Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Harrison Danneskjold

Regulars
  • Content Count

    2617
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    41

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to Eiuol in What are your biggest issues with Objectivism?   
    I don't think she made that argument, so if you really think that's the position, please provide a quote.
    At the very least, the patch of land that the house rests on is in use. You physically cannot simultaneously use that patch of land at the same time as me. If you want to use that patch of land, you have to force me off of it (get a crane and push my house to the side) or you can persuade me to get off of it (trade money with me so that I give you the land that the house is sitting on). 
    Now, it might seem like this is all true of man-made resources, but not true of natural resources. The resources are there already! But here's a similarity: the value of those natural resources is man-made because those natural resources have literally no value until somebody figures out how to make use of the resources. The resources are unused, there is no other person occupying the land and doing stuff with it. Anyone is completely free to walk by and start using the land, but again, no one will be making use of the land if they don't know what to do with it. 
    If the reason is, perhaps, that all the people in the town are extreme racists and for that reason deliberately make your life more difficult, we would have a major moral issue here. The issue wouldn't be property rights anymore, though. 
  2. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to Easy Truth in What are your biggest issues with Objectivism?   
    The assumption seems to be:
    1. Western culture is "unattractive"
    2. People are magnetically drawn to Islam
    3. Muslims are not into survival qua man
    4. They come here because they hate us
    But:
    1. Western culture is far more attractive to the young than Islamic tradition. After Several Generations, there is "tendency" to separate from their origins
    2. People are not drawn to Islam, they are mostly born to it. There is no strong tendency to join.
    3. These are people who want to flourish like anyone else, with the same desires and inner conflicts as any of us. Their fundamental tendency is to be human.
    4. They come here because they (tend to) think "we" are better than their country ... unless we assume they are "undesirable" and change their minds
    The issue with Sharia law is overblown
    1. Already arbitration takes place in Synagogues, Churches and Mosques
    2. A higher court can overturn their judgements
    3  Sharia law, or religious legal enforcement, is based on agreement of the people involved
    4. The threat of sharia law taking over the US does not exist 
       Sharia law can never take over because of the support for separation of church and state
       Support for separation of church and state comes from each religion wanting to be protected from the other.
       It is not because of "rational" atheists
    One simply has to do a simple calculation if, the majority of Muslims were not like other humans who tend to want to live their lives and not bother others, 1.3 billion of them would have made far more of a mess than we see.
  3. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to dream_weaver in What are your biggest issues with Objectivism?   
    I was thinking of the abandoned mine (in an effort to mine the same reference) in Michigan, visited by the vacationing lovebirds.
    They had driven across Michigan to the ore mine. They had walked through the ledges of an empty pit, with the remnants of a crane like a skeleton bending above them against the sky, and someone's rusted lunchbox clattering away from under their feet. She had felt a stab of uneasiness, sharper than sadness—but Rearden had said cheerfully, "Exhausted, hell! I'll show them how many tons and dollars I can draw out of this place!" On their way back to the car, he had said, "If I could find the right man, I'd buy that mine for him tomorrow morning and set him up to work it."
    The next day, when they were driving west and south, toward the plains of Illinois, he had said suddenly, after a long silence, "No, I'll have to wait till they junk the Bill. The man who could work that mine, wouldn't need me to teach him. The man who'd need me, wouldn't be worth a damn."
    It is described as abandoned. Still, Readon thinks of buying it. Interesting. At what point does historically platted land get returned to unowned status legally, and thus subject to the historic precedent of homesteading, or perhaps the yet to be developed Southall Land Grant Claim?
    Did you find that or make that?
  4. Haha
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to MisterSwig in What are your biggest issues with Objectivism?   
    I see. Well, then, perhaps I can interest you in a bottle of my new perfume.
     
