Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Repairman

Regulars
  • Content Count

    769
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

Everything posted by Repairman

  1. "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.
  2. The best I can describe your argument is that it is weak. I asked for proof, i.e., evidence that Aunt Jemima is a negative stereotype, and you respond with a satirical magazine article, the cover of a book of someone else's opinion, and your own subjective reiterations of the superiority of your claims. Weak, at best. Will you not at least concede that Nancy Green, the bases of the Aunt Jemima character, actually was once a living human being?
  3. The Onion article also points out the absurdity of your case.
  4. How does Aunt Jemima qualify as a racial stereotype? One could just as easily say Redd Foxx was a racial stereotype. What is so offensive about Aunt Jemima, that is, objectively, what proof have you?
  5. I've got to admit, it's a bit confusing. It wasn't that long ago that critics of modern advertising hurled complaints about the overexposure of wafer-thin Caucasian women, usually blondes, as the ideal feminine image for the purpose of marketing consumer goods and services. They insisted that more African-American women with more "realistic" proportions and deeper skin-tones need to be represented in advertising. What ever happened to that? I'm 6' 6", and I've been called "Jolly Green Giant" on more than one occasion. Maybe I'll initiate a movement to remove that guy from the shelves. While I'm not unsympathetic to folks who want to make changes, removing the image of an underappreciated success, such as Aunt Jemima, is a mistake and lowers the dignity of the more serious discussion. Success stories are hard to come by; wouldn't it be better to learn more from her biography, instead of air-brushing her out of history and continue the rhetoric that there is no such thing as "the American Dream"?
  6. Anyone expecting of the governments of the world, or the gatekeepers of popular culture to swing toward condemnation of the current cultural trend will be disappointed. Expecting any organization to engage in a counter-movement to the current culture will result in disappointment. Anyone spending time or money on any organization that claims to wage such a counter-movement will likely find they have wasted their time and/or money. My only recommendation is to support the very few innovators producing cultural products that reinforce Objectivists points of view. There are producers of movies, music, literature, graphic novels, Youtube videos, alternative school systems, and many forms of popular culture that persuade individual opinions. There are public speakers who may not have any idea what Objectivism is, and yet they convey some of the ideas valued in Objectivism. The situation is not hopeless, but it will require a proverbial sea-change of popular culture to counter act the current cultural norms. I don't know how far things will get, but my approach has always been to take control of those matters in one's own life, and worry less about providing proper direction for a disoriented mob. Am I a bystander in the decline of Western Civilization? I will leave that for others to decide, if they wish. But if I really want to make a contribution to progress toward a more rational society, I would become one of those innovators of new and rational ideas, and find a way to market/distribute those ideas.
  7. Dadmonson, with regards to debate, first, it helps to think through your interlocutor's argument. Ask yourself, "what are the most likely counterpoints." For example: Trial lawyers are allowed to preview their opponent's deposition. You don't have that advantage, so you will need to plan ahead. Second, do some research into the hierarchy of an argument. Learn to recognize logical fallacies. Third, don't be disappointed by your inability to persuade. You may not be aware of the full impression you make on some people, and you may have caused your opponents to confront an element of truth for them to work out for themselves. I don't rank myself too highly as a debater. I don't find too many people worthy of my time.
  8. It''s never too late, my friend. I hadn't discover Ayn Rand until I was 46. But it wasn't life-changing, so much as it was a re-defining of semantic concepts, such as "sacrifice," and "the common good." True rational selfishness needs clarity, and Objectivism provides that sense of clarity.
  9. Welcome to the forum, Giemel, Your experience seems similar to my own. Reading through the many posts, you will find that there are as many differing views contesting to be the most rational point of view. I wouldn't worry too much about trying to identify as Objectivist, as I would see it more as an aspiration, rather than an identity. Most people I've discussed ideas with have never heard of Ayn Rand, let alone any philosophical school of thought. Most people are religious and anti-intellectual. There's little you can do about it. In conversation, I usually identify as "rational egoist," if that's any help to you. If they wish to know more, they need to listen, or it's their loss. In any case, it's a comfort to know our ranks are growing.
  10. Unless I'm mistaken, the culprit guilty of authoring the idea of "justified warfare" in Christianity was Saint Augustine (Augustine of Hippo). His writings are not included in the New Testament, but Western theology takes Augustine pretty seriously.
  11. What is it that you're hoping I'll post? I'm content to observe the discourse, and make my judgements. Or am I not allowed to judge?
