Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Harrison Danneskjold

Regulars
  • Content Count

    2829
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    41

Everything posted by Harrison Danneskjold

  1. You're not really trying to brag about the Jewish Space Laser lady now, are you? You - ... You do realize how insane the rest of her belief system is, don't you? I really don't think that's a member the Q movement should be bragging about. If she came out tomorrow and endorsed Ayn Rand I'd be mortified, because - well, Jewish Space Lasers. Unfortunately, in general I would tend to agree with that. One of the reasons I'm so frequently tone-policing my peers here (indeed, a large part of the reason why I'm reviving this old thread) is in the attempt, in my own small way, to comba
  2. To be fair, I think he simply found his identity as an Objectivist under assault and wished to buttress that. It seemed to be less about his overall credibility and more about whether or not he truly is "one of us". And I think we should try to be fair, here. I don't think he'll end up changing my mind, but if we don't at least attempt to leave that possibility open then we can't ask him for the same courtesy, can we? I also wanted to mention that V for Vendetta a great movie which everyone should see at least once. Your political ideas could use some work but I've got to respect
  3. To clarify on my last point (now that I have a moment to truly focus on it): What you're talking about is essentially giving each president veto power over the votes of each and every citizen if they happen to elect a "traitor". This is not a smart suggestion. Google defines treason as the "act of betraying one's own country, attempting to overthrow its government or assassinate its sovereign". Now, if we were to stick to this definition (which would apply equally to Antifa and the 1/6 mob) then perhaps such veto power wouldn't be such an issue - only this doesn't seem to be t
  4. This is specifically what's dangerous about this form of thinking. The Electorate - c'est moi!
  5. For what it's worth I'm quite happy he didn't listen to you. There are quite a few inferential leaps in there with not much reasoning shown between them. And even if the media does fear Q, that doesn't say anything whatsoever about its truth or falsity (as @dream_weaver alluded to in his comment about the "worldwide effects of Islam and Christianity"); maybe they just think your movement is a dangerous bunch of nut jobs. I don't know whether or not that's true, nor do I have to; it's just one of the numerous possibilities you leapt right past in order to reach your conclusion.
  6. To an extent, I agree. The mainstream media certainly is trying to whitewash the far left (think "antifa is only an idea") while demonizing the far right. Putting that aside, though, it seems obvious that anyone of any political stripe who advocates for political violence is a bad person who knows they have no ideological arguments to offer (actually, that shouldn't even need to be specified, but just to be on the safe side). What might not be obvious is the possible utility there could be in underscoring the very fact that they have no coherent arguments (as evidenced by any appeal to intimid
  7. Are QAnon belief systems so wide as to permit such a characterization of "Darkwing Donald"? Of that we are in perfect accord.
  8. That is actually a bit abnormal. If I remember correctly (and I'm speaking purely off-the-cuff here on a cigarette break, so I may not be) I believe most people think primarily in auditory fashion, as a sort of "inner monologue". I know that's the way I do (although I almost always have an inner soundtrack playing as well). So congratulations - you're slightly abnormal! Maybe that's why you don't seem to be recognizing the secret passphrase ...
  9. The hierarchical nature of concepts comes from the nature of conceptualization. In no version of "the pluriverse" could you start teaching an infant grammatical ideas about verbs and adverbs before they'd learned at least "walk", "run", and several other examples, at minimum.
  10. I might point out, in addition to the fact that sunlight is the best disinfectant, the further fact that avoiding the discussion of a certain idea makes it look like you could not refute it in the open. In the case of QAnon I think this would be giving it far too much credit. I engage with members of the Voluntary Human Extinction movement (whose ideas I consider the very lowest of the low; far worse than any Communist or Nazi). A little less than a year ago I met a coworker who was actually racist towards Europeans, and would often ask me why white people did certain things or what sor
  11. Alright. I'm sorry for getting quite so snippy about it, then; I had assumed that you'd known about it. Suffice it to say that, far from there being occasional legitimate reasons for the odd person to keep their identity a secret here, it's actually a pretty good standard for basically everybody (except mad lads like myself and, apparently, you).
  12. 🤣 Sorry. I was speaking sort of off the cuff, as usual, and should probably work on paying a bit more attention to the details. Regardless of whether the exact term was "reinstated" or (the one you actually used) "restored" doesn't really make a difference to the gist of my post - that we shouldn't be treating you like we just watched you eat a baby. I'm sorry about the terminological mix-up but it doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
  13. You are aware of the term "doxxing" right? Look - my name is William Harrison Forrester Jodeit. Now that this is on the internet anyone from anywhere in the world could potentially use it to link everything I've ever said on this forum to who I am, in real life, and potentially figure out how to confront me in my own home. I don't really care. To be perfectly frank, I've got some anger issues and don't really mind the occasional confrontation. But not everyone is like that. If we're going to ask DA what his real name is then it's only fair that you tell us yours