  5. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to DonAthos in Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence   
    There's a world between starting armed conflict and Trump's actual relationship with not only Kim Jong Un, but Modi, Erdogan, etc., etc. Trump had clear admiration for "strong men" and the liberation that tyranny affords a leader, and this had practical influence on his foreign agenda. But honestly, I wouldn't care so much about his relationship with North Korea if Trump were not so damaging to democracy in America.
  6. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to MisterSwig in What are your biggest issues with Objectivism?   
    If you accept the essence of Objectivism then you're an Objectivist in my view. Just like people who accept the essence of what Christ said are Christians.
  7. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to necrovore in What are your biggest issues with Objectivism?   
    I've actually tried that, and it's surprising how often it is that the most fundamental disagreement is in metaphysics. Too many people believe in the primacy of consciousness.
  8. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold got a reaction from dream_weaver in What are your biggest issues with Objectivism?   
    But your own philosophy, which you live by every day, certainly is.  And if one must arrive at precisely each conclusion Rand ever put into writing (including, as the OP'er pointed out, homosexuality) then there has only ever been one Objectivist and I doubt there will ever be another one.
     
    On a purely personal note I find the "student of Objectivism" or "admirer of Ayn Rand" terminology extremely self-deprecating and sad.  It's one thing if you can't bring yourself to actually LIVE the philosophy, but if you're doing everything you can to live up to your own ideals then I think you deserve to say so.  As I intend to! 
     
    No.
     
    Fundamentally, each of us has a right to the freedom of movement (including international movement) so long as we're not doing so for any nefarious purpose (such as terrorism).  There are no two ways around that.  And while it's true that we can't simultaneously have open borders and a welfare state, one of these things is already strangling the West to death regardless of WHAT we do with our borders.
    This is neither to say that O'ism is a "closed" system (which I don't believe) nor that anyone who advocates for closed borders automatically ceases to be an O'ist; only that certain tenets of the philosophy are more essential than others, and that Rand's conception of individual rights is a rather core component of it.  If you remove or alter that part then it ceases to be the philosophy of Howard Roark or John Galt and becomes something tangibly different.
    That being said...
    While we should have "open" borders that allow any civilized person to live wherever the Hell they want, it does make sense for us to have some sort of screening process to ensure that potential immigrants are, in fact, civilized people who aren't planning on manufacturing sarin gas or instituting Sharia law as soon as they arrive.  And since we should be trying to constrain the welfare state as much as we possibly can, it seems prudent to also say something like no immigrant can ever qualify for any sort of government handout, for example.  Once we had something like that in place we could then start trying to talk about whether we should really be giving handouts to anyone at all.
    The Objectivist position on borders is that they should be open - within reason.
    Incidentally, I wouldn't say that you can't still call yourself an Objectivist if you disagree with that position - just that you're currently wrong.    But that happens to us all.
    Do we know that, though?
    I once knew an immigrant couple from Nepal who, despite not speaking the best English, acted like some of the most American people I've ever met.  The one time I made the mistake of referring to them as Nepali-Americans I was swiftly told on no uncertain terms that they were full-fledged Americans like myself.  That couple took about two years to become almost entirely integrated (with the exception of some slight accents that I'm sure they've ditched by now).
    I bring them up, not to say that transplantation is quick, but simply to point out that it depends on whom we are talking about transplanting.  Some people drag their feet while others are eager to get it out of the way ASAP.
     
    And those who drag their feet about it, and set up little miniature versions of their respective homelands - do they actually want to BE American (or British)?  If not then what we should really be asking about are their motives for trying to enter our countries in the first place.  I also know a number of Somali immigrants to my area who have no intention of ever integrating, learning English or getting a job; they came to America for the handouts.  Handouts which should not exist in the first place.
    And yet children do not automatically inherit their parents' philosophies (as I am living proof of and suspect that you probably are as well).
    Could you elaborate on what you mean by that?
     
    Objectivism doesn't deny the existence of feelings (including hunger, fear, sexual desire, etc).  All it really has to say about them is that not all are valid (i.e. some feelings are not worth paying any attention to) and that they aren't a method for decision making.  They can be perfectly valid data on which to base your decisions, but the method should consist of rational thought.  So I'm not quite sure what you're trying to point to.
     
     
     
    The majority is lucky to inhabit MY world with me!
     
