Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
CartsBeforeHorses

Is Colorado a lost cause?

Recommended Posts

The state voted for socialist Hillary over (admittedly flawed, but a self-proclaimed capitalist) Trump when even Michigan and Pennsylvania went red. Legalized marijuana might be a good law but since it was implemented sooner than the other states, this has led to a giant influx of Californians. They flee their failed socialist state to come to another state but then they keep voting for the same failed policies. I live in the conservative Springs but I hate Denver with a passion because they enforce their socialist edicts on us. Everything from the state smoking ban in bars in 2006, all the way up to this ridiculous pro-transgender "civil rights" antidiscrimination law a couple years ago. The raise in minimum wage has raised the cost of living for me and millions of other middle class people who make well above minimum wage and didn't get a raise. Hickenlooper wouldn't even execute that mass murderer who killed five people at Chuck-e-cheeses. Thank god for TABOR or else we'd have some of the highest taxes in the country, too. Colorado Springs should really be its own state, I think. Northern Colorado had the right idea to secede, but they didn't have the population. Maybe someday we can contain Denver and Boulder like a cyst and the rest of the state can secede and be solid red.

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

... the rest of the state can secede and be solid red.

How would you define the ideology and/or policies of a "solid red" state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Repairman said:

How would you define the ideology and/or policies of a "solid red" state?

I would define a solid red state as that in which there are minimal regulations and government intrusions into business and personal affairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

I would define a solid red state as that in which there are minimal regulations and government intrusions into business and personal affairs.

Do you think this is what "Solid Red" champions today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, JASKN said:

Do you think this is what "Solid Red" champions today?

Not entirely, no. The War On Drugs and unreasonable abortion restrictions come to mind. However, given the far superior economic policy, and the Republicans' better position on cigarette smoking and guns, I'd far rather live in a red state than a blue one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Not entirely, no. The War On Drugs and unreasonable abortion restrictions come to mind. However, given the far superior economic policy, and the Republicans' better position on cigarette smoking and guns, I'd far rather live in a red state than a blue one.

 Then I gather that you're perfectly willing to support "Red" evils, as opposed to "Blue" evils. 

 

13 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

I would define a solid red state as that in which there are minimal regulations and government intrusions into business and personal affairs.

You've made the point that "Red" ideology denies individual liberty, (with the exception of tobacco and firearms.) Could you be so sure that "Red" government officials would reverse the existing regulations in a manner that wouldn't slant just a little economic advantage to their special friends? Then after they've made their friends richer, the opposition raises the matter of profiteering cronies in campaign advertisements, and they make it back in, so they can help  their special friends. I vote for Republicans far more often than not, but both parties make sure that their friends in the private sector get their grease. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that the majority of the voters actually want their government officials to have control over other people's wealth. And as you've pointed out, the people want government intervention into the lives of others. I may vote for Republicans, but I'm not proud of it. Until a persuasive and successful argument can be made to the majority of voters,  exposing the fundamental evil of allowing massive government control over their businesses and their lives, and that they, the people, must respect the rights of others to govern their own flawed lives as they value their own liberty, they merely shift that control back and forth as if power were a basketball. And that argument will never be accepted so long as so many Americans do such a miserable job of managing their own affairs.

If I may assume that you are advocating for the Republican Party, what is your argument that theirs is a "far superior economic policy?" (Emphasis on "far superior.")

Edited by Repairman
gramarical correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2017 at 11:45 AM, Repairman said:

 Then I gather that you're perfectly willing to support "Red" evils, as opposed to "Blue" evils. 