  14. Certainly. If I remove myself from society, the rest of the world will continue turning just fine without me - only I won't have to deal with them. That's the point. This is so weird. To recap, DA mentioned the possibility of Trump being "reinstated" either through the courts or reelection. Alright; one can argue about whether or not the courts are going to do anything about this last election (and if one was feeling particularly uncharitable one might even characterize such an idea as a bit unhinged) but it's neither advocating violence nor conspiracy theories.
  15. For Francisco D'Anconia it was. The idea was that they'd simply allow their society to collapse of its own dead weight and then rebuild a better one in its place. It was always about rebuilding a better world but this did require the death of the old one, and Francisco was the one striker who had to actively destroy his part of that in order to accelerate the process. I don't think we're at the point where that is rational, since we're still free to speak about these things. As long as logical argument is a valid option then that is the one we should use in order to fix the old system.
  16. Yes, I am, which is why I asked if there's some context in another thread that I'm missing. Firstly, there is an appropriate time and place for a violent insurrection (as the founding fathers observed). It certainly wasn't on 1/6 and I agree it's a very bad thing if he supports what happened then, but in general there are rebellions which should be supported. Secondly, although it is a bit off-the-rails to believe that Trump will be reinstated, if it was because we found all this evidence of alleged voter fraud - would that be a bad thing? As explained in my previous post I real
  17. Maybe. I'm not sure. If we do want this country to continue existing then our electoral system must be maintained. People need to know (not as an act of faith, but for good reasons) that their votes count, which would be helped by reinstating Trump if (hypothetically speaking) we had good evidence that he'd actually won the election. On the other hand, the peaceful transfer of power between successive administrations also needs to be maintained very strictly, and the kinds of games Trump was playing about that part of it are so reprehensible that it might be dangerous to ever allow him
  18. There is no such thing as an unarmed interstellar vehicle.
  19. Exactly. If an intelligent alien species had the technology to come all the way over here, and for some reason wished to do so, there is no reason for them to bother hiding anything. At that point a single science vessel of theirs would be more than a match for all the combined armies we could possibly raise, they'd probably be able to recreate our species (Jurassic Park style) from any random corpse and if they truly needed our cooperation they could just say "hey, anyone who helps us with this project we're doing; we'll make them immortal and, from your point of view, pretty much godli
  20. I am. I was raised as a fundamentalist Mormon. I heard plenty of "eyewitness testimony" about all kinds of impossible things by the time I was ten. I don't think those who offered it were all crazy or lying - but if you're willing to let your emotions run roughshod over your rational faculty, in certain situations, then you'll end up spouting all kinds of crazy nonsense in precisely those situations. The fact that unidentifiably blurry photos of something and eyewitness testimony are all the evidence we have for UFO's places it in precisely the same epistemic bucket as human parthe
  21. When he runs again in 2024? Or as in: he rightfully won the last one and all the shadowy forces which stole it from him will somehow, someday just decide to give it back to him?
  22. You seem to be forgetting about Francisco D'Anconia who had to spend many years of his one and only life on the deliberate destruction of one part of society (his copper company) in order to prevent his "hitchhikers" from feeding on it for many more centuries. No; nobody in Galt's Gulch promoted the absence of any society whatsoever, nor do I think DA would if we simply asked him. But there are societies which do deserve to collapse and if you don't remember that aspect of Atlas Shrugged then you might be overdue for another revisiting. Is there some other thread I missed in
  23. What? He called 1/6 the insurrection that it was meant to be and (judging by the question asked in the OP) seems to be wondering whether that was justified or not. If it is the appropriate time to shrug and let this country dissolve then it is also the right time to muck up its internal workings in whatever way we can. I don't think we're there just yet and I'm trying my damnedest, whenever I discuss politics with absolutely anyone, to try and show them the fundamental importance of free speech; to postpone that point in whatever small ways I can. But we are undeniably very
  24. That's not funny. Certainly. Ayn Rand herself defined it as the freedom of speech. There are only two ways for us to deal with each other: words or guns. So long as it is possible for us to settle our disagreements with words it is still worth using them in the attempt to maintain our society. Once that's gone - well, whatever material comforts we could still gain from that society, we're better off without them. Great Britain may have already crossed that line, as demonstrated by the infamous case of Mark Meechan. He taught his girlfriend's pug to raise its paw up
×
×
  • Create New...