    PS:
     
    Too much of a focus on politics is not good for you.  I know it can be very hard to focus on anything other than politics nowadays (I've been struggling with it quite a bit since the start of the COVID era) but the trajectory of your own life is much more important.  If you rationally think that the country you're in will only continue getting worse then you should move.  And (although I don't think you've actually said this I'll just mention) what most people accept as their own philosophy should certainly have ZERO relevance to what you accept as your own.  Furthermore (as in the above music video) the best way to get others interested in your own philosophy is to actually make something of yourself and show them there's something of practical value to it.
    Hyperfocusing on the beliefs of the majority is a path to the dark side.
  9. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold got a reaction from DonAthos in What are your biggest issues with Objectivism?   
    But your own philosophy, which you live by every day, certainly is.  And if one must arrive at precisely each conclusion Rand ever put into writing (including, as the OP'er pointed out, homosexuality) then there has only ever been one Objectivist and I doubt there will ever be another one.
     
    On a purely personal note I find the "student of Objectivism" or "admirer of Ayn Rand" terminology extremely self-deprecating and sad.  It's one thing if you can't bring yourself to actually LIVE the philosophy, but if you're doing everything you can to live up to your own ideals then I think you deserve to say so.  As I intend to! 
     
    No.
     
    Fundamentally, each of us has a right to the freedom of movement (including international movement) so long as we're not doing so for any nefarious purpose (such as terrorism).  There are no two ways around that.  And while it's true that we can't simultaneously have open borders and a welfare state, one of these things is already strangling the West to death regardless of WHAT we do with our borders.
    This is neither to say that O'ism is a "closed" system (which I don't believe) nor that anyone who advocates for closed borders automatically ceases to be an O'ist; only that certain tenets of the philosophy are more essential than others, and that Rand's conception of individual rights is a rather core component of it.  If you remove or alter that part then it ceases to be the philosophy of Howard Roark or John Galt and becomes something tangibly different.
    That being said...
    While we should have "open" borders that allow any civilized person to live wherever the Hell they want, it does make sense for us to have some sort of screening process to ensure that potential immigrants are, in fact, civilized people who aren't planning on manufacturing sarin gas or instituting Sharia law as soon as they arrive.  And since we should be trying to constrain the welfare state as much as we possibly can, it seems prudent to also say something like no immigrant can ever qualify for any sort of government handout, for example.  Once we had something like that in place we could then start trying to talk about whether we should really be giving handouts to anyone at all.
    The Objectivist position on borders is that they should be open - within reason.
    Incidentally, I wouldn't say that you can't still call yourself an Objectivist if you disagree with that position - just that you're currently wrong.    But that happens to us all.
    Do we know that, though?
    I once knew an immigrant couple from Nepal who, despite not speaking the best English, acted like some of the most American people I've ever met.  The one time I made the mistake of referring to them as Nepali-Americans I was swiftly told on no uncertain terms that they were full-fledged Americans like myself.  That couple took about two years to become almost entirely integrated (with the exception of some slight accents that I'm sure they've ditched by now).
    I bring them up, not to say that transplantation is quick, but simply to point out that it depends on whom we are talking about transplanting.  Some people drag their feet while others are eager to get it out of the way ASAP.
     
    And those who drag their feet about it, and set up little miniature versions of their respective homelands - do they actually want to BE American (or British)?  If not then what we should really be asking about are their motives for trying to enter our countries in the first place.  I also know a number of Somali immigrants to my area who have no intention of ever integrating, learning English or getting a job; they came to America for the handouts.  Handouts which should not exist in the first place.
    And yet children do not automatically inherit their parents' philosophies (as I am living proof of and suspect that you probably are as well).
    Could you elaborate on what you mean by that?
     
    Objectivism doesn't deny the existence of feelings (including hunger, fear, sexual desire, etc).  All it really has to say about them is that not all are valid (i.e. some feelings are not worth paying any attention to) and that they aren't a method for decision making.  They can be perfectly valid data on which to base your decisions, but the method should consist of rational thought.  So I'm not quite sure what you're trying to point to.
     
     
     
    The majority is lucky to inhabit MY world with me!
     
