Craig24

I'll denounce white supremacy until it goes away but what do I after that? The left is not going to believe me and they will call me a racist because I'm not one of them.

To follow up on this, if you don't think this is true, consider this incident:

Correct. No one here said it. But the Left controls most of the culture and says it. So it IS brave to counter that.

The statement is true regardless of any white supremacist ad campaign. The real evasion is denying the truth of the statement. I'm not afraid to communicate a fact out of fear of being labeled or condemned. That's what Political Correctness does to cowards. I don't want to be a coward.

"It's ok to be white" is not a package deal. It's a simple, straightforward, true statement.

"It's ok to be white" does not mean "the white race is the finest race". What this White Supremacist Church believes isn't my problem and it isn't yours either. Like I said, if you encounter a group of neo nazis, tell them where they can go. Use concepts honestly. You know what the word "selfish" actually means. Do you dispense with the term "selfish" because the broader culture takes it to be synonymous with evil?

But they DON'T agree with me. If they are neo nazis they don't think it's ok to be non white. I thought that was understood. Am I missing something?

The only option to IOTBW is what? That it's not ok to be white? I'm disgusted that neo nazis or white nationalists exist to spread any meme. If it were up to me, they'd be put on a tropical island to fend for themselves so that we don't have to deal with them. The only option is to steal their meme and throw it back in their face. " It IS ok to be white but it's ok to be non white too" would be my reply. I do not think it's ok to act as if this otherwise perfectly correct and morally proper meme is not ok just because some neo nazi started it. I think the same is true of the phrase "Black Lives Matter" because they do matter. Steal the meme and apply correctly. Help the lives of blacks who are in fact in need of it. Tell any BLM sympathizer that this should motivate them to improve the lives of blacks instead of accusing all whites and cops of racism.

Benevolence = Wanting to do this for others because they are a value to you. Altruism = You have to do this for others because they need you.

No, that's not what makes his philosophy different. Nicky might disagree with a view that isn't a part of Objectivism (a view such as "I disagree with a woman President" or "homosexuality is wrong" isn't a part of Objectivism.) Nicky either adopts completely, the basic fundamentals of the Objectivist metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics or he doesn't. If he doesn't, then he has his own philosophy that is not Objectivism. If he does then he adopts Objectivism but still recognizes that it's Ayn Rand's and not his. He did suggest that Ayn Rand did not mean for people to do that without serious independent critical evaluation.

Let me quote you again: You are not saying that Nicky disagrees with some view of Ayn Rand's. You are saying his philosophy is DIFFERENT than Ayn Rand's. If it's a different philosophy, it's not Objectivism. That's like saying Ayn Rand's philosophy which is different than Aristotle's is a version of Aristotelianism.

No, all are not versions of Objectivism. That's like saying Ayn Rand's philosophy is a version of Aristotelianism with the alleged errors corrected.

You may have to elaborate on this. When someone crosses an international border illegally, it does not, as far as I can tell, force anyone else to think, say or do (or not think, say or do) anything.

You are being a little sensitive. Go ahead and fantasize if you want to. It's your life.

(sarcasm on) What? You don't fantasize? How dare you not fantasize! How do you expect people to think Objectivism is fun if you don't fantasize? Party pooper! (sarcasm off).

Is this your idea of fun?

I don't know if agree or not. I have started a thread to discuss it.

Carts Before Horses is claiming that Objectivism as presented to the public is no fun and that this causes the public to reject it. The question is: Can you popularize Objectivism (make it more fun as he puts it) without compromising objectivity, truth and the good?

Ayn Rand was right on about her philosophy but she was no fun. Make the philosophy fun and it will attract more people to it. Agree or disagree? <<<<< this is what you could have said instead of writing a book.

Give me an example of how to mainstream Objectivism. What would you do?

I must have been reading your mind when I read the wikipedia entry quoted. I was thinking to myself "How do you know what the good is?"

Honestly, I thought this was an Onion piece but it isn't. This is real. You almost can't make this stuff up anymore.

Thinking of the best way to put this: Actual collectives do not exist. People who believe they do or should DO exist and are called collectivists.

Give me an example of moderating the message. Pretend I'm one of those half rational half altruistic pragmatists and you want to persuade me of the virtue of selfishness. What would you say to me? I'll start the dialogue: me: Why should I be selfish in principle? Won't this hurt others?