Not perfectly willing, no. I have reservations about the Right like the huge military (not a states-level issue), the War on Drugs, etc. I just view them as overall superior to the left on economic policy and immigration. We cannot h

On 9/28/2017 at 11:45 AM, Repairman said:

You've made the point that "Red" ideology denies individual liberty, (with the exception of tobacco and firearms.) Could you be so sure that "Red" government officials would reverse the existing regulations in a manner that wouldn't slant just a little economic advantage to their special friends? Then after they've made their friends richer, the opposition raises the matter of profiteering cronies in campaign advertisements, and they make it back in, so they can help  their special friends. I vote for Republicans far more often than not, but both parties make sure that their friends in the private sector get their grease. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that the majority of the voters actually want their government officials to have control over other people's wealth. And as you've pointed out, the people want government intervention into the lives of others. I may vote for Republicans, but I'm not proud of it. Until a persuasive and successful argument can be made to the majority of voters,  exposing the fundamental evil of allowing massive government control over their businesses and their lives, and that they, the people, must respect the rights of others to govern their own flawed lives as they value their own liberty, they merely shift that control back and forth as if power were a basketball. And that argument will never be accepted so long as so many Americans do such a miserable job of managing their own affairs.

If I may assume that you are advocating for the Republican Party, what is your argument that theirs is a "far superior economic policy?" (Emphasis on "far superior.")

Yeah the cronyism that you have talked about is a major impediment to a truly capitalistic economy. How do you propose that we spread our ideology as quickly as possible in order to reverse the course of doom that America is currently on?

Maybe "far" superior was going a little over-the-top. Regular superior is just fine though. The Republicans are the only party that consistently advocates for freedom of choice in healthcare (vs. Democrat socialized medicine), free market coal and oil (vs. Democrat carbon taxes), lowering taxes and regulations across the board. Now do they always consistently do this? No. But the distinction is very clear in my eyes. It must be at least slightly clear in your eyes too or you wouldn't vote R.

Share this post


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

Yeah the cronyism that you have talked about is a major impediment to a truly capitalistic economy. How do you propose that we spread our ideology as quickly as possible in order to reverse the course of doom that America is currently on?

Realistically and regretfully there is no quick solution to popular opinion and the political norms that rise from it. It is popular opinion that must be cultivated, and that could take a very long time. I'm certain I'll never see the turning point. And I'm not so certain that America is doomed, not so much as I was in the past. Technological innovators continue to improve the quality of life for those willing to hang on to their hopes. Assuming that our ideology is more than rhetoric supporting free-markets and free-people, an ideology that challenges individuals to think independently, rationally, one that demands the individual to take more control and pride into their own individual lives, and one that celebrates genuine achievement, rather than conspicuous consumption, then it must be spread through every means possible to a free people. I do not work in the mass media; I don't even subscribe to nor watch cable-network TV. But, perhaps one day a celebrity-host of a late night talk show will take an Objectivist point of view; a trend in movies might resurrect the meaning of true individuality and the spirit of heroics. The people who entertain us and inform us are the real leaders of cultural change, not politicians. My point is supported by the fact that abnormally large numbers of lower-working-class stiffs voted for a gas-bag billionaire with no governmental experience. How did he get so popular? Answer, he had a TV show.

And welcome to the forum.

Edited by Repairman
belated welcome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Repairman said:

Assuming that our ideology is more than rhetoric supporting free-markets and free-people, an ideology that challenges individuals to think independently, rationally, one that demands the individual to take more control and pride into their own individual lives, and one that celebrates genuine achievement, rather than conspicuous consumption, then it must be spread through every means possible to a free people...

That's exactly what I'm doing with every moment of my free time. I'm trying to make Objectivist ideas go viral. I don't own a network and I don't currently have a platform from which that many people may hear me, but I am hoping to catch people's eyes regardless.

One idea that I am presently working on is as follows. Please promise not to laugh and hear me out. I'm making a YouTube video, aimed at millennials, analyzing a mystery which has plagued the internet for years.

