Eiuol

I firmly believe this is because Rand was frequently irrational about personal relationships, and her closest professional associates emulated this. The consequences were significant, not just a matter of personal dispute. Nathaniel Branden made significant contributions but he was essentially thrown to the curb and all his contributions ignored and denied. I'm sure there are many more examples.

This is a better way to say what I was thinking. I was basically trying to say that initially there may be an appearance of a conflict of interest (the belief that there is a conflict of interest) but upon further reflection, we would recognize there is no actual conflict of interest (in which case the dispute between interests disappears). 
No we don't agree. I admit that I had a hard time saying what I was thinking, but the above paragraph should make things clear. When I say long-term or short-term, I should instead distinguish between the initial appearance of things (beliefs about the state of affairs that may or may not be objective) from the actual state of affairs (the objective facts of the matter). 
So that should be a reply to your last statement:
It's not really that rational thought prevents all conflict, but that rational thought tells us that "conflicts of interest" don't exist in any genuine sense. I'm just checking though, by all conflict, do you mean even preventing conflict with irrational people? I didn't think you did, but I'm not sure.

I guess you could say that, but the question isn't so much about figuring out which the best goal is. Conflicts of interest in this context are not about mere clashing situations. It's more about zero-sum games, or the idea that if one person benefits another person is left worse off. Contrary to that, including when we are mistaken, your rational self-interest does not conflict with my rational self-interest. If we have to decide on a plan, it doesn't go against my self-interest to go with your plan instead. That assumes we actually thought about it and discussed it. While there is a conflict to be resolved, namely which plan to choose, Rand would have us believe that this can always be resolved so that both of our interests are improved. 
If E1 made the decision because he is the boss, and no other reason, then that is irrational. 2046 sounds like he was basically disputing that the example was any good. I was going a little further to say that even with the example, we probably can say that E1 is irrational if taken at face value.
But let's assume that the boss had rational reasons. Merjet is basically asking "isn't E2 being denied his interests because E1 chose a different plan?" The answer is no. Presumably, E1 listens pretty well, delegates pretty well, and is welcome to other plans as long as the plans make an honest effort to find the best solution. E1 has damn good reason to trust E2. If anything, E1 should be excited that he got to argue his case and probably influence other projects as a result of the discussion. In the long run, this is really good, and actually how good science, technology development, and research gets done especially. 

The Stop the Steal. Game.
When you open the game, text immediately says "the creator has been canceled, donate money to help save his freedom of speech!". That's it.
Very similar way to cash in on buzzwords without meaning anything. This is just what happens when you're free to make anything you want. You get a lot of trash.

Basically, I think Dennett is pointing out that ideas impact people's lives. No neuroscientist can say that "yeah I don't believe in free will but just because I tell people that doesn't mean I have any responsibility for what they think." I don't think they are any different than the surgeon as far as responsibility. They didn't cause the murders in a direct way, but they are responsible for creating this sort of environment where a person might realistically choose to believe that free will is an illusion and let themselves go. Since the surgeon is basically implanting a placebo, it's no different effect than some neuroscientist saying that free will is an illusion. 

That's a good restatement. The grammar was difficult to get exactly right.

In "what you know to be true is mutable"
I think he is using "what you know to be true" to mean "what you think according to your knowledge (or assumed knowledge) to be true"
and not using "what you know to be true" (in this context) to mean that "the truth in reality of which I actually know".

You are just making this thread messy by posting 3 times in a row to respond to the same person. If you can't wait for me to start a thread tomorrow, go ahead and start it yourself for now. 

Maybe, maybe not. Without the context, I would guess that the action scene that you are mentioning has a completely sensible justification, even if surprising. And if there is no justification, it can easily be bad writing - no ulterior motive but definitely failing to account for how a character can fight. If that's true, I would bet that many of the Rock's action sequences were just as ridiculous and overblown. Actually, that might be the point: Fast and the Furious isn't supposed to be remotely realistic and is often wildly exaggerated.
I've seen more bad writing on the face of it than any attempt necessarily to make a political statement by means of bad writing. 
 

The reason could always be put on low standards for writing. It's not that changing the expected look of a character is inherently bad. It's about what about the characters identity is important for the plot. I don't think Annie as a character should have any particular race. Same with Catwoman. It doesn't matter what race they are. But their sex matters, because those are factors that are meant to influence who they become (as related to how people react to them or judge them). Ghostbusters is not dependent on sex of the characters for conflict in the plot, but the writing was terrible anyway, the jokes were not good. A gender-swapped Ghostbusters sounds interesting, to see what kind of comedic ideas that can uniquely come out of that, but writers failed to do that.
One reason writers can fail is that they treat their story as a product rather than a piece of art or meaningful story. If writers are not careful, they end up destroying some of the tension in the franchise, because they improperly consider why the character had a specific identity. That's not an effort to be "woke" because 1) "wokeness" at least recognizes that sometimes maintaining the race of a character matters, and 2) these movies are focused around sales and money (and why would "woke" like even the slightest whiff of capitalism?). The issue is loss of artistic integrity. 
If anything, the relatively large number of bad movies is due to the proliferation of technology and Internet. Big studios are not the only way to make a movie anymore. There is a much greater volume of movies out there than ever before, so you are going to find more trash. Just as you will find more good movies in total, or more good movie and television media in general. 

