Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
MisterSwig

How Nazis Recruit Normie Conservatives For Meme Wars

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

How is it that people end up arguing in unison against something that I never said, or a belief that I never espoused? Is there some secret strawman playbook that you're all reading from? :huh: Yesterday I was accused of arguing for race realism; today I'm accused of arguing for racial causation of intelligence. I suppose that I'll get accused of supporting eugenics next. People really need to start reading my posts not for the argument that they hope that I'm making because it's easier to attack, but for the actual position that I am defending.

[...]

However, we can still say that the two are correlated. A correlation is all that we need to defeat the notion that black people haven't succeeded in America as well as whites because of some evil racist plot to keep them down. They haven't succeeded because they are less intelligent on average. I am still waiting for somebody to present me evidence that, in fact, black people on average are just as capable as whites are intellectually.

But as you claim, they do need it because no correlation can be shown to exist.

You say that derisively. Do you believe that it is improper to blame a man for his own failures? That it is improper to blame a group of men for their own failures? That is what Objectivism is all about, personal responsibility. There is no room in Objectivism for white guilt--or white pride. There is merely room to say that it's okay to be white, because there is nothing "wrong" with being a member of any race.

If it's a belief you never espoused, it's pretty difficult to rule out, since you are entirely tone deaf to your own pronouncements.

Hitler: it's okay to be white!

Normal people: oh hey, that's irrelevant in the context of everything you stand for.

You: Ah, well guys, I mean uh, technically he's right, let's all spread the message!

Oh yes that fake "evil racist plot" of generations of actual slavery, Jim Crow, and institutional legal discrimination, I'm glad I have your objectivity to set me straight, bro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, 2046 said:

If it's a belief you never espoused, it's pretty difficult to rule out, since you are entirely tone deaf to your own pronouncements.

Where exactly have I demonstrated such tone deafness?

Quote

Hitler: it's okay to be white!

Normal people: oh hey, that's irrelevant in the context of everything you stand for.

You: Ah, well guys, I mean uh, technically he's right, let's all spread the message!

2046, meet the Genetic Fallacy. Genetic Fallacy, meet 2046.

Of course I'm going to spread the message because it's in my rational self-interest to do so. It's okay to be white. It's okay to be black, too... it's okay to be a member of any race. There are those who say that it's not okay to be white because of white privilege. I'm refuting those people.

Quote

Oh yes that fake "evil racist plot" of generations of actual slavery, Jim Crow, and institutional legal discrimination, I'm glad I have your objectivity to set me straight, bro.

None of which have existed in this country for half a century. We've also had affirmative action and massive redistribution of wealth in the form of the welfare state.

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 2046 said:

Oh yes that fake "evil racist plot" of generations of actual slavery, Jim Crow, and institutional legal discrimination, I'm glad I have your objectivity to set me straight, bro.

Set us straight here.  Do you believe in blood guilt and/or original sin?  Because invoking those crimes of the past is same thought process.   

I am not guilty, and I am okay with being white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Grames said:

Set us straight here.  Do you believe in blood guilt and/or original sin?  Because invoking those crimes of the past is same thought process.   

Also he forgets to mention affirmative action and racially-imbalanced welfare transfers. Apparently the sins of the father are only the sins of the son if you're white.

2 minutes ago, Grames said:

I am not guilty, and I am okay with being white.

No, how dare you say that! Hitler said the same thing! That means that you're literally Hitler!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

I wrote my last reply while tired last night. It could have been more precisely worded to help retain the context throughout. Still, your description of concept-formation is off, and I'll explain a bit here. Really, though, you should read ITOE chapter 3. In the paragraphs about conceptual subdivision, Rand explicitly mentions race as a conceptual subdivision of the concept "man."

 

Race is an abstraction from an abstraction. While it's true that you need at least two men to form the concept "man," it's also true that you only need two men to form a conceptual subdivision. Actually, you merely need to think of two men in order to do it. Then you can apply the new conceptual subdivision to any new man you see who fits the concept. The new subdivision could be any difference you notice between two examples of "man." It could be left vs. right-handedness, dark vs. light-hairedness, or white vs. black-skinnedness. 