I'm solving, with Objectivist aesthetic principles, the mystery of exactly why Sonic the Hedgehog, as a video game character, is so immensely popular among his fans. Sonic's popularity is unusual because his video game sales have been plummeting for years compared to Mario games. 2mn copies sold in 2006 compared to 30mn copies in 2009. Yet Sonic fanfictions, artwork, and videos are far more prevalent on the internet than Mario's are. (38k Sonic stories on Fanfiction.net compared to 9k Mario)

Something about Sonic as a character is so appealing that his fans are inspired to create thousands and thousands of works of the mind that Mario fans simply do not make. This is a mystery worth solving, and Objectivism provides us the answer.

The reason is that Sonic represents a fundamental truth about reality that Mario does not. Sonic is "cool." He represents individuality, supreme achievement and excellence. He's fast and smart, and his nemesis Dr. Eggman is a lumbering old fool. Every Sonic game is a representation of the triumph of good over evil, and evil's impotence. Every Sonic game rewards exploration and the use of the inquisitive mind. Sonic is an expression of the Inexplicable Personal Alchemy that Ayn Rand talked about.

Just listen to this song and pretend for a moment that you don't already know that it's about a blue hedgehog. The songwriters didn't care about Sonic either, they were just told to write a fun song about fighting evil.

If you're strong, you can fly, you can reach the other side of the rainbow
It's alright, take a chance, 'cause there is no circumstance that you can't handle
When you use your mind
Sonic boom, sonic boom, sonic boom
Trouble keeps you running faster!
Sonic boom, sonic boom, sonic boom
Save the planet from disaster!

This song could easily be an anthem for us spreading our ideas at the speed of light over the internet, while evil is only just getting its shoes on. This song reminds us that it's fun to fight evil once we realize how small and pathetic it really is compared to the power of truth that we all hold.

Anyway, maybe this is just all a waste of my time. But I think it's a productive use of my free time, and it has a chance to go viral. A small chance, but a chance nonetheless. A chance that writing the ten quadrillionth Objectivist blog about why the welfare state is bad will not. No Objectivist blog will ever go viral. A video that incorporates objectivist ideas in a cool way? That just might.

As a movement, we've been repeating ourselves and having a self-serving, preaching-to-the-choir dialogue amongst ourselves for too long. We've been arguing and bickering amongst ourselves over petty 1% disputes for far too long, forgetting the 99% that we have in common.

I could've just wasted my time going into how Trump is right on immigration, how as a middle-class professional CPA he still inspired me to vote for him over that wretched Deep State scoundrel Hillary, but I didn't. I tried to inspire you based on something that inspired me. Maybe I've inspired you to make a video about something that you're passionate about. I dunno.

If our philosophy is right, though, then fighting evil should be fun. We should have fun. Say what you want about Trump, but that guy has a total blast doing what he does. I'm having fun making this video. Maybe I shouldn't be and it's a waste of my time, but time will tell and it's more productive than just watching football or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

If our philosophy is right, though, then fighting evil should be fun. We should have fun. Say what you want about Trump, but that guy has a total blast doing what he does. I'm having fun making this video. Maybe I shouldn't be and it's a waste of my time, but time will tell and it's more productive than just watching football or something.

I hope your artistic endeavors bring you happiness. As with many of my generation, the video game culture doesn't interest me very much. There is no denying the effect of this relatively new medium. One thing I would like to emphasize is that in your "good vs evil" themes, it is vitally important to identify that which is "the good," and that which is "the evil," is the most unambiguous terms.

On Trump, I have a wait-and-see attitude. Having held the lowest of opinions of both of the candidates of 2016, having been sufficiently surprised by his success, I can only hope for the best, as I have for every new US president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Repairman said:

I hope your artistic endeavors bring you happiness. As with many of my generation, the video game culture doesn't interest me very much. There is no denying the effect of this relatively new medium. One thing I would like to emphasize is that in your "good vs evil" themes, it is vitally important to identify that which is "the good," and that which is "the evil," is the most unambiguous terms.