When has this happened? I mean, it seems like the Magnificent Seven remake was the forgotten one... And if the original was forgotten, it's not because it was canceled.
The logic seems to go like this:
1) companies that are rational make money
2) companies that are not rational don't make money
3) therefore companies that make money are rational
 
4) since it is not rational to make parasitic movies, the companies that make such movies won't make money
5) therefore the companies make these movies for reasons besides money
 
1-3 is circular (Why they rational? Because they make money. Why do they make money? Because they are rational.)
4 misses the fact that you can make money this way.
5 indicates a hidden premise that no one who is irrational tries to make money or will always fail to make any money. 
 
Sometimes it's hard to accept that companies can be manipulative. You can make money off of marks and do quite well. The progressives are the marks. 
 
 

When has this happened? I mean, it seems like the Magnificent Seven remake was the forgotten one... And if the original was forgotten, it's not because it was canceled.
The logic seems to go like this:
1) companies that are rational make money
2) companies that are not rational don't make money
3) therefore companies that make money are rational
 
4) since it is not rational to make parasitic movies, the companies that make such movies won't make money
5) therefore the companies make these movies for reasons besides money
 
1-3 is circular (Why they rational? Because they make money. Why do they make money? Because they are rational.)
4 misses the fact that you can make money this way.
5 indicates a hidden premise that no one who is irrational tries to make money or will always fail to make any money. 
 
Sometimes it's hard to accept that companies can be manipulative. You can make money off of marks and do quite well. The progressives are the marks. 
 
 

I found this on his CV:
https://greattransition.org/roundtable/human-rights-greg-anderson
This essay shows how his thinking is just his own angle on critical theory.
It seems that his Pluriverse is rooted in the social world. It's a literal social metaphysics. His framework of thinking seems to be exclusively focused on the social world with utterly no conception of reality. The reason we don't understand what he even means by reality is because I don't think he understands either. He doesn't define reality, he doesn't talk about in what way he means the indigenous world is a different reality. He is trapped between using metaphor and referring to reality, because he has no conceptual tool to distinguish between the two. So when we evaluate his arguments, we can't distinguish between the two either. 
Basically, he makes me think of a teenager's take on Nietzsche. He's trying to take Nietzsche's perspectivism (that what we know to be true or claim to be true is determined by our perspective) and sound even deeper by suggesting that ancient people lived in a different reality. 
This is your brain on critical theory:
 

"[Reality] is something that humans actively participate in producing when their minds interact with their environments."
That's 11 minutes in just about.
It wouldn't be so insane if he meant something like "the society people live in is shaped by the way minds interact with the environment". That would be true, but obviously that doesn't mean each society is literally a different reality... It's like he forgot that when people say "ancient people lived in a different world" they don't literally mean a whole separate reality. 
My conclusion: Never go full subjectivist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wVagQ_LVd4
I find that he really was attempting to give a basis to say that indigenous people deserve respect. In a way, he sees the indigenous people (especially those exterminated by the Spanish) as offering worthless ideas and were thoroughly primitive, so the only way he could offer any value for them is to say that they lived in a literally different reality. They are so worthless to him that he has to create a whole separate reality for them. The truth is, people like the Inca had great ideas as well as bad ideas even compared to Europeans. He doesn't have to dismantle objective reality: If he actually cared about indigenous people, he would be telling us about what they got right about reality, especially the things that Europeans could not figure out.

Okay, Joker. If you mean also Republicans who wanted to "stop the steal" as well, sure, everyone got what they deserved in the end (I think all of Congress is pretty responsible for the overall distrust throughout America). But to correct anything in the future, this is bad. 
"There are goblins on Mars that study Hegel's dialectics" is metaphysically possible, but without any kind of evidence to say that this claim is true, it is arbitrary. You need something in reality, something observable, not just possible stories you came up with.
This is not a valid way of thinking. You need to make a connection with the past event in a causal way, not just merely correlations. I don't care what you provide, you just need to provide something. 
Then hop to it, make the connections with reality that you can observe. 
Partial evidence is fine. If I doubted that she had evidence, I would say that her claim was arbitrary. If it was a conversation, I would do the same as with you: I would ask for some more evidence. And she would provide it. She would never mention the word hunch. Problem solved. All you have to do is the same thing, but give me some verifiable concrete evidence. Some observation to work with about this event. 
I can understand if you don't want to explain all this in the first post you made. But now I am asking. 
This is completely subjective. This is not evidence. I don't have trouble believing this, so it proves nothing. 
This is not evidence either. Even if something is stupid, it is nothing to do with if it's important. Give me something somebody said or did in this case. 
 

