Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by MisterSwig

  1. We interviewed David Kelley about his history in the Objectivist movement, that time ARI tried to buy him out, and his view on open Objectivism among other things. I'm a closed system guy so we debated that issue a bit starting around 40:07. Check it out!
  2. Going all the way with the religious right doesn't lead to Nazis and Qanon. It leads to rightist groups defined by religious identity. But I'm not sure we need to associate with the fringe religious groups, it might be enough to work with or lend political support to mainstream ones that are friendly to Objectivists.
  3. Then I have a stronger argument, because I'm not arguing for a permanent alliance. You ally in order to defeat a common enemy. Once the left is crushed, there will be no need for an alliance against the left.
  4. That's not the disagreement. I'm not saying the religious right is not subject to mythology. Of course they are. I'm saying their mythology is primarily ancient in nature, and much of it isn't taken literally anymore. Whereas the left's mythology is contemporary in nature, and much of it is considered reasonable or scientific fact. No, there is a limit to how much they can change a myth, because it's written down in the Bible. The stories of Adam and Eve or Noah's ark can't change much since they are clearly told in the Old Testament. The left is inventing myths right now and they can make them up as they go along because they are hardcore subjectivists. Truth is whatever they want it to be.
  5. I can't find where Rand talks about it, but it sounds similar to "social subjectivism," which Peikoff describes in OP. The passage is excerpted in the Lexicon: These aren't myths though, they are actions. The myth would be the fantastic narrative for why they need to spend money and control business. Are you saying that it's possible the issue is fundamentally a leftist problem, but that you doubt it? Or is it evenly distributed between the right, left, and center, and thus not fundamental to any particular group?
  6. We have a couple new interviews up. Yesterday we spoke with actor Mark Pellegrino. You're probably familiar with him from his podcast with Rucka and his roles on Lost and Supernatural. We asked him about some acting stuff and some political/cultural stuff. And a week ago we interviewed two younger Objectivist activists, Ibis and Kudwy from the Aporia Institute. They make experimental videos on Tiktok and debate people on Clubhouse and YouTube. We had a fairly in-depth discussion about debating methods and social media.
  7. Our latest episode is an interview with Andrew Bernstein. We talk to him for over two hours about the religious right and the collectivist left, plus at the end we discuss his book on heroes.
  8. We uploaded UFOs part 2. This time we focus on the Navy pilots from the 2004 USS Nimitz incident and various issues with eyewitness testimony in general.
  9. It was a focus of Objectivists in the late '90s. Then 9/11 happened and the focus changed.
  10. Yes, it's important to grasp the left at an ideological-cultural level. But there is a division of intellectual labor in this effort. Some of us will be better at "fiddling with each issue" and some will be better at analyzing the "overall Woke framework." In any battle you need generals and foot soldiers. Generals look at the big picture (Woke framework) and form strategies and plans. The foot soldiers focus on executing the plans while dealing with particular problems (issues) on the field of battle.
  11. You could in the version where grammatical ideas are not dependent upon learning "walk," "run," etc. That's the whole point of the pluriverse: anything goes.
  12. Our new episode is about UFOs. We talk about the videos from the Pentagon and try to understand what can be gleaned from this evidence. We also do a bit of speculating on whether these could be natural phenomenon, or if from aliens, are they AI machines that try to avoid us for some reason?
  13. In this episode we interviewed Stephen Hicks about topics related to postmodernism and the left. Near the end I ask him about postmodernism's use of weaponized rhetoric, which is one of the more evil aspects of the philosophy.
  14. Maybe all the people thought that they were seeing angels were really seeing aliens the whole time. Does anyone have evidence that angel sightings decreased after Roswell? Regarding UFO sightings, this article says there was one at Mt. Rainier shortly before Roswell, which gave rise to the acronym "UFO." And this article suggests that people in Massachusetts witnessed a UFO in 1639, only they lacked the concept back then and considered it a light apparition. Given the recent UFO evidence, it seems possible that people mistook UFOs for angels or lights, perhaps even going back to ancient times. Who knows how long these objects have been flying around earth. Etymologically, "angel" means "messenger." In my KJV Bible's concordance "angel" is described/defined as "heavenly messenger." If we assume that UFOs are AI machines sent from an alien civilization on a distant world, perhaps they have been trying to communicate with humans for some time, but until now we couldn't even identify their machines properly, let alone fully grasp the message being delivered.
  15. In this episode I talk to Scott about his theory on the momentum of ideas in society and the problem of moral equivalence. We also touch on his view that life extension could be a unifying purpose for the liberty movement.
  16. Pelosi, Schumer--and Ron Klain probably has most of the power in the Oval Office. Biden is a second-hander who is failing mentally. He lets the people around him do the thinking and he signs what they put on his desk.