Definitely. From my video script:

"Sonic is cool in universe because he’s the good guy! He’s fast, smart, and has a can-do attitude. Compare that to his evil nemesis, the slow, lumbering, incompetent Eggman. Or Robotnik as he was once known, who has to resort to enslaving small woodland creatures to fight for him and conquer Mobius by force. Sonic fights Eggman not to rescue some princess like Mario. Not because of some prophecy like Link. Not for unearned gain like the evil Grand Theft Auto “protagonists.” Sonic feels no duty to fight Eggman… he fights Eggman because it’s fun for him! As the good guy, Sonic realizes how competent and excellent he is, and how weak and pathetic Eggman is. It’s still challenging for him (and the player), but it’s a challenge that he always knows that he can win, and his confidence and indomitable spirit takes him and you, the player, to eventual victory. Sonic knows that, if he’s ever in a bind, he can count on his friends like Tails and Knuckles—to name just a few. He helps them out, and they help him out, and just like a good friendship, it’s balanced."

Quote

On Trump, I have a wait-and-see attitude. Having held the lowest of opinions of both of the candidates of 2016, having been sufficiently surprised by his success, I can only hope for the best, as I have for every new US president.

Gorsuch was great, I love his handling of the North Korea crisis, and I'm glad that we finally have a president who attacks ISIS with full force like the MOAB. On legislation, we will have to wait and see, because he does not have any signature legislation to his name yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For better or worse, it seems we're straying quite a way away from the opening topic of Colorado. But for what it's worth, may I offer some constructive criticism:

19 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

"Sonic is cool in universe because he’s the good guy! He’s fast, smart, and has a can-do attitude. Compare that to his evil nemesis, the slow, lumbering, incompetent Eggman. Or Robotnik as he was once known, who has to resort to enslaving small woodland creatures to fight for him and conquer Mobius by force. Sonic fights Eggman not to rescue some princess like Mario. Not because of some prophecy like Link. Not for unearned gain like the evil Grand Theft Auto “protagonists.” Sonic feels no duty to fight Eggman… he fights Eggman because it’s fun for him! As the good guy, Sonic realizes how competent and excellent he is, and how weak and pathetic Eggman is. It’s still challenging for him (and the player), but it’s a challenge that he always knows that he can win, and his confidence and indomitable spirit takes him and you, the player, to eventual victory. Sonic knows that, if he’s ever in a bind, he can count on his friends like Tails and Knuckles—to name just a few. He helps them out, and they help him out, and just like a good friendship, it’s balanced."

As I've already admitted, I know next to nothing about video games, or how they might be used to convey complex ideological concepts to their participants.

"Sonic is cool in universe because he’s the good guy! He’s fast, smart, and has a can-do attitude."

While traits such as fast, smart, and possessing a can-do attitude may well be attributes of a hero, they may just as well be the attributes of a villain.

"Sonic feels no duty to fight Eggman… he fights Eggman because it’s fun for him! As the good guy, Sonic realizes how competent and excellent he is, and how weak and pathetic Eggman is."

Based solely on this description, I would assume Sonic is an evil megalomaniac exacting pleasure by tormenting the retarded Eggman. I find nothing in your description that would define Sonic as a champion of the Good as defined by Objectivist standards. In addition to his sadistic pursuits, Sonic has little to worry about, as his friends, Tails and Knuckles, will back him up if he finds himself out-matched. Those names sound like stereotypes from a list of characters in a 1930s gangster film. None of this sound very sporting to me. Of course, their must be more to your scenario, but I see no distinct Objectivist message here.  I am reminded of a little known historical figure, named, Otto Skorzeny, whose claim to fame was as one of Adolf Hitler's personal entourage, a soldier of remarkable prowess and prestige. He is alleged to have rescued Benito Mussolini from captivity single-handedly with the use of a hang-glider. While Otto Skorzeny, KGB officers, and mafia-goombas might justify their violence as a duty to a higher cause than self, they enter those very challenging roles likely because it brings them some sort of sense of superiority over others. It doesn't matter if their opponents may be more formidable or less than a challenge. Robotnik sounds evil, in that he enslaves others. (Are Eggman and Robotnik one in the same entity?) But in the Objectivist ideal, man is not a weakling to be enslaved, waiting despairingly for a hero to rescue him.