 

These finer points of Objectivist epistemology have been thoroughly debated in the epistemology forum. I know I've gotten into them a few times over there. If you want to continue with this line, let's create a thread over there for this distraction. I had hoped that this thread would focus on Nazis indoctrinating conservatives, and so I'm going to stop responding to purely epistemological issues here, unless someone posts something absolutely revolutionary. 

A conceptual subdivision is not also a concept?  

I'm always up for learning more about Objectivist epistemology.  

Edited by Grames
grammar

Share this post


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

Alright, here goes. I will bold my main premises.

Forgive me if I don't go point-by-point; the conversation seems to be spiraling out of control and I have limited time, at present. (If I fail to address something specific that needs response, please bring it to my attention.)

This Wikipedia article deals with the issue of (as the page is titled) "Race and intelligence." Based on the summary, it appears that the consensus is that there is, as yet, no consensus. I don't know how much more deeply I can discuss IQ tests and their relationship to intelligence, except to say that although I tend to do well when taking such tests, I've never been inclined to put much stock in them. This is not alone my deference to the opinions of a man like Gould -- although I do tend to defer to him on biological and related matters, given his expertise and erudition -- but also because I feel naively skeptical as to the relationship between the kinds of things IQ tests (and similar) test for, and what I generally consider to be intelligence. I don't doubt that these kinds of tests test for something, and that this has some relationship with intelligence (or a kind of intelligence), but I am not convinced that these tests measure intelligence, as such (and/or further that there is no relationship between one's environment, or learning, and success at these tests).

Regarding man's evolutionary history, Gould says, "there just hasn't been time for the development of much genetic variation [between races] except that which regulates some very superficial features like skin color and hair form." Again, I defer to him on this subject because this is his subject of expertise, and far from my own. It's possible that he's wrong, but I'm not currently in the position to make such a judgement. And if it is the case that there are (equivalent) experts in disagreement on these points, then I may have to refrain from taking a side until I know more, or until the science is better settled. I can report that in my own life, I've had what I consider to be sufficient evidence that blacks are just as capable of whites -- at the least, on an individual level, which I know you've conceded elsewhere. If there remain significant testing discrepancies between populations, then it seems to me that there are a plethora of other ("environmental") factors that can account for them. If those environmental factors are sufficient to account for our results (and I believe that they are), then I see no call to introduce additional, unsubstantiated (genetic) factors.

In any event, I continue to find ridiculous the suggestion that "many Africans simply are unable to grasp concepts like capitalism," which suggests to me not alone some discrepancy in education or diet, but nearly a sub-human categorization. You may protest that this isn't your meaning, but that's the meaning I find in what you've said throughout this thread, and it's what I believe you to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Grames said:

Set us straight here.  Do you believe in blood guilt and/or original sin?  Because invoking those crimes of the past is same thought process.   

I am not guilty, and I am okay with being white.

Explain how white guilt follows from acknowledging actual history. Non sequitur. The goal is to not be ignorant of reality, not to feel guilt. Says more about you that you apparently associate the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 2046 said:

Explain how white guilt follows from acknowledging actual history. Non sequitur. The goal is to not be ignorant of reality, not to feel guilt. Says more about you that you apparently associate the two.

No, YOU explain why it is even slightly relevant to bring up slavery, Jim Crow laws and institutional legal discrimination when discussing a meme of late 2017.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

the consensus is that there is, as yet, no consensus.

Because the science is being influenced by politics. This would not be the first time that scientists have been afraid to speak out in fear of being ostracized politically. The science is certainly present, and you don't need to be a scientist to observe a correlation between race and IQ.

This interview that Sam Harris conducted with the author of the 1994 book The Bell Curve should give you an indication of the state of science today. This man supports affirmative action and was still called racist for his book's findings.

34 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

I am not convinced that these tests measure intelligence, as such (and/or further that there is no relationship between one's environment, or learning, and success at these tests).

That is why I have also used other metrics, such as the patent application rate, the educational attainment rate, and high school dropout rate. I have presented a plethora of numbers to back up my case... my opponents in this thread have presented zero numbers.

34 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

If those environmental factors are sufficient to account for our results (and I believe that they are), then I see no call to introduce additional, unsubstantiated (genetic) factors.

The assertion you are making here is that 100% of the difference between race and intelligence can be attributed to environmental factors. This is quite an extraordinary claim since genetics are already known to influence IQ quite heavily. What environmental factors would you propose that are so strong that they can account for the difference? Also bearing in mind that even correcting for every known environmental factor still results in a racial IQ gap in the United States.

