Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Recommended Posts

Tim Pool reviewed this article by Keri Smith. She argues that we should vote for Trump because he is the more liberal candidate, whereas the Democratic Party is now racist and sexist.

A former SJW anti-Trumper, she escaped her echo chamber after 2016 and changed her mind.

Quote

I still cried the night Trump won. Because I still believed the things I was told to believe about him, without forming my own opinion. Social Justice Warriors do a lot of that. But it became really important for me to figure out why he won, because I wanted to prevent it from happening again in 2020. So I started leaving my carefully cultivated echochamber. I started seeking out other points of view, and actually *listening* to why people voted for him, instead of projecting and telling them what the media had told me were their reasons. I started meeting Trump voters, most of whom did not fit the stereotype I’d been sold.

 

She thinks the Democrats represent the end of civilization.

Quote

I am a liberal who is voting for Trump because I am deeply worried about the state of our country and about the erosion of cultural values like free speech, equality, the non-aggression principle, reason, logic, objectivity and individualism. I am a liberal who is voting for Donald Trump because I OPPOSE racism and sexism, and I see that my old party, the Democratic party, has been entirely eaten up with cancerous racist and sexist beliefs. A mind-virus that threatens to make monsters of men and to end civilization as we know it.

Her positive argument for Trump focuses on his so-called "liberal" principles.

Quote

I believe [Trump] is the person running who has demonstrated the most commitment to ending war, the most commitment to individualism and equality, the most commitment to free speech. In short, I am a liberal who is voting for Trump because I think he is the most liberal of the candidates I can choose from.

Considering her bold claim that Trump is "the most liberal of the candidates," she should have put more effort into proving that position. Still, it's an interesting idea that Trump is more liberal than the "liberals."

Watch Tim Pool discuss the article starting at 1:05 in this video.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I went into it expecting a controversial but interesting idea that Trump fits the mold of any neoliberal, and at least gets in the way of radical leftists more so than Biden would. After I read it, it sounded like a reactionary response without any meaningful ideas except a caveman style "me no like SJW, me angry". 

It sounds like she thinks that Marxists call themselves liberals, but Marxists don't call themselves liberals. Marxism is not liberalism. It is not a type of liberalism. So it isn't like they are lying. Her thinking about this amounts to the same criticism she was making: what she really means is that we must speak her ideology, and only her ideology, or else remain quiet. That would be a good thing actually in terms of debate - the only acceptable answer to a debate is the right answer. The problem here is that she isn't dealing with facts here. It's a hot take, nothing more. 

Half of it doesn't make much sense. Sometimes she combines two different positions and conflates them as the same. She uses the word racist in a very strange way, I literally have no idea what she means. If she comes from the perspective of a liberal in the Democratic Party, presumably she agrees with some kind of affirmative action, or antidiscrimination laws, or some other kind of law that is supposed to "equalize" the playing field. Maybe she means the idea "all white people are racist", although that would just reflect she doesn't understand the very thing she hates. You can't fight back against an ideology if you don't know what their ideas are exactly.

Because Biden is the one running on the Democratic ticket, I don't have a reason to think that Democrats are at risk of becoming Marxist authoritarians.
 

She is angry at the right things, but for the wrong reasons.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Tim Pool reviewed this article by Keri Smith.

"...eaten up with cancerous racist and sexist beliefs that..."

 

Plainly, true. She recognizes the ¬implicit¬ nature of the New Racism and New Sexism belief systems. To give those -isms EXTRA special attention is to invoke racism (etc.), to exploit and politicize and ultimately, sacrifice, those ethnicities and women. That is in itself, to be racist/sexist. Of a particularly insidious kind which is not easily identifiable and answerable by the usually innocent, non-racist and non-sexist person (who'd find him/herself half-convinced by such arguments, though with inchoate doubts).

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2020 at 5:32 PM, Eiuol said:

It sounds like she thinks that Marxists call themselves liberals, but Marxists don't call themselves liberals. Marxism is not liberalism.