Maybe I'm confused about all of this, because I have no experience with these interactive videos. If the small woodland creatures of Mobius are enslaved by a "weak and pathetic" nemesis, they are none-the-less small woodland creatures. This all sounds very much like the morality plays presented as children's cartoons where the pet cat preys on the heroic mice, and in their celebration, the mice inhabit your cupboard and eat your food. Generally, the moral to the story is: if enough little guys band together, they can take whatever they want by force.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2017 at 2:05 PM, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Not perfectly willing, no. I have reservations about the Right like the huge military (not a states-level issue), the War on Drugs, etc. I just view them as overall superior to the left on economic policy and immigration.

I think this is perfectly reasonable, even if I come to a slightly different position. Red and Blue? A pox on both their houses -- they're all statists. But I prefer the Dems on immigration (which I'm sure we'll discuss at some point), and certain rights issues (you've mentioned a couple of them), so that's probably how I lean.

On 9/27/2017 at 10:50 PM, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Not entirely, no. The War On Drugs and unreasonable abortion restrictions come to mind. However, given the far superior economic policy, and the Republicans' better position on cigarette smoking and guns, I'd far rather live in a red state than a blue one.

And so, I would rather live in a blue state (and I do). It's funny, because I think this is changing -- but one of my most important issues (from childhood, well before my Objectivist "conversion") has always been free speech. And I've always found the Democrats to be the more consistent (though by no means consistent) guardian of free speech rights. This is probably no longer true; I don't know how things will shake out over the next few years, but it seems like the Republicans are taking up the free speech mantle (though maybe not as quickly as the Dems are dropping it). If that shakes down culturally to the red states, I might prefer to live there before too long.

I think tendencies like these are often about what is most important to us personally. Since neither Red nor Blue are champions of liberty, which violations are most egregious to us probably depend on the context of our own lives. For instance, support of slavery and Jim Crow laws made Democratic support in the south untenable for most blacks for a very, very long time -- and I think that's understandable. And I know a few women who, however much they might be willing to discuss "economic issues" and liberty, would never vote Republican so long as the Republicans are hostile to abortion rights. Again, I think that's understandable.

On 9/29/2017 at 7:27 PM, CartsBeforeHorses said:

One idea that I am presently working on is as follows. Please promise not to laugh and hear me out. I'm making a YouTube video, aimed at millennials, analyzing a mystery which has plagued the internet for years.

Why should anyone laugh at you for your project?

On 9/29/2017 at 7:27 PM, CartsBeforeHorses said:

I'm solving, with Objectivist aesthetic principles, the mystery of exactly why Sonic the Hedgehog, as a video game character, is so immensely popular among his fans. Sonic's popularity is unusual because his video game sales have been plummeting for years compared to Mario games. 2mn copies sold in 2006 compared to 30mn copies in 2009. Yet Sonic fanfictions, artwork, and videos are far more prevalent on the internet than Mario's are. (38k Sonic stories on Fanfiction.net compared to 9k Mario)

Something about Sonic as a character is so appealing that his fans are inspired to create thousands and thousands of works of the mind that Mario fans simply do not make. This is a mystery worth solving, and Objectivism provides us the answer.

You may be interested in a book I've read called "The Console Wars" which, among other things, discusses the creation of the Sonic character.

22 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Gorsuch was great, I love his handling of the North Korea crisis, and I'm glad that we finally have a president who attacks ISIS with full force like the MOAB. On legislation, we will have to wait and see, because he does not have any signature legislation to his name yet.

We also disagree about Trump, deeply, but we'll have occasion to discuss that in the future, I'm sure. If I haven't said it before, welcome to the forum!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Repairman said:

For better or worse, it seems we're straying quite a way away from the opening topic of Colorado. But for what it's worth, may I offer some constructive criticism:

As I've already admitted, I know next to nothing about video games, or how they might be used to convey complex ideological concepts to their participants.