34 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

"many Africans simply are unable to grasp concepts like capitalism," which suggests to me not alone some discrepancy in education or diet, but nearly a sub-human categorization.


I would not characterize it as a sub-human categorization, nearly or otherwise. A human is still a human regardless of his intellectual capacity. However a basic level of education is required in order to grasp capitalism and why it is a superior--and necessary--economic system. Many Africans are illiterate. How can you grasp these concepts if you cannot even read about it? Perhaps if more of them learned to read, more of them would be able to grasp concepts like capitalism. Africa is not forever doomed to failure.

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses

Share this post


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

Also he forgets to mention affirmative action and racially-imbalanced welfare transfers. Apparently the sins of the father are only the sins of the son if you're white.

No, how dare you say that! Hitler said the same thing! That means that you're literally Hitler!

May wanna recheck your fallacies, brah. 

You see, you prescribe to what we may term the "it doesn't matter" thesis. Where one should enthusiastically agree with and spread the message of any triviality, such as "being white" or "I like to breathe air" or "food is good for you," reguardless of the origin or context in which it is being used. That is not to say the veracity of this claim, just whether you are a dumb dumb for joining in.

If Hitler loves air, why then it's okay to join Hitler in a glorious celebration of air and all things air-related, we may even join hands and make common cause with him. 

Whilst I and I most everyone else would adhere to the "oh it matters" thesis, in which even if it were true that Hitler enjoy air and food and pretty birds, and even if Hitler were in fact correct about these things, it is just dumb to support him. The main point being context dropping here. 

Also, who said it's not okay to be white? White privileged? Who in this thread? Where? In the OP? Point them out. Who says "it's not okay to be white"?

Share this post


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

No, YOU explain why it is even slightly relevant to bring up slavery, Jim Crow laws and institutional legal discrimination when discussing a meme of late 2017.

Maybe try reading what it was responding to, dawg. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 2046 said:

Maybe try reading what it was responding to, dawg. 

Clearly I don't understand.  It looked like you are trying to lay a guilt trip on me.  What were you up to?

Share this post


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

Clearly I don't understand.  It looked like you are trying to lay a guilt trip on me.  

Sounds like a personal problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 2046 said:

May wanna recheck your fallacies, brah. 

'Twas a joke, brah.

2 minutes ago, 2046 said:

Where one should enthusiastically agree with and spread the message of any triviality,  such as "being white" or "I like to breathe air" or "food is good for you,"

One of these things is not like the others. One of these things is under attack by the Left in this country. The others are not. That makes it non-trivial.

4 minutes ago, 2046 said:

even if Hitler were in fact correct about these things, it is just dumb to support him.

Where am I supporting Hitler, or neo-Nazis?

6 minutes ago, 2046 said:

Also, who said it's not okay to be white? White privileged? Who in this thread? Where? In the OP? Point them out. Who says "it's not okay to be white"?

Do you have a problem with me saying "it's okay to be white?"

Then you're part of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you can quote oodles of "race realist" pseudoscience about average IQs and the non sequiturs derived thereof, but you can't quote a single person in here who said it's not okay to be white?

Edited by 2046

Share this post


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

So you can quote oodles of "race realist" pseudoscience about average IQs and the non sequiturs derived thereof,

Attacking me won't make it so that more Africans can read and write. Attacking me won't make Nigeria become a patent powerhouse. Attacking me won't make more Africans or black inner-city kids graduate from school. Attacking me won't make IQ scores go up. Calling these numbers "pseudoscience" doesn't make them go away.

Tell me, do you have a single number that you can point to which says that I'm wrong?

Quote

but you can't quote a single person in here who said it's not okay to be white?

I never made the assertion that anybody in here had said "it's not okay to be white."

However, you said that it is NOT okay for me to say "it's okay to be white." Because a few other people also said it who are racists.

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses

Share this post


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

Attacking me won't make it so that more Africans can read and write. Attacking me won't make Nigeria become a patent powerhouse. Attacking me won't make more Africans or black inner-city kids graduate from school. Attacking me won't make IQ scores go up.

Tell me, do you have a single number that you can point to which says that I'm wrong?

