are the antithesis of Objectivist ethics in that they seek to deal with people, on a moral level, not as rational individuals, but as groups. They are tools concerned with self-contradictory concepts like group rights or group benefit. As i'm sure you are aware, groups do not have rights above or beyond the rights of the individuals within said groups. Likewise a group cannot benefit, only individuals can. A group therefore is incapable of having "privilage". 

Secondly, you are simply restating the old altruistic argument that successful people are only where they are because of the exploitation of others. This is a monstrously evil philosophy to propagate...that a man who is successful by his own mind and efforts is somehow not deserving of the wealth he has produced...for one absurd reason or another. Then, of course, the only logic conclusion one can draw if one accepts that as axiomatic, Is that a man must sacrifice part of his life to another who feels he is more deserving. 

Third, the philosophy you are spouting is close relative to early 20th century, proto fascist philosophy. By that I'm referring to not only your viewing people as collectives rather than individuals, but also your boogie man rhetoric, your defense of tribaliam, and your racial scapegoating. These were all tools used by statist minded despots to brainwash and control the masses. 

The position I maintain is that the concept of white privilege and indeed privilege theory more broadly and social justice is a tool of:

 
1. Understanding actual facts of reality
2. Opposition to racism, sexism, anti-gay bigotry, tribalism, and all forms of collectivism
3. Supporting individualism, liberation, freedom, and individual flourishing
 
And thus being so, are tools of reason, rights, freedom, individualism, and smashing collectivism. And that means that every objectivist ought to support them and understand them. And I have provided a good bit of argumentation here to that effect. If you disagree with me, you are welcome to actually deal with the arguments.
 
Feel free to point out where I claim to support "group rights." When you can't find such a claim from me, then you can retract that statement.
 
As far as group benefits, that's another story. Group benefits are not some mystical thing, and no concept of groups as some emergent entity or undifferentiated mass, or as anything other than groups of individuals is required.
 
Suppose for an experiment I have a group of 5 white people, and 5 black people. I hand out candy bars to the 5 white people. If you consider candy bars a benefit, that is a group benefit. The group of 5 white people, which is nothing more than a group of individuals, has gained a benefit I have not afforded to the other group. 
 
Same thing if you suppose a society in which, say, you passed a law that says that certain career fields are closed to persons of color, and that only white people may enter them. Then if you consider the ability to enter that career field openly and voluntarily a benefit (some would say a right even), then one group has received a benefit, the whites, over the other group, non-whites. 
 
Except this wasn't a thought experiment, this is actual reality in an actually existing country called the United States of America. Group benefits are a very real thing, my friend, and there are many different kinds of group benefits that effect very real individual people, in fact most everyone alive in any country, in many different ways. See my previous post on the matter for details.
 
I never made such a claim about all successful people, and I don't call for anyone to be sacrificed, rather exactly the opposite, I call for an end to sacrificing. Nothing is wrong with being successful, but suppose some has achieved unearned success and began using the rhetoric of individualism to defend their success. You would not support that would you? I would hope not. So you're going to have to be more specific. Again please, try to stick to actual claims I've made and not made up ones.
 
What you sound like, and in fact what sadly many libertarians and Objectivists have become, like the actually existing fascists (not even "proto" ones) like the typical right wing, Republican goo-goo that failed to actually think and process the information, and instead went to the default boilerplate response, claiming that successful people got that way because they earned it, and why, I must be spreading envy and class hatred and altruism. An actually existing fascist for example, Cary Fiorina, a Republican crony capitalist of the highest order was just on the TV spouting about how she believes in "our free enterprise system" and how Democrats are spreading "envy of success," and then proceeds in the next breath to explain all the controls she wants to pass. How did Objectivists let themselves be reduced to this? Is this what you want to defend? If there is, in fact, forms of oppression, then who is being used by the statist minded despots? Should you stop and at least consider, study, and think on the arguments, before simply reacting to heretical words like "white privilege"? Who has become the dupe that when Floyd Ferris says "we are for free enterprise!" you actually believe him and then proceed to praise Orren Boyle for his business "success." Let not the real fascists use individualist rhetoric to defend their corporate state.
 
Since we don't have a free market, it would behoove us not to knee jerk criticize someone who actually believes in individual rights pointing out where people have in fact benefited from both legal and extralegal collectivist measures. Such conflation of success on a freed market with success in the actually existing society (you know the real world) where there is a myriad of structural invasions of the free market, can only be what Nathaniel Branden once termed as "counterfeit individualism."
 
Ayn Rand certainly believed in group benefits, privileges, advantages, specifically racial privilege as a necessary consequence of corporate statism (VoS p. 124), and not only did she oppose government-enforced discrimination, but acknowledged the moral evil of private racism, and supported boycotts and social pressure (VoS p. 127.) Ayn Rand was at the forefront of individualists against unearned privileges, and against treating people as mere means, and not ends in themselves. 
 
What Ayn Rand herself called for is what I call for, no more, no less. Objectivists today excuse and deny even the possibility of privilege, posting boilerplate conservative tripe, linking to horribly argued opinion pieces on less than reputable conservative websites. It is those that defend privilege who have been "brainwashed" into upholding the presently existing corporate state and cultural forms of bigotry by merely apparent individualist rhetoric.
 
Objectivists should be at the forefront of fighting privilege, tearing down authority, not apologizing for it, claiming it represents "success." Everything from economic privilege to income inequality, to police brutality and anti-trans discrimination, all issues happening today, here and now. Objectivists should be the first ones to recognize reality, even if this means supporting "left wing" ends, you don't have to support statist means to accomplish them, that in fact statist means are harmful and counterproductive, and you will find many people are open to that if we dislodge our cranium from the right wing's collective rear end.
Edited by 2046

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 2046 said:

The position I maintain is that the concept of white privilege and indeed privilege theory more broadly and social justice is a tool of:

 
1. Understanding actual facts of reality
2. Opposition to racism, sexism, anti-gay bigotry, tribalism, and all forms of collectivism
3. Supporting individualism, liberation, freedom, and individual flourishing

I think I made this point before, back when the thread was started, but you never responded. I'll try again: I'M WHITE. So your concept there clearly applies to me. My skin color is right in there. In fact it's the very first word in it.

And I find it odd that you are making a statement about me (not even a statement, it's actually an entire "theory", apparently), that you claim is a fact of reality, even though we've never even met. What specific fact of reality are you basing your statement about me, on? What exactly is it that you KNOW, that allows you to have a theory about me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2015, 12:01:28, 2046 said:

Nothing is wrong with being successful, but suppose some has achieved unearned success and began using the rhetoric of individualism to defend their success. You would not support that would you?

Yes, I would.

 

I like to consider myself a member of the more "able" group (who, through no fault of their own, were born with extra talent) and I will damn well use the rhetoric of individualism to defend my success, when I get there.

 

I am sorry that you can't enjoy such privileges. :worry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×