You're fine. You're making a good case regardless. I am making a new thread in the Video Games section, so let's move any further discussion to there, shall we? There I provide the necessary context of my video's script in order to inform which Objectivist principles Sonic embodies. You are correct that my quote taken out of context is not enough to establish Sonic as clearly the good guy. However there is more to the script than that.

2 hours ago, DonAthos said:

I think this is perfectly reasonable, even if I come to a slightly different position. Red and Blue? A pox on both their houses -- they're all statists. But I prefer the Dems on immigration (which I'm sure we'll discuss at some point), and certain rights issues (you've mentioned a couple of them), so that's probably how I lean.

And so, I would rather live in a blue state (and I do). It's funny, because I think this is changing -- but one of my most important issues (from childhood, well before my Objectivist "conversion") has always been free speech. And I've always found the Democrats to be the more consistent (though by no means consistent) guardian of free speech rights. This is probably no longer true; I don't know how things will shake out over the next few years, but it seems like the Republicans are taking up the free speech mantle (though maybe not as quickly as the Dems are dropping it). If that shakes down culturally to the red states, I might prefer to live there before too long.

You should always vote in your self-interest. If the personal freedom and liberty, or economic freedom that you value are the ones being championed by the left, by all means you should vote for them.

As for free speech, the Democrats "championed" free speech during the free speech movement in Berkeley, but that was due to them being the party on the outside and not wanting a government crackdonw against them. It was certainly not out of any respect towards individual rights or the constitution. Since then, they have always been the ones championing the so-called "fairness doctrine" in radio, they've been the ones primarily responsible for the intrusion into internet freedom through their support for "net neutrality," which is really a massive governmental violation of corporate "speech." They've also partnered with Google to silence right-wing websites and YouTube channels. And now we have antifa who violently beats up peaceful right-wing rallies, like Milo Yiannopolous when he was supposed to speak at Berkeley.

2 hours ago, DonAthos said:

Why should anyone laugh at you for your project?

They shouldn't, but at least one person on the Objectivism subreddit told me, essentially, "Stuff like this is why philosophy majors laugh at us." As if philosophy weren't as vitally important to our culture as Ayn Rand said that it was.

2 hours ago, DonAthos said:

You may be interested in a book I've read called "The Console Wars" which, among other things, discusses the creation of the Sonic character.

We also disagree about Trump, deeply, but we'll have occasion to discuss that in the future, I'm sure. If I haven't said it before, welcome to the forum!

Thanks, I'll look into it. And I'm sure that we will discuss immigration at some point in the future. Until then I would refer you to this rather long, but I think the most well-researched Objectivist blog piece on immigration and determining an objectively good immigration policy for America.

https://objectivedissent.org/2017/01/24/immigration/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

As for free speech, the Democrats "championed" free speech during the free speech movement in Berkeley, but that was due to them being the party on the outside and not wanting a government crackdonw against them. It was certainly not out of any respect towards individual rights or the constitution.

I wasn't around for the 60s protests, but I remember the controversy over flag burning from my childhood (the 80s). It may be that many folks on the left were simply motivated by a sort of "anti-Americanism," but I still think it right that a person should be able to "burn a flag" (i.e. destroy their own property) without interference from the government. Casting it as "free speech" or even "political free speech" may be besides the point (or it may be a vital component), regardless I still think it's a right which needs protection.

Also, I had an awareness of, say, the ACLU defending even Nazis in their right to peaceably assemble -- which is one of those areas where, now, the left may be faltering and the right may be picking up the slack. I'm still unsure about some of the motivations behind these shifts, but regardless: Nazis ought to have their right to peaceably assemble protected.

In these, and other matters, it seemed to me growing up that the left was the better defender of "free speech." But as I say, I think that might be changing...

