Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

MisterSwig

Regulars
  • Content Count

    2248
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    60

Everything posted by MisterSwig

  1. You said you're not sure about this one, so let's focus on it. First, why does it matter that you're not a supermodel? Should supermodels be allowed to sunbathe nude on the front lawn in full view of passersby on the public street? When you live in a city, you agree to certain codes of public etiquette. If you are visible from public spaces, you are subject to those codes. If you're in the privacy of your backyard, that's different, and you might have a complaint against your neighbor for snooping.
  2. If you have a thesis idea you could use it to recruit Objectivists to your own online group or site. I'm preparing to try something like that on Facebook.
  3. Lev and I discuss Bret Weinstein's plan to draft two Centrists to run for POTUS and VP this November. Weinstein brought this up on Joe Rogan's show.
  4. Why would a stereotype incline you toward misunderstanding history if you weren't looking for historical knowledge from that stereotype? If you classify it as a fictional character, then you shouldn't be using it to understand history. It is actually your knowledge of history that informs your grasp of the stereotype, not the other way around. You are aware of the history of literature, movies, TV, etc., in which the mammy stereotype appears, and you might then connect Aunt Jemima with that set of stereotypical characters. That's not what I'm saying. She probably is a stereotype. She's just an ad character. Such things are rarely complicated figures. How does the name refer to the stereotype? Isn't the name playing on a family relation rather than a slave or servant one?
  5. That's not where I got. From what you wrote I got to "people look to Quaker Oats branding for a history lesson." If this is what people do, then, yes, they will have a problem with any character that they consider a stereotype, because it's not a particular historical person. But if they don't do it, then they should recognize characters as fictional creations representing and embodying the ideas of the advertisers, which will be expressed through the pictures and words of the ad. I've watched a lot of the Aunt Jemima ads, and I see her portrayed as a respected black woman with a great recipe. She's referred to as "the first lady of pancakes." She is that family member (aunt) who makes some special food you enjoy. If she was once a mammy stereotype, well, that can be understood in its historical context. But the character hasn't been portrayed as a mammy for quite some time. She's a fictional creation that has evolved with the times through many decades of ads.
  6. You argued that they're bad because they make people more inclined to misinterpret history. This isn't true. People don't look to Quaker Oats branding for a history lesson, nor for some inclination on how to interpret history.
  7. This might be the basic issue. If you're getting your interpretation of history from Quaker Oats branding, you should rethink your philosophy of knowledge. This isn't the food company's problem. It's yours. Advertising characters serve a purpose, and it's not to teach you history.
  8. I'm voting with my wallet and refusing to buy Ben & Jerry's ice cream until they stop producing the pro-white flavor Americone Dream, which features a white celebrity on the package. This sends a terrible message to POCs. It suggests that the American Dream is for white people. To make matters worse, Ben & Jerry's started a new campaign to "Dismantle White Supremacy." Talk about being tone deaf! They don't even recognize the literal implicit racial bias on their own products. Peace and love!
  9. Give a different, less spineless, producer a try. If you trade with cowards you'll get more cowards.
  10. In general I value honest criticism. It helps me see flaws or weaknesses in my own ideas, arguments or actions even. So I actually seek associates who share core values like honesty and logic and science, but who disagree on certain subjects. I know what I want to accomplish and try to budget my time to achieve those goals before I die. I won't go into specifics, but generally they are writing projects of an intellectual nature. Hanging out with family and friends is a lower priority for me right now, though I set aside time for important functions and relations. Broadly speaking, a "friend" is a close, personal associate with whom I share mutual respect and concern. A "non-friend" might be someone I don't know or someone I don't respect or care about. I typically lose respect or concern for people when it's clear that they are not honest or reasonable. Usually I catch them in ridiculous lies and obvious and stubborn evasions of the facts. I might still pay attention to them as a psychological study, but they aren't friends. Then there are people who are outright enemies or potentially dangerous threats. Anyone who sympathizes with Antifa falls into that latter category. They are in the process of being radicalized against individual rights. And I don't want to be near them when they go bonkers. If it's extreme irrationality, then they are probably dangerous, from sheer stupidity, desperation, or maybe malice. You literally put your own life in danger being around very irrational people. They make dumb and life-threatening decisions. If the irrationality is contained or limited to a particular subject, then being friends depends on whether that subject is important to you.
  11. I only have so much time for friends. I prefer to spend that time with people who have no sympathy for violent commies.
  12. Rand lived for 77 years. You have a lot more growing to do. Come back in 2032 and let us know where we can find your awesome philosophical insights.
