Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
MisterSwig

How Nazis Recruit Normie Conservatives For Meme Wars

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, 2046 said:

Grames: "Blood and soil" a good slogan for you to chant, yes or no? Why or why not?

Of course my example of a cap and trade ad with "air is good" as the slogan. You can bet you conservative types would be all moist "exposing" and lambasting it. "It's a Clinton backed group with a liberal agenda!" we would be told. And yet you have no problem siding with white nationalists. Also you both want to close the borders and deport the illegals. Hmm, enquiring minds can only draw their own conclusions.

I don't want to close the borders, just deport the illegals.  

You don't understand how memes work, you keep harping on your genetic fallacy argument, and now you want to go all Fact and Value on us and be the purest Objectivist in the thread.  You are not giving us your best performance here.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say I'm guilty of the genetic fallacy, but since the thesis I'm advancing challenges the implicit packaging and the efficacy of promoting a proposition tied to certain groups, and does not tie the veracity of the concept with the group association, then this accusation is of no avail.

Also I never referenced the Peikoff essay.

But I can understand why you didn't want to answer the question. It would force you to acknowledge that slogans and campaigns have context, and that embracing them involves embracing that context. Waving it off by saying it's just a meme is merely evasion.

Share this post


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

Grames: "Blood and soil" a good slogan for you to chant, yes or no? Why or why not?

Of course my example of a cap and trade ad with "air is good" as the slogan. You can bet you conservative types would be all moist "exposing" and lambasting it. "It's a Clinton backed group with a liberal agenda!" we would be told. 

Of course I would expose a Clinton group, because liberals are an existential threat to America. Nazis are not. They're just a nuisance.

Quote

Andyet you have no problem siding with white nationalists.

"Siding" as in wanting them to have their own country so they get out of mine?

Quote

Also you both want to close the borders and deport the illegals. Hmm, enquiring minds can only draw their own conclusions.

Conclusions such as...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Exactly:

True slogan from Clinton group = expose!

True slogan from white nationalists = endorse!

You're literally a charicature 😹

Share this post


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

But I can understand why you didn't want to answer the question. It would force you to acknowledge that slogans and campaigns have context, and that embracing them involves embracing that context. Waving it off by saying it's just a meme is merely evasion.

Despite the fact that it's what sparked this thread, I think that the "it's okay to be white" meme is nearly the least important thing here. There is an explicit claim to white racial superiority, and I find the lack of response to that from many thread participants almost as meaningful as the claim itself.

That said, regarding the meme -- it's true that it's okay to be white (or any other shade of color). If that was the only thing in contention, then I expect everyone here would be on the same page, because the reasonable way of understanding it is that skin color doesn't matter to one's individual character, and thus any anti-white propaganda (and it's out there) is wrong.

But you're 100% correct that these things have a context, and that we must consider the context. For instance, if there was going to be an "it's okay to be white" rally -- who do we think would show up to it? Are those the people we want to be marching with? And if we adopt the same slogans, will we be identified with them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there is no categorical imperative to engage in argumentation, one has to balance the value of arguing the veracity of racial superiority with the opportunity costs foregone. But race is boring and so is everyone who whines about it.

I'd rather sit back and enjoy the forum moderators exercising their free market rights and see the racists removed from the forum (again.)

Edited by 2046

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2046 said:

True slogan from Clinton group = expose!

True slogan from white nationalists = endorse!

You're literally a charicature

No, I'm literally somebody who is self-interested. Leftists actively go out of their way to destroy my self-interest through welfare, taxes, and anti-white sentiments. White nationalists are neutral in the culture war... they just want their own country and to be left alone. Fine. Give them Australia or something, I don't really care. More America for the rest of us.

I support those things which enrich me and oppose those things which detract from me. Vs. yourself and MisterSwig, who feels obligated, like a sort of Kantian duty, to morally condemn literally everything in the world which isn't Objectivist. Hint: you don't have to. You get to decide. You get to be selfish with your moral judgments and only explicitly condemn that which furthers your own interests to condemn.

I don't morally condemn my allies, even when we disagree on some minor point. Such as most Trump supporters... we're allies, doesn't mean we share every belief in common.

Nor do I morally condemn somebody who is of literally no concern to me... like most non-evangelical Christians, or white nationalists. I can choose not to morally condemn even if I disagree morally.

Yet you and Swig condemn everything under the sun. You verbally sacrifice yourselves to whatever cause isn't objectivism by giving it the time of day and bothering to loudly condemn it and alienate yourself further. All while claiming to be selfish individuals.

Selfish self-sacrifice, I would call it. Mixed with pseudo-intellectual trolling.