I never made the assertion that anybody in here had said "it's not okay to be white."

However, you said that it is NOT okay for me to say "it's okay to be white." Because a few other people also said it who are racists.

You're neither needed or wanted for any of those things to happen.

Okay good, then since no one in here is challenging your whiteness, then you are cleared to shut up about it. Kay? Go elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 2046 said:

You're neither needed or wanted for any of those things to happen.

I never said that I was.

2 minutes ago, 2046 said:

Okay good, then since no one in here is challenging your whiteness, then you are cleared to shut up about it. Kay? Go elsewhere.

It's okay to be white. And it's okay for me to say so.

Share this post


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

This interview that Sam Harris conducted with the author of the 1994 book The Bell Curve should give you an indication of the state of science today. This man supports affirmative action and was still called racist for his book's findings.

I haven't yet listened to the interview you've provided and I don't know when or if I will be able to, but just to mention, I don't consider support for affirmative action and racism to be mutually exclusive; rather, I consider affirmative action itself to be racist.

7 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

That is why I have also used other metrics, such as the patent application rate, the educational attainment rate, and high school dropout rate. I have presented a plethora of numbers to back up my case... my opponents in this thread have presented zero numbers.

But these sorts of measures are equally as susceptible to the sorts of environmental factors we've discussed as any IQ test.

If the problem (or part of it) we find in rates of patent application, for instance, is attributable to literacy rates, or diet, or the general state of education (or disease, or warfare, or etc., etc.), then we're agreed that these are problems; but it isn't the same as the claim you've also made, which is that blacks are genetically intellectually inferior -- and I wish that you would stop running from this claim by trying to conflate it with other variables. Illiteracy can be a problem for blacks or whites, but that isn't what we're discussing. It seems instead to be the motte for your bailey.

7 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

The assertion you are making here is that 100% of the difference between race and intelligence can be attributed to environmental factors.

Close. I'm saying that if environmental factors can account for the differences we observe (in IQ tests, etc.) -- and I think that they can -- then we do not need to suppose unproven genetic factors (especially contra the work of evolutionary biologists like Gould). If sunlight and water suffice to explain the blooming flower, we do not need to invoke fairies.

7 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

What environmental factors would you propose that are so strong that they can account for the difference? Also bearing in mind that even correcting for every known environmental factor still results in a racial IQ gap in the United States.

The potential environmental factors at work are myriad, are legion, and I don't know how we would correct "for every known environmental factor" even if we could look at human populations in laboratory conditions, which we cannot. Suppose for a moment that blacks are generally treated differently than whites in the US, and that (broadly) this has an effect on self-esteem; don't you think that's the sort of thing which might show up in statistic measures of success down the line, including high school dropout rates and etc.?

We should note that this does not take into account any individual's efforts to rise above his circumstances, but if we're looking at populations with significant discrepancies in their initial context, I would not be surprised to find those patterns hold with respect to statistical measures of the general population over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

I haven't yet listened to the interview you've provided and I don't know when or if I will be able to, but just to mention, I don't consider support for affirmative action and racism to be mutually exclusive; rather, I consider affirmative action itself to be racist.

I would consider it to be racist, too... but his opponents wouldn't have.

8 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

But these sorts of measures are equally as susceptible to the sorts of environmental factors we've discussed as any IQ test.

Objectivism holds that individuals have the capacity for free will... to think or not to think. That is a form of causation itself which is dependent on the individual, not on his environment.

8 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

If the problem (or part of it) we find in rates of patent application, for instance, is attributable to literacy rates, or diet, or the general state of education (or disease, or warfare, or etc., etc.), then we're agreed that these are problems;

I'll grant you disease, but the general state of education and warfare are human-caused events. Why is it a problem that persists among many African countries and almost no European ones? MisterSwig says it's the Enlightenment. But Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea never had an Enlightenment, and at one point all of them were just as war-torn and uneducated as Africa. Nowadays they're doing very well for themselves. Why is Africa lagging behind?

8 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

but it isn't the same as the claim you've also made, which is that blacks are genetically intellectually inferior -- and I wish that you would stop running from this claim by trying to conflate it with other variables. Illiteracy can be a problem for blacks or whites, but that isn't what we're discussing. It seems instead to be the motte for your bailey.