  12. Human, you seem to see things as they are, without considering an optimistic vision of the way things could be. While I commend you for your grasp of the predicament facing Western Civilization, your emphasis on the multitudes of collectivist irrationality, my best counter-argument is that until the worst outcome is manifest, the best within each of us must continue the struggle to achieve the best outcome, by whatever definition you hold as the standard of the "best overcome." And so it is true. We make the best use of our freedom to exchange information, to innovate or engineer, and to create our own enterprises. I recommend to you to try to disregard the masses and their collectivist agenda. When conditions allow, argue the best case for reason to those who know only how to follow. Perhaps they may find new leaders one day. You may never "convert" some people, but if one individual begins to doubt his/her beliefs, you might make them aware of the fact that there are alternatives to mainstream myopia. Objectivism celebrates the great achievements of capitalism, and other movements advocating personal prosperity, constructive purpose, and entrepreneurial success are gaining popularity. Using our freedom of communication, you could create a video exposing the absurdity of the socialist agenda. This is a very important question: A regular cycle of history, or a Second Dark Age??? So many modern nation-states have experienced the pains of reforming runaway socialist economic systems. If we learn anything from it, I'm fairly confident that the USA will not have to endure the worst privations that have resulted in the failure of other economic systems. If they're unaware of the causes, they will only continue to treat the symptoms. It sure would be a shame, and it'll be wild ride to the bottom. Either way, the men of the mind may go on strike for a period, but eventually a few of them will emerge, and the arch of history marches on.
  13. Human, please, forgive me for not reading the entire commentary of your pessimism regarding human nature. That being said, I'd like to address your basic inquiry: Speaking strictly for myself, and not as an "expert" on the studies of Objectivism, my optimism is based on the fact that the human race persists. It's as simple as that. Or, I could offer more, and point out that between 1949 through to 1991, the shadow of nuclear annihilation presented the very real possibility of ended humanity, or to say that least, civilization as we know it. Rationality may not displace the less desirable aspects of human nature in a single generation. I've witnessed progress, and yet, as you, I can't easily shake off the pessimism that irrational people seem to gravitate to places of power, sometimes very dangerous power. If judged by the improving standards of living for more and more of the global population, there is much cause for hope. Given that the same technologies that improve human life can be used to reduce our liberties, or even enslave us, we have ever greater reason to be vigilant and engaged in the confrontation of those that wield great power. Man's greatest nature, that which makes him distinct from the animals, is his ability to reason. And so long as we have the freedom to reason, hope springs eternal.
  14. I couldn't help but to notice this was the first day in months that the word, "impeachment" wasn't mention on NPR.
  15. And your very pointed question is: ????? Are sure it's not a very pointless question?
  16. "He repays a teacher badly who always remains a student." This curiously appeared on the Forum's front page as a Random Quote, author Unknown. I thought it was appropriate.
  17. Jose, self-education means that you friend study material independent of an instructor. We cannot spoon-feed philosophy to you. You must make the honest effort. It would be best moving forward that you respond in complete sentences without any ambiguities. It would be senseless to re-cap the mistakes of the past. What, if any Objectivist literature have you read?
  18. Jose, I don't know if this is progress, but at least you're admitting that your purpose to all of this nonsense is your objection to Objectivism. Or perhaps a dislike of Ayn Rand. Or is there any purpose? Have you read anything Ayn Rand has written? The question you've posed seems to be related to perception and epistemology. Is this correct?
  19. Can’t find a way to take a decision using just objective criteria))) So, you're incapable of taking decisions. (taking decisions?) Ok, your problem, not mine. MisterSwigs has pointed out that there is no "objective criteria." And you support this claim with evidence. You're scenario lacks any criteria through your persistent inconsistencies. The simple replies you respond with indicate a total lack of desire to arrive at any useful point. If you are quite certain you wish to discuss nothing, you are doing just fine.
  20. Here's an example: I ask you what it is that you wish to discuss, and you evade by directing me to look back at other earlier posts, as if I'm going to play your silly game of denial. So, let's try this again: What is it that you wish to discuss? You did the same thing with dream_weaver, when he asked for clarity as which one was "the pupil." Jose, Objectivism isn't for everyone. Whenever I say that, I am struck with a tinge of sadness, and some people will disagree with me. Nonetheless, there are people who refuse to "let go" their beliefs they've lived with all of their lives, and something as truly radical as Objectivism seems to them to be alien. Now, your skills as a debater have serious shortcomings. If you see yourself as an opponent of Objectivism, you're approach to opposing it is not working, and yet, you ceaselessly follow the same pattern of evasion, confusion, and ultimately claiming victim status, by claiming that "you guys are poor teachers." We are not your teachers. No one is at fault for failing to educated anyone who is unwilling to learn. So far as I've read into this thread, no one has claimed to be a teacher. If you wish to be educated, as I've said before, educate yourself. Now, what exactly is it that you truly wish to discuss? (And you might consider starting a new thread, rather than continue this disaster.)
  21. Jose, You have been evading a genuine discussion. This is evident whenever you answer a direct question with an other question considerably more vague. Even more so, this is evident when you make assertions that you contradict or amend in later responses. The reason no one is taking you seriously here is for the facts: 1) you're scatological continuity reveals mischief rather than mistaken conceptual clarity; 2) when offered an explanation, you claim that the explanation is poorly presented and that you need a teacher that sees from your "worldview"; and 3) please, don't take this personally, but your use of the English language appears to frustrate everyone on both sides. I informed you that there are Spanish translations of the very best Objectivist literature. Consistently, you show no interest in examining Objectivism from its fundamentals. If it is a discussion you want, exactly what is it you wish to discuss?
×
×
  • Create New...