She says she won't let Marxists redefine "liberalism." So her point might be confused, and she doesn't give examples, but the main idea seems to be that Marxist ideas are becoming mainstream among so-called "liberals." They aren't really liberal anymore.

The problem is that one's concept of "liberal" depends on one's concept of "liberty." If Marxists get to define "liberty" then they control "liberals." 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Redefine liberalism how? I mean, her opinion isn't a big deal to me, so maybe I should put it this way: do you think she is correct to say that Marxists want to redefine liberalism? 

"I will not allow these Marxist totalitarians to redefine that word, the way they try to redefine so many. There is nothing liberal about supporting censorship by Big Social OR the government."

She writes this as if a Marxist promotes these things in some manner because they believe it is liberal. It doesn't make sense to say that. They do these things precisely because they are not liberal, and they don't claim otherwise. Liberals do something like those things because they are hypocrites. If she were mad at neoliberals, that would make sense, they are the ones redefining liberalism in a way that contradicts what liberalism has always been. That goes into what I was saying before: even Trump is a neoliberal. In a way, neoliberal is just another way to identify a hypocritical liberal who wants to combine incompatible ideas simply for popularity.

But do keep in mind that Objectivist politics isn't liberalism. I classify it as very similar, but not a type of liberalism.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Smith was on Timcast IRL and said that she's voting for Trump because "he doesn't speak woke." She sees him as the only anti-SJW candidate. 

 

11 hours ago, Eiuol said:

do you think she is correct to say that Marxists want to redefine liberalism?

Yes, it's the nature of Marxism to frame liberalism as an aspect of a certain class, the bourgeoisie. So even today we have the spectacle of rich Democrats downplaying their capitalism and wealth and pandering to the working class and poor socialists who have been taught that "liberty" means freedom from capitalist exploitation and racism and sexism and homophobia and transphobia and hate speech and misgendering and racial disparity and police officers and whatever else hurts their fragile feelings or hinders the Marxist revolution.

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, liberalism is an aspect of a certain class, we just say it isn't bad. Liberty does mean freedom, but we would argue that capitalism doesn't cause exploitation and all those other things. It should go without saying that the absence of exploitation, racism, sexism, etc. is important to liberty and makes you more free than it would be otherwise. The problem comes down to a difference of knowledge and claims, not that Marxists want to change the meaning of liberalism.

When you say the spectacle of rich Democrats, I agree with that, because as I was saying, neoliberals are hypocrites. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2020 at 7:40 AM, Eiuol said:

It should go without saying that the absence of exploitation, racism, sexism, etc. is important to liberty and makes you more free than it would be otherwise.

Do you mean government exploitation, racism, sexism, etc.? Black Joe the barber refusing service to whites would not affect my liberty. I don't have a right to his service. Opportunity is not liberty. Liberty is your freedom from force, not from other people's rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not just coming from the government. Racism, sexism, etc., are not wrong because they are errors of knowledge, but because they are injustices against people. Injustices deny to you what you deserve, ignore what you deserve, or pull you further away from the fruits of rationality. If somebody does not refuse service based on your race, you have more freedom to act compared to the racist store owner. You can do more, which even allows the store owner to profit more, and then a whole positive feedback loop. 

I'm not equating freedom and liberty with individual rights. The concept individual rights helps guide what I mean by freedom and liberty. On its own, freedom can mean something as loose as "doing whatever the hell you want", or it can mean "political liberty, but it's not my problem when people are racist". I'm taking individual rights as a way to further specify what I mean by freedom. I think that as "doing whatever the hell you want, constrained by violation of rights and judging people as individuals". A racist would not be violating anyone's rights, but that kind of behavior takes us even further away from the type of world we want capitalism to bring about. Freedom isn't my core principle, and I don't think it is within Oist politics. Lacking freedom is not equivalent to initiation of force (for Marxists, it probably is).  

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Injustices deny to you what you deserve, ignore what you deserve, or pull you further away from the fruits of rationality.