    PS:
     
    Too much of a focus on politics is not good for you.  I know it can be very hard to focus on anything other than politics nowadays (I've been struggling with it quite a bit since the start of the COVID era) but the trajectory of your own life is much more important.  If you rationally think that the country you're in will only continue getting worse then you should move.  And (although I don't think you've actually said this I'll just mention) what most people accept as their own philosophy should certainly have ZERO relevance to what you accept as your own.  Furthermore (as in the above music video) the best way to get others interested in your own philosophy is to actually make something of yourself and show them there's something of practical value to it.
    Hyperfocusing on the beliefs of the majority is a path to the dark side.
  10. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to dream_weaver in What are your biggest issues with Objectivism?   
    You start with yourself and let others manage themselves.
    It would not be an Objectivist case. It would only be an objective case were I so inclined.
    Consider, too, the role compulsory education contributes as an obstacle going forward.
    If you're still intent on changing the world (or even just standing up for America) consider the advice provided in the hidden comment by William McRaven:
     
     
  11. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to Reidy in What are your biggest issues with Objectivism?   
    Empirical psychology is not exactly a part of philosophy, but the Objectivist writings make several assertions in this field without providing more than intuitive or anecdotal evidence:
    Personality predicts sexual attraction.
    Sexual attraction predicts personality.
    Artistic taste predicts personality.
    Personality predicts artistic taste.
    Childhood literary exposure predicts adult character.
    Philosophical training and belief predict intellectual efficacy.
    This is not to say that one couldn't test these claims, only that I haven't seen such tests.
  12. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to dream_weaver in Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence   
    The 65-Year-Old Helping to Un-Deplatform Parler
    Jeffrey Wernick is not your typical tech investor.
    When Wernick came to Parler late in 2019, he understood that his involvement would be more than financial. Matze, he said, “was looking not just for money but for mentorship.” Parler was getting little traction, and one of Wernick’s first suggestions was to not renew the contracts of the influencers the site was paying to attract users, except for one: Dan Bongino, the Secret Service agent turned lib-owning podcaster. Parler had its best download days when Bongino read its ads on his show. “We don’t even need a script with this person; he believes it,” Wernick recalled saying. [Bold: mine]
    The power of conviction!
    Even though the service is once again being hosted on SkySilk, an outfit in California installing the app to access the service is complicated by requiring a third party installation manager app.
  13. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to Eiuol in Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence   
    "Leaving South Korea after a wonderful meeting with Chairman Kim Jong Un. Stood on the soil of North Korea, an important statement for all, and a great honor!" -DJT
    and more:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20190411191505/https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-president-moon-jae-republic-korea-bilateral-meeting/
    "Kim Jong Un has been, really, somebody that I’ve gotten to know very well and respect, and hopefully — and I really believe that, over a period of time, a lot of tremendous things will happen."
    Not worse than sanctioning death camps, no one said that, no idea why you even suggested needing to make a comparison. But it's not just a distasteful way of speaking. It reflects his beliefs. Namely the belief that a literal dictator is honorable...  
     