I apologize for using that tactic... as you can see, even saying "it's okay to be white" is controversial. If I actually said, "blacks are genetically intellectually inferior to whites" then how do you think that would go over around here? Not very well.

Plus it is an incomplete explanation of my views. I do agree with you that a good portion of the difference in IQ is environmental. I disagree that all of it is environmental. It might not be that much, maybe only 10% genetic. But to say that it's all environmental ignores that the difference persists across vastly different environments, such as Africa and the United States.

8 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

Close. I'm saying that if environmental factors can account for the differences we observe (in IQ tests, etc.) -- and I think that they can -- then we do not need to suppose unproven genetic factors (especially contra the work of evolutionary biologists like Gould). If sunlight and water suffice to explain the blooming flower, we do not need to invoke fairies.

But if fairies had been scientifically demonstrated to pollinate other flowers, we would have to ask ourselves if fairies had pollinated the flowers we were looking at.

8 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

The potential environmental factors at work are myriad, are legion, and I don't know how we would correct "for every known environmental factor" even if we could look at human populations in laboratory conditions, which we cannot. Suppose for a moment that blacks are generally treated differently than whites in the US, and that (broadly) this has an effect on self-esteem; don't you think that's the sort of thing which might show up in statistic measures of success down the line, including high school dropout rates and etc.?

Except they're treated better than whites. They're given welfare handouts at a huge rate, and are given preferential treatment in college applications and many private sector jobs through affirmative action. Racial discrimination has been illegal in the US for 50 years. "Black is beautiful" is an acceptable thing to say.

Now you could argue that these things are actually deleterious to blacks... and I would agree... but to say that it would negatively affect their self-esteem? And negatively affect it to an extent that they couldn't succeed at high school, or IQ tests? That's quite a claim to make. I was bullied relentlessly throughout high school and I suffered from a disability, and I had low self-esteem, I still graduated not only high school, but college as well... with exemplary grades.

Additionally, what about the other side? Our society piles a lot of guilt on white people. Why shouldn't that negatively affect white IQ scores in the same way? Why are only blacks affected by this environmental factor of being "treated differently" and having "low self-esteem?"

Also, why does this self-esteem issue not show up for blacks in suicide rates? Blacks are actually three times less likely to commit suicide than whites in the United States. You'd think if they were treated so badly, they'd be more likely to kill themselves.

8 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

We should note that this does not take into account any individual's efforts to rise above his circumstances, but if we're looking at populations with significant discrepancies in their initial context, I would not be surprised to find those patterns hold with respect to statistical measures of the general population over time.

I see no good reason why Africa can't lift itself out of poverty just like the Asian Tigers did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grames said:

I am not guilty, and I am okay with being white.

im-good-enough-im-smart-enough-and-doggone-it-people-like-me.jpg.866f6055fcaee3a942845c21ed995eca.jpg

Has it dawned on you yet how thoroughly pathetic you sound to people with real self-esteem? Like I said before, there are two main ways people utilize this meme, either seriously as a self-affirmation of pride in one's white skin, or unseriously as a way to irritate the racists on the Left. It sounds to me like you're using it as the former. And, sorry, but SNL used to make fun of people like that. Really, you're probably gonna get hammered by the Left if they ever get their act together and realize how much you sound like Stuart Smalley. Right now they're too stupid to do anything but react emotionally. It's a damn shame the Left has no sense of humor anymore.

Share this post


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

I'll grant you disease, but the general state of education and warfare are human-caused events.

Disease gets no particular pass from me with respect to metaphysical versus man-made (rates of spread of malaria, AIDS, and etc., have much to do with human choice).

4 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Why is it a problem that persists among many African countries and almost no European ones? MisterSwig says it's the Enlightenment. But Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea never had an Enlightenment, and at one point all of them were just as war-torn and uneducated as Africa. Nowadays they're doing very well for themselves. Why is Africa lagging behind?

I think this accounts to the relevant regional histories, and ultimately (as we both believe in volition), to individual decision-making -- although when we're looking at large enough populations, which will encompass a range of people who focus to some greater or lesser extent, I think it's meaningful to discuss "environmental factors."

You know, it's up to an individual to think or not to think, but when (Asian) Indians are routinely brought up in Hindu households, for instance, it's not surprising to find large numbers of Indians who turn out to be Hindu; the specific environment plays a role in that statistical outcome.