  13. I dropped a friend because he was irrationally sympathetic to Antifa. Now I hear he's crazy about BLM, so I'm glad I bailed. You need to be careful picking your friends these days.
  14. Lev and I debate the George Floyd case and the ensuing protests.
  15. Have you read the criminal complaint or full autopsy report? I'll copy them below. Some people look at the initial video and imagine that they have all the facts they need to determine cause of death. This is a failure of objectivity, a failure of imagination and a rush to judgment. It is impossible to see on that video any artery or airway being blocked. That would be an assumption based on seeing the neck restraint--and making the restraint the cause of death is an additional assumption. Those of us who have not rushed to judgment need not be concerned with rationalizing a misguided hot-take. We follow the evidence objectively, not assumptively. If the complete evidence, including the cops' body cam footage, ultimately proves that the cops did murder Floyd, then that's fine. But it will also be fine with us if the cops did not murder him. The evidence presented so far does not include physical evidence that Floyd was asphyxiated. That's what the criminal complaint says quoting the medical examiner. Toxicology found that Floyd was suffering from fentanyl intoxication, which is known to cause respiratory distress and death in high doses mixed with other substances. The fact that Floyd said he was having trouble breathing while still standing up suggests his respiratory problem might have been due to the fentanyl. Furthermore, he was acting agitated and resisting arrest, refusing to go in the police car, dropping to the ground and claiming to be claustrophobic. The cops, in the moment, suspected this was a case of excited delirium, which might explain why they tried to stop him from moving and further exhausting himself. Excited delirium can cause sudden death. From my own viewing of the bystander video, Floyd appears to fade away, like he was slowly losing strength and consciousness. I did not hear him choking or convulsing, like his airway was being blocked. Possibly the knee was compressing the carotid artery, but I can't determine that from the video alone, and I don't know if that would cause death, depending on the varying amounts of pressure applied. That is a complex medical question to be determined by experts in court. Even the family's pathologist admits that such pressure cannot be determined afterward. And I have reason not to trust the family's pathologist. He testified on behalf of OJ Simpson, and I thought he was ridiculous and sketchy back then. Quoting from the criminal complaint: From the autopsy press report:
  16. Lev and I have posted a couple new episodes, one on SpaceX and one on the pandemic lockdowns. https://youtu.be/_W46-SYnmJE https://youtu.be/dUwe5Tin1YI
  17. Biddle should do a better job fact-checking what Barney's been feeding him. It wasn't until the '70s that Hubbard developed the cross? Hold on. Here's the cover of Ability #147 from March 1963. And, yes, that was the official Scientology publication in America. Hubbard didn't assert the existence of God? Hold on. Here we have the official Scientology creed from the same issue in '63. Yep, there's God being asserted. It's really not hard to fact-check these things. I literally asked Google: "When did Scientology start using the cross?" Try it! She says that they started prominently displaying the cross in 1969 after some bad press. And if you dig deeper you will discover, like I did, that it was prominently displayed to Hubbard's followers much earlier than that. While the old man would no doubt assert the existence of pink elephants if he could make a buck off doing so, it is simply a fact that Scientology presented itself as theistic. Given that Biddle has so easily accepted Barney's misrepresentations of reality, it's a wonder anyone takes him seriously as a publisher of serious articles on philosophy. I certainly would not want him as my editor.
  18. Definitions exist within a context of knowledge. If you don't know what "talking" means, then you're probably not worth talking to.
  19. Public schools in California are partially funded by the California lottery, a voluntary system. So it's not even the case that free lunches for poor schoolkids will necessarily be paid for by involuntary taxes. Thus your straw man is wrong on theory and in practice.
  20. No, I'm not. That's your straw man. I think I've explained my position well enough for now.
  21. No, it wouldn't. The state will garnish your wages or throw you in prison. If there were ever a popular movement against involuntary taxes, then we wouldn't have them, because our leaders would change the Constitution. But you seem to believe that a few people not paying taxes can solve the problem. They can't. You're preaching to the choir here. The issue isn't whether we should have involuntary taxes. We shouldn't. That's a given around here. The issue is whether taxes should be used to feed children who can't afford to buy food.
  22. Refusing to pay taxes and refusing to send your children to public school is going to stop the motor of the world? It's going to spell disaster for America? You realize that Atlas Shrugged is romanticized fiction, right? There is no Galt's Gulch. Petty rebels get thrown in jail, ruined and forgotten in the real world. We need to persuade our leaders to change the system from within the system--or we can start preparing for civil war. Civil disobedience is fine, if that's your thing. But speaking out and protesting and making smart choices at election time is good too. You need to consider whether it's worth going to prison over taxes and food for children.
  23. So, are you in hiding or in prison for resisting statist oppression? Are there warrants for your arrest? What have you done to fight evil?
×
×
  • Create New...