Arbitrary. You need some kind of evidence here. The best you have is that "one time, there was an attempted kidnapping, it turned out they were antifa type people". That's not evidence for your claim. What you said amounts to "it's possible!"  
Because of that, anything else you say is storytelling. I have some wild and fantastical ideas as well that would really expand on what we saw today. I'm not going to pretend they are anything other than flights of fancy. They aren't hunches, they are fantasies. 
You are definitely one of the more rational minded I've interacted with here, so I'm especially confused as to why you are trying to present an arbitrary theory as to why the events happened today. You are forcing facts into a theory, rather than creating a theory based on the facts and events. At least with your post about the election results, you cited evidence and facts. Here you cited a hunch...? What are you trying to accomplish? 
Give the evidence, don't say "they had every reason" without giving one reason. Here's a reason they wouldn't: Biden won the election fairly (or at least as fairly as any other election the past 20 years), they didn't need to encourage or manipulate anything. Not enough people were going to call into question the electors.
Here is a reason that Trump would: he claims that he won the election in a landslide, and when the protest started in full force by breaking into the building, he didn't Tweet a single thing to condemn what happened. You know, condemned the way he has other things like antifa. He has never been shy before, he would not be shy now.
Here's an unambiguous statement that he could have given: the people who broke into the capitol are guilty of treason. 
 
 

I highly recommend this paper by Tara Smith. 
It is as an argument about anything we've discussed here, it's a paper about a conceptual cleanup regarding terms used when discussing freedom of speech.
The Free Speech Vernacular: Conceptual Confusions in the Way We Speak About Speech

I highly recommend this paper by Tara Smith. 
It is as an argument about anything we've discussed here, it's a paper about a conceptual cleanup regarding terms used when discussing freedom of speech.
The Free Speech Vernacular: Conceptual Confusions in the Way We Speak About Speech

The first part, the belief that men should have the freedom to choose to be women does follow from liberalism in the context you speak of. That is, if it is possible to transition to another gender with major physiological change, one should have the freedom to choose that (I still don't call them men because I would rather just label them as transwomen to capture that there really is something different about their identity on a fundamental level). The second part, that society should recognize that transwomen are the same as women, is a particular kind of moral view that isn't based on a political ideology. I don't think they should either - but people have the freedom to make their own sports competitions as they wish. 
My thoughts on sex and sexuality aren't very different than many people who even self identify as truly Leftists, but I really am hell-bent against anything socialistic or authoritarian. But my point is that such views are not a consequence of political ideology. The left liberals you think of still support a capitalistic mixed economy still oriented towards markets and different degrees of regulation and the way they all use the media machine, just as right-leaning liberals. All of these people are neoliberals.
But should we really call Prager a right liberal? I feel unsure. Anyway, it is critical that the vestiges of religious dogma be thrown away if we want to move towards the sort of society we would like ideally. It's a complete dead-end that doesn't move anywhere. 
==
That PragerU video is terrible with terrible reasoning. 3:40 has no supporting argument. 

I'm not sure if you noticed, but the main problem is that women are not treated as anything much more intellectually complex than a dog. "Don't get mad when women manipulate you, that's just in their nature. They can't help it." It's abundantly sexist.

This type of viewpoint is called national conservatism. The kind mentioned by Journo. Call them whatever you want. The attempted fight back is by means of stronger collectivism. They want to beat left collectivism with right collectivism. It's the bad kind of nationalism. Nationalism per se is not a problem, but it is when it is proclaimed in collectivist terms.
-Use government force to break up large corporations that have committed no crime and have not initiated force
-Emphasize national dialogue about the importance of the family over the individual
-Emphasize the importance of God
-Forcibly reject government procedures that don't involve the will of the people ("stop the steel")
 

If it's still unused then of course it can't be refused. Otherwise the only argument you need is "I'm using it right now" (and so on back in time until we find the original owner). That's it. No other justification needed. That's why I later mentioned that your options are then to persuade me to let you use it, or to force me off the land. I'm not sure what other standard you can use besides who is using the land (or who is using whatever it is in question). 
This is a derivative question that I think can only be answered after we establish what the basis for owning property even is. I'm not sure what to say about owning property for the specific purpose of not using it in the sense of conservation areas.
If the land was unoccupied and unused prior to my arrival, then all that matters is who got there first. The only defense I need is "I got here first." I would also say that figuring out how to use things with my mind is important for my existence, so it is entirely moral for me to be the one to decide in what way this property best suits my existence. 
I think this is a different question. This still sounds like you're asking what to do when the society you live in is irrational on a deep level that is actively detrimental to a rational life. I can think of a black person in the Jim Crow South during the fifties. The moral concerns in this situation have little to do with property. But these are problems to solve, not evidence that homesteading (very very loosely defined as property first acquired through first use) is weak or a bad basis.
Some of your objections resemble positions or arguments dealt with by Nozick. I wrote about it here: 
 

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. 

"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...  
 

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?