  14. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to Eiuol in In Today's Crazy - Vote with your wallet   
    I don't know what hysteria you are talking about with regard to me. I'm perfectly happy to talk about it. A lot of what I said apparently from my memory had to do with the notion that a smiling label is not used to judge people but to make sales. I wouldn't have said anything if it weren't for the strange notion that it is always moral to make money if trade is voluntary and there is no immoral way to make money if trade is voluntary. That's the kind of thing I respond to. But I'm not trying to "cancel" anyone when I talk about race. 
    Don't know what you're talking about. I was just rephrasing what I meant. I was distinguishing between historical facts versus historical portrayals/characters. But as I was trying to say, I don't think this topic is much up-to-date anymore for race. And I don't think it's very interesting anymore. I mean, is there another race related topic you're interested in?
  15. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to whYNOT in In Today's Crazy - Vote with your wallet   
    Might seem off topic, at first. I was reminded last night catching a glimpse of the film I'd seen before, The Pursuit of HappYness. I don't know how it slipped through the movie moguls' attention, but here's a rare movie that encapsulates America. I.e. A black man who is not a victim. In this fortuitous passage I watched, the character played by Will Smith, despondently muses to himself after a particularly trying day coping with his little boy  (heroic, too) and two jobs: WHY did Thomas Jefferson come up with "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? Did he know that it was only to be "a pursuit", never achieved? (Roughly). He by dint of energy, values and application eventually realizes his ambitions (based on true life story of a man who built up his own insurance company). I first considered, now here's a man who could never tolerate a Jefferson statue be torn down. And, "freedom"? that's what you make for yourself. Wherever there is no "systemic" restriction put upon you, in a free nation. Irrespective of past injustices. Very smart topic, this, and extremely incisive responses made; beginning from an innocuous product it touches all bases of present 'Social Metaphysics' experienced in every country. 
  16. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to Repairman in In Today's Crazy - Vote with your wallet   
    "The famous image of Aunt Jemima was based on the real image of Nancy Green, who was known as a magnificent cook, an attractive woman of outgoing nature and friendly personality, an original painting of which sold for $9,030 at MastroNet. The painting was rendered by A. B. Frost, who is now well known as one of the great illustrators of the Golden Age of American Illustration.[13]"
    This quote is from the Wikipedia article covering the life of Nancy Green, the original celebrity personality representing the soon to be discontinued brand, known as, Aunt Jemima. 
    I hope there is common ground among the other contributors to this thread regarding the nature of the decision of the Quaker Oats company. Their decision is a meaningless gesture pandering to the Social Justice Warriors, who will, no doubt, glow with pride for their valiant campaign to retire poor Aunt Jemima. Quaker Oats can breathe easier now. But, I can't truly cooperate with any sort of boycott of Quaker Oats products, as I can't remember the last time I've purchased any. Pancakes and syrup are a little too rich for my breakfast diet.
    This has all been somewhat educational; I was unfamiliar with the story of Nancy Green, until yesterday. I have been aware of the very controversial "mammy stereotype," or archetype, which every you prefer. According to the available resources, Nancy Green made a success from her personality, as well as her apparent abundance of other virtues. Whether or not one might approve of her persona, it served her well, as it served the needs of industry marketing of a fine product. She was born a slave, but she chose to be the person she became, with the help of free enterprise. She was not forced to cook pancakes; she was a free woman. I don't know how much money she made, but she didn't die in poverty, as far too many other African-Americans of her generation did. I think it would be reasonable to promote awareness of her life story, as well as other early-twentieth century African-American celebrities and entrepreneurs. Regardless of the means of her success, Nancy Green deserves some credit for not only achieving the American dream, but for her efforts in promoting the dream to others.
    I stand by my position that it seems pathetic, silly, and wasteful to try to persuade others to believe in the heinous nature of a harmless logo. The heinous nature of racism will never be properly understood, when SJWs waste their 15 minutes of fame trying to harpoon red herrings such, "plausible" racism found in marketing logos. How will the conversation be taken seriously as this goes on? The mammy-image of Aunt Jemima had been revised for years, but some people will take offense at anything. You can remove the image of every human, anthropomorphic animal, vegetable and/or extraterrestrial alien from children's cereal boxes, and it won't make a damn bit of difference in progress toward changing the justice system. If you'll indulge me a slippery-slope argument, we may all be satisfied, if not thrilled, when the food products available arrive in plain beige containers, marked, Brands X, Y, and Z, after all mascots have been deemed unlawful. And the only place you'll find a representational image of slave-holder George Washington will be the statue on display in Trafalgar Square.
    And that's about all I have to say about that. Eioul, go ahead and pick all of the nits from my statement you want until your heart's content.
  17. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to StrictlyLogical in In Today's Crazy - Vote with your wallet   
    There is a lot to unpack here.
    First we have to acknowledge that an image is subject to interpretation.  The meaning of something viewed in the form of a communication has context... in what it is affixed to, by whom it is presented, and to whom it is presented, all play a role in what it represents.
    The star of David is NOT a hate symbol when displayed proudly by a Jewish person, but it is when applied to a Jewish person's clothing by a Nazi.  The image itself is not objectively anything other than simply what it looks like... what it represents is contextual.
    A stereotype, to be recognized AS SUCH, requires the viewer to understand at least on some level that the representation is more than merely the concrete.  A logo of a black man committing a criminal act is NOT a stereo type... (unless you are a white supremacist) it is a depiction of an individual committing a crime.  Now in a specific context, perhaps on a pamphlet by a white supremacist organization, such a logo represents a vile stereotype.  Here it is not merely a depiction of a criminal who has what is in reality an irrelevant characteristic for judgment but it centrally depicts a characteristic which is intended to be the irrational and tribal basis upon which to judge the person... namely race.
    A TV show with a student who excels at school is NOT depicting a stereo type if that student happens to be Asian.  IT's a fact some people excel at school, and a fact that some people are Asian, and sometimes these overlap.  It would be racist, or thinking through the racist lens, to AVOID portraying an Asian kid who excels at school.  Something about the context has to be more than mere depiction of a concrete, it has to indicate... somehow, usually contextually, "and this normal for a person such as X", or "and this is to be expected".
    There needs to be something about the context to illustrate that the message to be communicated involves a sense of characterizing "the other" and that this typifies "them".
     