If we wanted to look at the reasons for the success of Taiwan, Japan or South Korea -- well, that would be a huge topic (or, more likely, three huge topics). If the idea is that it is the inherent virtue of their race winning out, I simply must flatly disagree. If the supposition is that, well, there's a genetic component to this -- I don't see any reason why we should agree to any such thing, or even suppose it initially. And seeming objections to the position (including the existence of North Korea, the none-too-distant history of Japan, etc.) come quickly to mind.

4 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

I apologize for using that tactic... as you can see, even saying "it's okay to be white" is controversial. If I actually said, "blacks are genetically intellectually inferior to whites" then how do you think that would go over around here? Not very well.

Yeah, I don't suppose it would go over well (and given that I've maintained you've said as much in other words, I sorta don't think it has). But I would still prefer for people to say what they mean. And frankly I think it's a better look than trying to talk around one's central thesis.

As for "it's okay to be white," I wasn't initially familiar with the subject of this thread (and now I'm only passing familiar), but I gather that this meme was meant to stoke the identity politics shitstorm we apparently can't see our way out of. So my initial reaction is, I don't like it. Communication as much as anything else takes place in a context. I can appeal to the fact that the swastika has its origins in Eastern spirituality all I'd like, but if I draw one on my clothes, or tattoo it on my forehead, I should be aware that I'm communicating a message that will be received poorly.

That said, are there anti-white sentiments out there? Absolutely. And those are garbage, too, and no individual should accept any guilt for things he has not personally done, nor accept any supposed limitations accounting to his "race." That goes for black or white or anything else.

4 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Plus it is an incomplete explanation of my views. I do agree with you that a good portion of the difference in IQ is environmental. I disagree that all of it is environmental. It might not be that much, maybe only 10% genetic. But to say that it's all environmental ignores that the difference persists across vastly different environments, such as Africa and the United States.

I agree that there are big differences between Africa and the United States, but both regions have specific histories which can help to explain differing results among their respective populations.

4 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Except they're treated better than whites.

You believe so? I'm not going to argue the point right now (perhaps someone else will feel up to it, perhaps not), but I think it's... quite the claim. :)

I'm going to leave this here, and thank you for the discussion. It helps me to further contextualize recent discussions about immigration, the Confederate statue controversy, Donald Trump, and etc. It is apparent that there's quite the divide within the Objectivist community over these sorts of issues. I'm frankly a little bit worried by the whole thing, but I still think it's better that we say what we believe openly, even in conflict -- because sunlight, as the saying goes, is the best disinfectant.

Share this post


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

im-good-enough-im-smart-enough-and-doggone-it-people-like-me.jpg.866f6055fcaee3a942845c21ed995eca.jpg

Has it dawned on you yet how thoroughly pathetic you sound to people with real self-esteem? Like I said before, there are two main ways people utilize this meme, either seriously as a self-affirmation of pride in one's white skin, or unseriously as a way to irritate the racists on the Left. It sounds to me like you're using it as the former. And, sorry, but SNL used to make fun of people like that. Really, you're probably gonna get hammered by the Left if they ever get their act together and realize how much you sound like Stuart Smalley. Right now they're too stupid to do anything but react emotionally. It's a damn shame the Left has no sense of humor anymore.

Do you mind if I ask if you were also hectoring and lecturing the participants of Black Lives Matter like this?  Because if you didn't treat everyone equally, you are probably a racist.

Share this post


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

You say that derisively. Do you believe that it is improper to blame a man for his own failures? That it is improper to blame a group of men for their own failures? That is what Objectivism is all about, personal responsibility. There is no room in Objectivism for white guilt--or white pride. There is merely room to say that it's okay to be white, because there is nothing "wrong" with being a member of any race.

It is not me, but you,  downplaying the personal responsibility that "black" people must take. You do this by making the same argument that the leftists make: i.e. that "black" people are inherently less capable for no fault of their own. I know you say you didn't mention a cause. This is pretense; you clearly are. Not only that, with your false analogy with dog breeds, you are arguing for a specific biological and biologically-inherited cause. 

What distinguishes you from the leftist is that you don't think this warrants "white-guilt" or redistribution of wealth.

Edited by softwareNerd

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.

×