  17. I watched this portion of Joe Rogan's interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson. They talk about military footage of UFOs. https://youtu.be/1u0VDFppCI4&t=5m52s Tyson seems to be saying that he's skeptical of the footage because sensors on equipment can provide false data. He uses as an example the incorrect data that caused astronomers to search for planet X when they noticed that Neptune's orbit didn't make sense, only it did make sense, they just had bad data and didn't realize it. I've never been impressed by Tyson's reasoning skills. And I don't follow his logic here either. Rogan points out that the military pilots saw the UFOs with their own eyes, or they at least have video of them. So what false data might we be using in this case? We have the testimony of the pilots, and the videos. I don't think the problem is false data. It's that we don't know how to interpret the data. We aren't certain of what we're seeing.
  18. That's bad, but I don't think there is a pro-rape movement that threatens the rights of Americans. I wouldn't expend resources looking for such people, but if it comes up on someone's application or background check, I don't suppose they'd be granted citizenship, even by current standards.
  19. I stopped reading at "gender non-conforming individuals." But to answer your point, can't both be a problem? After all, the social media giants often enable the online harassers and bullies. The "victims" however should take some responsibility for policing their own pages when possible.
  20. Yeah, I don't think I can answer that with any specificity. I'm not even sure if Mars can be terraformed. The best I got is that maybe some of the life support operations (producing oxygen and food and heat) could be combined with the terraforming process. Perhaps terraforming could be a byproduct that doesn't cost anything extra. Otherwise it would simply be an expense, and maybe you have to rely on the rich "mental fuel" types to finance it. So, the product would be a terraformed Mars, assuming it's not worth anything until it's fully terraformed? That might be a false assumption. If it's 10% terraformed, that would mean something like 10% less life support required. Maybe you could spend 10% more time outside the biodome with the same oxygen tank, for example. Thus, gradually increasing the quality of life on Mars could result in more people wanting to work and visit and more profit from that trading activity. You used a bread example, but let's take something slightly more complex, a pizza. You might assemble all the necessary ingredients for a pepperoni pizza and could sell them in a package, raw and unmixed, for a couple bucks, making a dollar profit. Now let's say you spend some time mixing them together into a single frozen pizza which you can sell for more money and make two dollars profit. Or, even better, you cook the pizza for the customer and sell it for even more money and make three dollars profit. Here there are three stages (assembling, mixing, and cooking the ingredients) and with each stage is an opportunity to make extra profit. Perhaps terraforming Mars could work like that, with more value being produced (for which people would pay more) as Mars becomes more like Earth. If that's the case, then it's a problem. Even if "mental fuel" investors come to the rescue, it'll need to be profitable (or self-sustaining) at some point. Otherwise the colony will be a self-defeating project. Instead of supporting life, it'll be a drain on Earth's resources.
  21. They monetize the intermediate steps and take a share of the profits. If they expect profits from the next stage of development, it might be rational to invest in it. Terraforming would be an expense. I'm not sure it has to be a money pit for the company. Perhaps there is a way to profit from it. It would certainly reduce the amount of material resources needed from Earth. And maybe marketing deals could be made with McDonald's where every Happy Meal includes a toy Martian terraformer from SpaceX. The corporation that settles Mars will own the portion it settles. Let's say SpaceX settles Mars first. Maybe they work out an agreement with the US government to provide security to handle trespassers and lawbreakers.
  22. Kind of like the difference between someone who rapes your wife versus someone who merely threatens to do it? You do what's necessary to defend yourself. In this case I think screening for socialist advocates is sufficient, in addition to the more common checks. And I'm talking about immigration, not visitation. If some socialist is visiting his grandma, that's not a huge concern. Just make sure he leaves when his time is up. Socialist citizens of other countries don't vote in our elections and they don't run for political offices here, so they aren't threats. https://www.dsausa.org/ No, I'm talking about advocates of socialism, though there might be a case against advocates of aspects of sharia law. Someone who's had abortions isn't a threat to anyone but their own fetuses. Not exactly a political issue. Then why did you do a podcast about the subject? I did an interview of Valliant. Immigration was a small part of the interview. I'm saying there are better threads on this forum where we discussed the deeper, conceptual issues of this debate.
  23. The terraforming project could be a corporation-level goal, so the corporation is building toward something in the distant future, but the officers and employees are trying to hit subgoals. For them it's a job and they don't have to spend their whole lifetimes on Mars. Maybe the first generation only visits Mars for a few weeks a year and builds the terraforming machines while also building biodomes. The second generation stays for a couple years at a time and terraforms 10% of the planet while producing needed food and materials, handling tourists, etc. After a number of generations maybe the planet is suitable for lifelong habitation. Generally, when it's in your self-interest. For early investors the money goes toward producing a single step in the longterm plan, such as space transportation and tourism, which helps finance the rest of the steps. But it also attracts investors who want to go to space or make money from space industry. I doubt it, unless Earth were in serious danger of exploding in the next couple hundred years or so and terraforming Mars became a huge priority, in which case whole governments would probably be devoting major resources to the effort. I think so. Maybe you're a wealthy businessman and enjoy sponsoring the space projects of your friends because you like helping them and thinking about the future of space exploration. However, if you're not in it for the business success, it seems more like charity, which is fine. But sometimes charity goes toward buying food, and sometimes it goes toward buying heroin. So you gotta be careful about what sort of mental fuel you're purchasing with your donation to the "terraform Mars" project. It could be a swindle.
  • Create New...