You're the most basic of jokes.

1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

There is an explicit claim to white racial superiority

In one area only, that of intelligence. I am not claiming that whites are unconditionally superior, like a Nazi would claim. In many areas, blacks are objectively superior. Please see below where I address 2046.

1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

and I find the lack of response to that from many thread participants almost as meaningful as the claim itself.

See above. There is no Objectivist duty to respond to, or argue with, something that you don't agree with.

55 minutes ago, 2046 said:

I'd rather sit back and enjoy the forum moderators exercising their free market rights and see the racists removed from the forum (again.)

You first, buddy. I'm not racist against any individual. Nor am I racist against blacks in general as a group. I'm not a racist, period. Racism is a belief in superiority, not in mere differences. Do you acknowledge that blacks on average have darker skin and curlier hair? Doesn't make you a racist. Differences aren't a bad thing.

The only difference I've thus far discussed is intelligence, where whites have the edge, but there are other differences which favor blacks, and I'd be remiss if I didn't mention them.

Whites aren't able to just walk into Africa without sunscreen and not get roasted. Or even out in America on a sunny day. Statistically, whites in the US are about 3x more likely to kill themselves than blacks. Blacks are statistically far better athletes than whites, as well. Look at any professional football team, those are 70% black. Look at who wins track matches in the Olympics. It ain't usually white people. This is speculation, but if there were ever found a gene for creativity, I'd also probably give the edge to blacks. So many talented black musicians, for only 13% of the US population.

Life would suck if we only had white people around. It would be like a boardroom meeting all the time. No fun at all. We need art, we need athletics, we need black people. They're amazing, incredible as a race. I actually miss black people... I used to live in Atlanta and then I moved to Colorado Springs, a pasty white city. One of the few things I miss about the South. I'd never move to an all-white country; I'm not a white nationalist.

People are different in unique and varied ways. Just like dogs or horses. Acknowledging this difference is part of what makes us human, and what makes the human race as a whole, so varied and incredible. We need blacks, whites, Asians, Jews, Indians, all sorts of people. They're all part of the rich tapestry of mankind.

Find me a racist who would say any of what I just did.

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses

Share this post


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

Whether a statement is divisive or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the truth, no matter how people feel about it. Emotions are not tools of cognition.

I'm almost positive that divisive is not an anti-concept. It has deep roots in Latin and 16th century English. Its core meaning of "tending to cause disagreement or dissension" remains to this day, and that's how I meant it. And whether a statement is divisive or not is entirely relevant when your stated purpose is to divide people by racial intelligence.

As for "polarize," its political usage didn't appear until 1949, and Rand wrote about it in 1971. She identified it as an anti-concept meant to suppress "debate on fundamental principles." This strikes me as the opposite of divisiveness, which is used to stir up debate. 

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


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

And whether a statement is divisive or not is entirely relevant when your stated purpose is to divide people by racial intelligence.

I categorize groups and averages based on objective characteristics for which I have numbers and statistics to do so. My stated purpose was not to "divide people" based on racial intelligence. My stated purpose is actually to unite people by realizing that we have differences on a group level, but on an individual level everybody deserves individual moral evaluation on the content of their character, as Martin Luther King would say.

Whites have the edge in intelligence, but there are many areas in which blacks are superior to whites. Physical resilience, mental resilience, physical athletics. Is that a "divisive" statement, too? Or is it acknowledging reality that only one group can go outside in the sun and not get roasted, or get skin cancer? Is it divisive to recognize the predominance of African-Americans in sports not just in the United States, but in other black countries at the Olympics? Is it divisive to recognize that blacks are 3x less likely to kill themselves? I'd consider that a superior trait which is not explicable by environment, but is probably very much due to genetics and the prevalence of mental disorders.

I explain this more in my response to 2046. I'm not a racist. I believe that mankind is a rich tapestry of different groups of people who are good at different sorts of things... on average, within each group you will find exemplary individuals in all areas of human endeavor.

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses

Share this post


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

So you would join in common cause with the white nationalist ad campaign, except that little fact you dislike, so you blank it out.

 So, my mind is made up for me by merely existing... in this country? Or, perhaps I don’t have to accept any “context,” no matter how obnoxious.

Share this post


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

There is an explicit claim to white racial superiority, and I find the lack of response to that from many thread participants almost as meaningful as the claim itself.

There is an explicit claim, but no real argument. There is just MUH WHITE BRAINPOWER. Oh, and some periodic pointing toward genes. Is there any actual data that makes the connection between genes and intelligence? I haven't seen any. We can't even agree on whether IQ tests measure innate faculties. When someone points me to an actual scientist who claims that race is a determining factor in IQ test results, then I'll consider it. So far I haven't seen anything worthy of a response, except for the points I've already addressed.

