Leaderboard

In July 1986, I was with my first life-partner Jerry (d. 1990) sitting in the bleachers that had been set up in Manhattan along the Hudson. We were watching the Tall Ships sailing by. In the evening, the President would throw a switch, sending a laser beam across the river to activate the illumination of Liberty, which was reopening after a long refurbishment. The night sky would be filling with glorious fireworks on and on as if an umbrella over Manhattan. That afternoon was sunny, as the ships sailed by. There were smiles and friendliness all around. Behind us a woman wore a classy T-shirt with a stylized line drawing of the Statue of Liberty, with only the word Forever. A day or two before, the US Supreme Court had handed down their decision affirming the constitutionality of States criminalizing same-sex sex acts. Oklahoma, for example. That was one of the reasons we had moved from our native Oklahoma to Illinois (where Jerry became an attorney), where we were legal. That sunny day with the ships was so sad to me. The photo below is from 2002 (photo by native New Yorker, my husband Walter). In another year, the Supreme Court would reverse, and thereby make same-sex love-making legal throughout the land. I always remember that I learned of the 2003 decision while I was at Logan in Boston, learned from a newspaper headline. And I always remember my first thought was of Jerry and me that day with the Tall Ships. Tomorrow belonged to me, these todays, each a “smiling day to be free to kiss in the sunlight and say to the sky ‘behold and believe what you see, behold how my lover loves me.’”

You stated it as a fact. The to be restored president. If you meant he might be reelected, you would say that. If you meant that some Republican leadership are trying to get Trump into the presidency because they believe the election was stolen, you would say that. In fact, you would have said that right away when I asked you to clarify. What you did instead was provide a cryptic answer. You wanted me to divine your answer based on you stating that January 6 was an insurrection. That really has nothing to do with any of the above. Unless you are one of those nut jobs. You know, the people who want an insurrection so that Trump will be restored to the presidency. The people who actually use that language of restoration or reinstatement. No one else uses those terms in this context. In other words, you can claim those less extreme things, but you are also claiming the extreme things (but won't admit it). The more extreme QAnon belief in some upcoming event. Hence "to be" restored - you're waiting for the event to happen. No, he just showed up after a very long hiatus. Initially, maybe he thought nothing of it so forgot or didn't bother to say more. But he definitely didn't forget to address the question once I asked it. It was the first post in this thread. I agree with this - for different platforms. Not for moderated forums.

HD, I looked up "doxxing" - hadn't heard that term before. My name is Stephen Craig Boydstun. I've never used any other name on the internet. (I came to be shown as another name -Guyau- on the the posting site Objectivist Living, but that was due to a glitch that happened when they updated their program a few years back; not my doing.) Anyone has been able to google my name and find out all about me, from posting sites, publications, Walter's blog for us, and on Facebook. No problems from bigots or anyone here at our home. My Story

"[Reality] is something that humans actively participate in producing when their minds interact with their environments." That's 11 minutes in just about. It wouldn't be so insane if he meant something like "the society people live in is shaped by the way minds interact with the environment". That would be true, but obviously that doesn't mean each society is literally a different reality... It's like he forgot that when people say "ancient people lived in a different world" they don't literally mean a whole separate reality. My conclusion: Never go full subjectivist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wVagQ_LVd4 I find that he really was attempting to give a basis to say that indigenous people deserve respect. In a way, he sees the indigenous people (especially those exterminated by the Spanish) as offering worthless ideas and were thoroughly primitive, so the only way he could offer any value for them is to say that they lived in a literally different reality. They are so worthless to him that he has to create a whole separate reality for them. The truth is, people like the Inca had great ideas as well as bad ideas even compared to Europeans. He doesn't have to dismantle objective reality: If he actually cared about indigenous people, he would be telling us about what they got right about reality, especially the things that Europeans could not figure out.