As for respect towards individual rights or the Constitution, I think it's a case-by-case basis. I don't think that many people on the left or the right have a sincere interest in those things today, except that they are sometime useful leverage for some battle. That said, there are people on both the left and the right who do take those things seriously; part of my long journey to my current Objectivist beliefs was based on my respect for individual rights and the Constitution -- and I came from the left.

17 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Since then, they have always been the ones championing the so-called "fairness doctrine" in radio, they've been the ones primarily responsible for the intrusion into internet freedom through their support for "net neutrality," which is really a massive governmental violation of corporate "speech." They've also partnered with Google to silence right-wing websites and YouTube channels. And now we have antifa who violently beats up peaceful right-wing rallies, like Milo Yiannopolous when he was supposed to speak at Berkeley.

Oh yeah, there were also the leftist crusades against obscenity in rap and violence in video games, and so forth (where we sometimes see alliances between elements on the left and right, like Christian activist groups), not to mention today's "hate speech" and so forth.

Quickly though, Google and YouTube, being private entities, do have the right to their own policies (just as this website does "censor" certain posts). This should take place without governmental interference, obviously.

17 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

They shouldn't, but at least one person on the Objectivism subreddit told me, essentially, "Stuff like this is why philosophy majors laugh at us." As if philosophy weren't as vitally important to our culture as Ayn Rand said that it was.

Bleh, screw those people. You follow your passion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2017 at 2:25 AM, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Exactly who is discussing white supremacy here?

You called Colorado a "lost cause" because they voted against Donald Trump.

Donald Trump routinely says things that suggest he might be sympathetic to white supremacy. A lot of people in American public life label him that (or use similar terms to describe him) because of it. He also had a platform that aimed to keep Latin Americans out of the US, and has used racist language to describe them during the campaign.

Meanwhile, I've never heard him say anything that suggests he might be a capitalist, or even knows what that is. I've also never heard any prominent Americans call him a capitalist.

So Coloradoans being opposed to white supremacy (and various other forms of racial and religious intolerance) is a far more likely reason why they voted against Trump.

I really thought one sentence would've been enough to convey all that. I'm not exactly breaking new ground here.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2017 at 1:57 PM, Nicky said:

You called Colorado a "lost cause" because they voted against Donald Trump.

Not just for those reasons, but also because socialists have taken over Denver and have forced socialist laws down the rest of the state's throats. Would you agree that this is a bad thing?

On 10/9/2017 at 1:57 PM, Nicky said:

Donald Trump routinely says things that suggest he might be sympathetic to white supremacy.

Like what? Can you provide even one example?

On 10/9/2017 at 1:57 PM, Nicky said:

A lot of people in American public life label him that (or use similar terms to describe him) because of it.

That's not really an argument against Trump. That's the bandwagon fallacy. Just because a lot of the American people are stupid doesn't make them right.

Quote

He also had a platform that aimed to keep Latin Americans out of the US, and has used racist language to describe them during the campaign.

Latin American is not a race, it's a geographic region. If you're talking about "brown people," they're more properly called mestizos. However Trump never made it a race issue. He made it a nationalism issue. Please provide me with one example of Trump attacking Latin Americans based on race. I'll bet you $100 that you can't find a single one.

Quote

Meanwhile, I've never heard him say anything that suggests he might be a capitalist, or even knows what that is.

You're calling the man who master-managed and built dozens of skyscrapers and hotels and made a fortune "not a capitalist?" I'm pretty sure that he understands how the free market works. He certainly understands branding, public image, competition, and other key components of what makes capitalism successful. He isn't ashamed of being rich, either, unlike the Silicon Valley types who Yaron Brook praises to the skies. They're so embarrased to have money that they've turned into little socialists.

Quote

So Coloradoans being opposed to white supremacy (and various other forms of racial and religious intolerance) is a far more likely reason why they voted against Trump.

That's not really a "reason," more like an illogical belief that is not supported by evidence. Just like your belief will not be supported by evidence when you search for a single racist thing that the man has ever said.