Share this post


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

When someone points me to an actual scientist who claims that race is a determining factor in IQ test results, then I'll consider it.

Neuroscientist Sam Harris, and political scientist Charles Murray.

Psychologist Dr. J. Philippe Rushton.

 

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2017 at 7:10 PM, softwareNerd said:

You should get some papers that explain how various variants of twin-studies are designed.

I'm quoting you here because in the Rushton video that I linked in the post directly above this one, he actually discusses the Minnesota Twins Study at around 24:57.

Share this post


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

Neuroscientist Sam Harris, and political scientist Charles Murray.

Not exactly my cup of tea, but here are my initial thoughts after listening to the interview:

1. There is still no genetic data presented. If you're going to make an assertion about genes partly determining IQ, you should have some genetic data as your first piece of evidence.

2. Murray doesn't even assert a certainty. He asserts a probable claim that it "seems like" genes and environment determine IQ. And upon this unproven foundation he builds social policy recommendations.

3. He doesn't like affirmative action. Okay, fine. Neither do I. But his reasoning is based on the idea of a "mismatch" between the student's IQ and the school's status. If an affirmative action student gets into a school despite not meeting the academic standards required of other students, then this is unfair to the affirmative action student because he is less likely to succeed at that school. Why is he less likely to succeed at that school? Because his IQ is too low. And why is his IQ too low? Because of his genes and his environment. Murray claims to care about the individual student, yet in the end he judges the student's potential for academic success based on an unproven, wishy-washy theory. A theory that says the genetic component of IQ could be between 40-80%, which makes the environmental factor between 20-60% of the story. What kind of science is that? The margin of error is 40 points? That means the primary factor could be environmental, and still he wants to place students based on racial IQ averages? Sounds like junk science to me.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


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

I'm quoting you here because in the Rushton video that I linked in the post directly above this one, he actually discusses the Minnesota Twins Study at around 24:57.

I could point you to other literature, but it would be pointless given your approach to twin studies and to causation as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a way to completely cut a topic out of this site's display? This topic is revolting me, with what I presume are ordinarily rational people behaving like trolls and worse. Remember benevolence, people, and don't be so quick to assume that a difference of opinion proves evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's simple: no benevolence for white nationalists. If objectivists, libertarians, and supposed individualists can't get that right, then they deserve to be relegated to the periphery like they have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2046 said:

It's simple: no benevolence for white nationalists.

I don't think this is a question of mere benevolence, but even sanction. Maybe it's not the intention, but I read much of the silence in this thread as tacit endorsement. It's amazing to watch.

Share this post


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

I don't think this is a question of mere benevolence, but even sanction. Maybe it's not the intention, but I read much of the silence in this thread as tacit endorsement. It's amazing to watch.

Initially, I stayed out of the discussion because I'm busy and the topic seemed silly.  Then the discussion degenerated to ad hominem, and that was that as far as I'm concerned.  I will not get involved when people decide to throw mud at one another.  That just makes me dirty, to no benefit.

The benevolence I mentioned was not for the evil ideas allegedly held by certain people.  Those ideas deserve condemnation.  It is for the people accused.  Do people here really think we have cross-burning racists here?  Is the evidence sufficiently strong as to justify the condemnations being made?  I don't think so.

 

I personally think some people here have some pretty idiotic ideas.  But I attribute those ideas to ignorance, pigheadedness, and other venal sins that we all -- including me -- are capable of, not to some major evil in the people holding them, and will continue to do so until the evidence demands that I conclude otherwise. That is what I mean by benevolence, in this context.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DonAthos said:

There is an explicit claim to white racial superiority, and I find the lack of response to that from many thread participants almost as meaningful as the claim itself.

Why must anyone respond to any nonsense at all?

Share this post


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

 

21 hours ago, 2046 said:

"It's not okay to be white and racist

Sure it is. We have freedom of conscience in this country. Saying "okay" means that you accept reality as it is. It's not "yes" or "no," it's just "okay." Acceptance does not imply approval.

Rand wrote that racism "is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage--the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry...Racism claims that the content of a man's mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited."

Carts tries to wiggle out of the racist branding by shoving the IQ TEST meme down our throats. However, it's still not clear whether IQ tests measure the cognitive apparatus, or just its content. Thus Carts might be a racist, or he might not be. We really have to shift our attention to the moral realm in order to answer this question. How does Carts' belief in IQ tests affect his moral views?