     
    [slight aside
    In a rare spark of genius, the importance of context is demonstrated well here:
    ]
    A stereotype, good or bad, must involve more than the image AS SUCH presented.
    As for whether positive racial stereotypes are bad... I do not think it can be said to be true as a blanket pronouncement.  Self-believed traditional Western European stereotypes of white persons being civilized, intelligent, virtuous, etc. was not inimical to the flourishing of a white person striving to be the best he or she could be.  The lack of such a positive stereotype applying to persons of ALL races .. is bad of course.
     
    When it comes to historical stereotypes, it is clear that in history certain people felt or thought certain things about people based in erroneous generalizations.  These erroneous generalizations were exploited in communications, and yes some advertising.  But what we need to remember is that people's thoughts about others and their generalizations change.  Images lose their original meanings when what was communicated is no longer operative in the present day communicator nor in its recipient.
    Mammy stereotypes were racial, and would be racial today if used as communication between persons who are consciously aware of it.. but a so called image of a "Mammy" is not always in and of itself a stereotype... an image of a overweight woman of color does not always imply a slave/servant/nanny of history.
    An overweight woman of color should not give up her dream of becoming a chef just because of some old stereotype, and she should have no bones about plastering her image, AS a cook on her products.
    Slavery being abolished, Mammy's are just are not a thing, and to the extent than anyone in the vast majority of the population is actually AWARE of what Mammies were, they would know that honest images of them would in no way be a negative reflection on who they were or how they lived their lives nor any negative reflection on the population of persons who happen to have the same skin color.  OF course such depiction would bring up the specter of slavery if the context were a strong enough indicator.
    SEEING Aunt Jemima today, however, does not communicate "Mammy" to the vast majority of the population, nor is it intended to invoke any nostalgia surrounding historical slavery.
     
    Aunt Jemima may have started out as a Mammy, but the modern brand was not communicated as such nor received as such by the vast majority of the population, both the brand and the public had evolved.  It had become a brand in its own right, a symbol unto itself, not an instance of another symbol.
     
    My position is that as a brand Aunt Jemima may have started out as a Mammy but it had evolved into a friendly domestic face, that stood on its own, that was actually GOOD for race relations in the vast majority of the population.
     
  18. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to StrictlyLogical in In Today's Crazy - Vote with your wallet   
    I read the article.
    People will see what they want.
     
    To give the context this is what I said:
     
     
    She was a cook for advertising purposes, as I have said, not a black person.
    The conceptual and subconscious content of the brand which is effective, is not about race, unless you want to imagine the general modern population as literally being white supremacist (consciously, subconsciously, whether they know it or not) getting a kick out of the fantasy of having a black-slave cook.  This simply is NOT true, and I would suggest you stay away from the leftist identity politics Kool-aid for a while.
    The brand IS effective, from a sales and marketing point of view because she is identifiable as a cook, with a recognizable face, which is friendly to boot.  Her race is irrelevant to the brand as it functions with regard to sales in the general public.  Race is not an OPERATIVE part of the brand, it's merely a part of who the mascot is, like the fact that she has a mouth and two eyes..
    Her race does NOT function to ridicule, degrade, reduce, her character as regards to her "esteem" in the minds of the overwhelming majority of those who buy products with her on the label.  Moreover, she does not operate as a force to ridicule, degrade, reduce, black people in the world.  If my son sees that bottle of syrup, while our family is having brunch with one of our black friends, there is ZERO, I mean literally ZERO negativity being caused by that label towards our friend in my son's mind.
    Were my son to grow up with Aunt Jemima, (which now he wont) the only result caused by it in his mind in adulthood towards black people, overweight people, and women... would be positive, nostalgic... and maybe a little bit sweet.  A bottle of syrup does not and cannot serve to DEFINE all of the overweight population, all people of color, nor all women, and insofar as it does instill any preconceived notions... they are positive and friendly.
    Of course there are some white supremacists and some people of color who see the historical context more keenly, to the point that how they see it (or how people may have seen it many decades ago) becomes a reality for them:  and they cannot see that the brand simply IS not operative, as racist, in the vast majority of the population.  It is operative only in terms of trust and recognition. 
     