Quote

religious intolerance)

Islam is a gutter, garbage religion that subjugates women and homosexuals, and advocates for killing the infidel. It deserves to be called out for its savagery every chance that we get. Are all Muslims terrorists? No, of course not, but that's only because they don't take their faith seriously.

Quote

I really thought one sentence would've been enough to convey all that. I'm not exactly breaking new ground here.

For an Objectivist you certainly are breaking new ground. You're adopting leftist talking points and using them as your own. Tell me, was Ayn Rand a white supremacist? She called Arabs and other Third Worlders "savages."

Also tell me, am I personally a white supremacist? You basically insinuated as much in your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Tell me, was Ayn Rand a white supremacist? She called Arabs and other Third Worlders "savages."

I bet that's taken wildly out of context...to the point where it's a lie.

If I had to guess, the context was the Arab Israeli conflict? And she called the people attacking Israel "savages", for committing an act of aggression. Not exactly the same as a populist nationalist, catering to the base desire of white supremacists in the US to keep Mexicans out, now is it?

Quote

You're calling the man who master-managed and built dozens of skyscrapers and hotels and made a fortune "not a capitalist?

If being rich makes one a capitalist, does that mean you would've voted for George Soros, if he ran against Trump? Soros is worth about 10 times more than Trump.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Latin American is not a race, it's a geographic region. If you're talking about "brown people," they're more properly called mestizos.

Oh, okay. So your argument is that hating Latinos isn't a form of racism, because they're not technically a race.

What about hating blacks? Is that racism? Or does a Klansman need to know the local African terms for various African ethnic groups, before he can be accused of racism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Also tell me, am I personally a white supremacist? You basically insinuated as much in your post.

I didn't insinuate anything. In general, you don't need to try and read between the lines of my posts. I'm gonna tell you what I think directly. You can count on that much.

And, since you asked, here's my impression of you, based on this brief exchange: you're not a Capitalist, you're a right wing nationalist. I base that on two things:

1. You called me a "leftist". Only Americans who ever call me a leftist are entrenched right wing nationalists. No one else ever does that, because I'm so obviously not a leftist. Conversely, the only Americans who call me a "right winger" are entrenched leftists.

That's because both these groups are indoctrinated into this cult-like belief that there can be only two political ideologies: theirs and the enemy's. And anyone who disagrees with even the tiniest portion of their ideology must belong with the enemy.

2. You're trying to distinguish between hating a "race" (an invalid concept in itself, biological race is an antiquated way of classifying people) and hating people from a geographic area like Latin America or the Middle East.

That's a big clue. No individualist would ever feel the need to do that. It's part of the alt right's arsenal of what I like to call the "I'm not touching you" tactics...because they remind me of that thing kids do to annoy each other, where they hold their finger really close to someone's face, and chant "I'm not touching you". As if that somehow makes it okay.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Also tell me, am I personally a white supremacist? You basically insinuated as much in your post.

Well, linking to HandyHandle, who sporadically visits the forum to curse its members, to curse ARI, and to embed a link to his anti-ARi site makes me wonder if you're him. If you are, that would make you a white supremacist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2017 at 5:37 PM, Nicky said:

Oh, okay. So your argument is that hating Latinos isn't a form of racism, because they're not technically a race.

What about hating blacks? Is that racism? Or does a Klansman need to know the local African terms for various African ethnic groups, before he can be accused of racism?

I don't hate Latinos, I just don't want them emigrating in mass to the United States. Nor any mass group: black, white, or brown, from that area of the world for that matter. 

Those countries and their political climates are overwhelmingly socialist. If we had a proper immigration system that vetted people for ideological compatibility with the United States' founding principals and constitution, and was focused primarily on skilled workers, then race should not play a factor in determining that.

For the record, I wouldn't want thirty million Canadians moving here either. Am I racist against white people now?

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses

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.

×