Well, he believes that "it's okay to be white." This represents a first baby step toward, as Rand would put it, "ascribing moral significance to a man's genetic lineage." And when confronted with this accusation, he evades all evidence pointing to the racist origin and meaning of the phrase, and continues repeating it like a mantra over and over, without critical analysis, because, you know, even the Nazis have some good ideas worth embracing. He keeps repeating it until something magical happens. Suddenly "okay" does not mean any sort of "moral approval" anymore, it now merely means "acceptance of reality." And since racism is a thing, Carts doesn't have a problem with the next logical meme: "it's okay to be white and racist." He has been conditioned to accept it as a part of reality. And now even the word "accept" has no moral connotation. Whatever. That's okay. I accept it. It's all good, dawg. His individual moral capacity is in the process of being destroyed and replaced with group loyalty. With tribalism.

 

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


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

Why must anyone respond to any nonsense at all?

Where do you find me saying that people must respond to nonsense?

I'm saying that I find the choices people make -- whether to respond or remain silent, in this context -- meaningful. It helps to inform me as to their character.

58 minutes ago, Invictus2017 said:

Initially, I stayed out of the discussion because I'm busy and the topic seemed silly.  Then the discussion degenerated to ad hominem, and that was that as far as I'm concerned.  I will not get involved when people decide to throw mud at one another.  That just makes me dirty, to no benefit.

The benevolence I mentioned was not for the evil ideas allegedly held by certain people.  Those ideas deserve condemnation.  It is for the people accused.  Do people here really think we have cross-burning racists here?  Is the evidence sufficiently strong as to justify the condemnations being made?  I don't think so.

You're responding to me, so I don't know whether you are also referring to me, but I don't think I've accused anyone of burning crosses. Yet I believe that there is racism on display in this thread nonetheless. If that identification amounts to a "condemnation," well, make the most of it, I suppose, though I would not describe myself as having "condemned" anybody. If I finally choose to condemn you or anyone else, I expect you'll know it.

58 minutes ago, Invictus2017 said:

I personally think some people here have some pretty idiotic ideas.  But I attribute those ideas to ignorance, pigheadedness, and other venal sins that we all -- including me -- are capable of, not to some major evil in the people holding them, and will continue to do so until the evidence demands that I conclude otherwise. That is what I mean by benevolence, in this context.

Again, I don't know whether you consider yourself to be responding to me, or anything I've said, but I'd like to believe that I have demonstrated the sort of "benevolence" you're describing. And yet I'm discussing the ideas that have been raised in this thread -- would you like to discuss those ideas as well, or shall we continue to talk around them (so as to avoid "getting dirty")?

6 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Rand wrote that racism "is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage--the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry...Racism claims that the content of a man's mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited."

Carts tries to wiggle out of the racist branding by shoving the IQ TEST meme down our throats. However, it's still not clear whether IQ tests measure the cognitive apparatus, or just its content. Thus Carts might be a racist, or he might not be. We really have to shift our attention to the moral realm in order to answer this question. How does Carts belief in IQ tests affect his moral views?

Well, he believes that "it's okay to be white." This represents a first baby step toward, as Rand would put it, "ascribing moral significance to a man's genetic lineage."

I would not sleep on the idea of "social or political significance," either. Or do we believe that Carts' ideas on race and intelligence (as well as other characteristics) have nothing to do with his position on immigration, or his seeming backhanded support for white nationalism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Invictus2017 said:

Do people here really think we have cross-burning racists here?

Are we only allowed to condemn the ones who burn crosses?

Share this post


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

You say I'm guilty of the genetic fallacy, but since the thesis I'm advancing challenges the implicit packaging and the efficacy of promoting a proposition tied to certain groups, and does not tie the veracity of the concept with the group association, then this accusation is of no avail.

Also I never referenced the Peikoff essay.

But I can understand why you didn't want to answer the question. It would force you to acknowledge that slogans and campaigns have context, and that embracing them involves embracing that context. Waving it off by saying it's just a meme is merely evasion.

You are still wrong, truth belongs to no one and cannot be tainted in any way by its origin.

Apopolgies for the Fact and Value reference, that was the other poster  MisterSwig.

I don't resort to "its just a meme" to be dismissive, I say you don't understand how memes work, how and why they become popular and are repeated.  Memes are fairly self-contained; the only context needed to understand "Its okay to be white" being to resolve a potential ambiguity about the referent of the word white.  

I don't even understand why you ask the blood and soil question, but I'll answer no because its mysticism.

Edited by Grames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2017 at 1:43 AM, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Hopefully the irony is not lost on the people who label me, and then proceed to argue with a prejudiced version of what views I must therefore have as a "race realist."

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.

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.

×