    But people will see what they want... and that is the root of all the crazy out there now.  We would do well to try to attenuate rather than amplify the crazy.
     
    We disagree.  Avoid the arrogance of assuming I have not informed myself just because I disagree with you.
     
    The measure of someone else's being informed, is not to be gauged simply by the level with which you agree with them.
     
  19. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to dream_weaver in In Today's Crazy - Vote with your wallet   
    After a bit of searching, here is the song that purportedly popularized the name 'Aunt Jemima' written by Billy Kersands in 1875, and had acquired three different sets of lyrics by 1889. 
     
  20. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to StrictlyLogical in In Today's Crazy - Vote with your wallet   
    Social media, mainstream media, and the concentration of power in big data are creating a crazy left-wing suppression of anything ... well sane.
     
    "Aunt Jemima" is no more.  The syrup itself will not change and will be just as delicious, but it will be sold under a new logo and name. (By the way, if sales TANK, this might turn out to be a perfect example of how brand name recognition actually... duh...  IS important)
     
    Now buying Aunt Jemima in the past never meant I endorsed the so-called racial stereo type... if anything I liked the idea of a friendly smiling person providing me with trusted delicious syrup... and that was that.  I certainly don't care about the color, religion or occupation of The Quaker guy on my oatmeal box, the cream of wheat fellow, or Uncle Ben (these also may change... with the exception of possibly the white guy in the funny hat)... they do NOT represent to me or any consumer ANYTHING about politics, religion, or socioeconomics... they stand for what they appear to be... a familiar friendly face identifying a product I know, trust, and love... beckoning me to purchase or consume.  If anything these faces (with one exception) increased visibility of smiling benevolent people of color in the pantries and tables of the homes of mainstream suburban white families.  And now, they will disappear... to be replaced by what?  (white smiling faces? or better yet the mug of a strong white woman who wouldn't stoop to "serve" you your syrup but is nonetheless humble enough to agree to glare at you from the bottle?)
    In any case, the products will not change, the syrup, the oatmeal, the cream of wheat, and the rice, will all be just as yummy, and the quality (assuming the "progressives" have not infiltrated the processing plants) should be just as good,  but the absence of the friendly face I knew will be all too apparent... as will the knowledge that the "producers" are pandering to imagined problems screeched about in the Twitverse of clown world.
    The wallet is a very powerful tool, you trade for what is a higher value, but you also support individual players or actions within a complex interrelated economy, and affect, as with each purchase being a vote, the way the world is shaped on transaction at a time.
     
    So is it in your interest to taste the same quality of foodstuff you know and once were comforted by... or do you give a different producer a try.. one who has not become part of the circus?  I think there are good arguments for both, but in the end it has to take into account the long term... and having a meal that tastes 5% better tomorrow, might not be worth losing your chance to vote with your wallet to live in a better world long range...
     
     
  21. Haha
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to MisterSwig in How many masks do you wear?   
    Just the one when it's required to enter a store or something.
     
     
  22. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to Boydstun in Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence   
    I know this continues a sidebar from the main topic, but I just wanted to thank Harrison for the link to that Bio on Youtube. That is pretty remarkable for only 20 minutes. I've three minor complaints. The use of photo scenes were a big plus, but the photos of Rand herself were sometimes out of synch with the period the presenter was talking about. Secondly, the medium does seem to allow for a way to tell the sources of one's biographical information in the presentation point-by-point, so on some particulars, I'm left in the cautionary grain-of-salt mode. Lastly, the rise in success of Rand's fiction after her death (naturally with all the personal help and political influence that success has brought along) was not simply by word of mouth and by crises such as the contraction of 2008. Those sales were significantly driven up by design and unremitting effort of the Ayn Rand Institute and Leonard Peikoff: efforts getting Rand's fiction into young hands and efforts getting more academics trained up and efforts in books on Rand's philosophy and on her fiction.
  23. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold got a reaction from Easy Truth in Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence   
    Oh, boy.
     
    Did you know that when Kim Jong Un first rose to power he called all his top aides to a meeting in which he disassembled a machine gun and force-fed the pieces of it to several dogs (who presumably had a very rough time of passing said machinery through their digestive tracts) to convey what he intended to do to anyone who wasn't 100% loyal?
    Also he has no butthole; he doesn't need one (since he DOES NOT excrete that way) so he was simply born without one.  That story I'm slightly more skeptical of but anyone in North Korea who's caught contradicting it is simply executed.  Also all the birds in Korea sang in Korean when he was born and the dolphins he talks to know the cure for cancer and wish they could give it to mankind, if only the evil empire of America wasn't actively preventing it.
    Either he or his father have also erased the word "I" from the North Korean lexicon - just like in Anthem.  This is a perfectly normal and common word in South Korea and yet nobody in North Korea has ever heard it before.
     
    Either your love of Trump is clouding your judgement over other, only tangentially-related issues or you just don't know what it's like to live under that monster's thumb.  If it's the latter (and if you're comfortable taking my word for it) then I'll just say that Kim Jong Un is easily as evil as Hitler was, if not worse.
    How would you feel about a president who shook Hitler's hand and said that he "obviously loves his people very much"?
    "Peace in our time" as Chamberlain put it ...
  24. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to DonAthos in Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence   
    It seems to me that this kind of thing gets said regularly around here without proper challenge. The idea of "left" versus "right" is mostly a fiction. It's not a distinction that has much real meaning. It's "traditionally right" (in America) to be hostile to certain social freedoms (e.g. abortion, sex, drugs) and "traditionally left" to be hostile to business freedoms, but what they both have in common is that they are both unprincipled and generally destructive to freedom. (I say "traditionally" because, being unprincipled, these things can quickly and easily flip from one side to the other, turn on a dime. The left was pro-free speech until it wasn't; the right valued law and order until the 6th. They aren't really defined by ideals, so much, but tribal affiliation.)
    Distinguishing between "left" and "right" is crucial for understanding modern American politics, it's true, but from the position of the Objectivist Politics? They're better defined, understood -- and rejected -- by their statist commonalities. The difference between Biden and Trump, for instance, isn't that one is pro-rights while the other is anti-rights: they both of them, and their parties, represent mainstream America. Mainstream America is not in a place where it will elect someone pro-rights to high office, or support/sustain them if they somehow managed to get there.
    Neither is it heading in that direction. America does not even understand what's at issue, yet. Insofar as we have taken it upon ourselves to spread the foundations of Capitalism and individual rights -- reason and reality (let alone rational egoism) -- we are utterly failing. Currently, the left is being overwhelmed by identity-politics progressives and the right is failing to fight off a bugnuts-crazy, conspiracy-minded takeover. We are caught between Scylla and Charybdis, and they are growing.
    As for a right or left "lean," it's kind of like saying that one has a slight preference for cyanide over strychnine. I mean, I guess? I've heard it has a sort-of almond thing, going on. But the difference is mostly inconsequential in the long term. In my experience, the left throws better parties and plays better music, for whatever that's worth. (Though I do have a soft spot in my heart for the various fundamentalist Christmas parties and holiday concerts I've attended over the years; it's often wholesome in such an earnest way that it touches that deep-seated It's a Wonderful Life/Charlie Brown Christmas place in me.)
    It mostly accounts to me and where I'm at in my life, Harrison. Since becoming a father, my patience for my daughter's bullshit has gone up dramatically, but my patience for the bullshit of everyone else has gone down by the same measure. But you know, I never quit for long (enough).
  25. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to Easy Truth in Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence   
    I will grant you that the left leaning pundits have a dominant position in the media (TV radio).
    But I will not grant you that the left is widely accepted SERIOUSLY. If it were, South Africa, with a communist constitution would have already outlawed ownership. If it were, Europe would have had actual socialist medicine as in no private institutions. 
    Leftist ideas may be in fashion but the majority of the world do not want communism. Even leftists will attack communism. Meanwhile, there is no laissez fair capitalism in the world, only different degrees of crony capitalism i.e. some degree of fascism. 
    The actual danger is what Rand thought, fascism with leftist slogans. That is the imminent danger in this country (US).
    Collectivism is the problem, but you label what you don't like as collectivism. What you do like i.e. Trump's agenda is collectivism too.
×
×
  • Create New...