Who decides what you deserve? If a black barber denies me a haircut because I'm white, is that an act of injustice because I deserve to have my hair cut by him?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would phrase it differently. To be denied a haircut isn't necessarily an injustice, but it can be. To be denied a haircut because of your race and nothing else is an injustice. I don't mind leaving aside the question of if the best way to describe this is denying freedom, but I don't really see why you would disagree that racism is unjust (rather than incorrect). 

In any case, I doubt you would say that I am trying to "redefine" liberty. Likewise, I don't think Marxists are "redefining" the word either. Me, you, and Marxists hold different definitions of the same concept, but none of us are trying to trick or lie to others or mislead. It makes perfect sense to try to persuade others that our definition is the correct one, getting people to redefine and refine their definition. This isn't some nefarious thing. Or at least, redefining shouldn't be thought of as a nefarious thing. The real problem is that Marxists do not care about individual rights.

On the other hand, liberals definitely manipulate and pragmatically alter their definitions, sometimes being consistent with individual rights, sometimes lacking any consistency at all. Biden does that. Trump does that. 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Who decides what you deserve? If a black barber denies me a haircut because I'm white, is that an act of injustice because I deserve to have my hair cut by him?

Which comes under: I don't approve of what you do, but will fight for your right to do it. (Or not do it, in this case).

One has no inherent right to ('deserve') the business services of another person. An injustice would be to force them to go against their beliefs--their irrational non-self interest - if even motivated by meanness, prejudice and disrespect. That's what is freedom. Eventually, in any free and decent society, such a person would likely meet his dues in reality. Many people will not want to do business with him.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

The point needs stressing, an individual cannot be forced to act against (to sacrifice) his/her idea or notion of what is their moral code. If someone claims that it goes against their conscience, teaching, belief, ethics or sense of propriety to have a business transaction with someone who appears to be a e.g. neo-Nazi - or any 'group identity' - he has that right to withhold his services. Otherwise, we are back where we started, with govt. intrusion, systemic altruism, social engineering and diluted individual rights. A distinction - this is a moral code for dealings with others in society, it is not and does not teach "a code of morality", per se. Which is why it is an unparalleled system for mankind. No one, surely, expects a whole society to live by the Objectivist ethics of rational self-interest? If so, I venture there will not exist proper individual rights. All manner of ethics possible is catered for, so to speak, in such a society - and whatever a rational person considers of others' irrationality, and consequently probably disassociates from them, they can act freely on what they perceive to be their good - with of course, the one implied proviso: the recognition that everyone else does also, and must not be physically hindered. The rights code is eminently rational, individual men and women now and in future may or may not be.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Eventually, in any free and decent society, such a person would likely meet his dues in reality.

Because people recognize that racism is unjust (being the target of racism is never deserved). 

My only point is that I think it is fair to describe being the target of racism as a diminishment of freedom and justice, which is the same thing as an undesirable society. I don't care how you want to describe it, maybe you prefer a different word than freedom, but all I'm doing is describing a bad society.  

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

Because people recognize that racism is unjust (being the target of racism is never deserved). 

My only point is that I think it is fair to describe being the target of racism as a diminishment of freedom and justice, which is the same thing as an undesirable society. I don't care how you want to describe it, maybe you prefer a different word than freedom, but all I'm doing is describing a bad society.  

Freedom is exactly the word I mean. A generally, good-willed and decent society will, first, be free. One in which a person has no obligation to others, save whom he chooses to or contracts to. That is when and how large numbers of people get along. The other values are secondary effects of individual freedom of action. But this is a robust freedom for a robust and individualist society, not for social justice worriers trying to save certain, select collectives, tribes and groups from hurt feelings. To no avail, if that's their intention (which I doubt). Someone, sometime, in the free-est society will be offended by someone. Count on that.

The sjw's mostly began the slide, away from individual freedom to favoring and advancing groups in the name of 'freedoms'. Entitlements, by another name. The consequences of their altruism-collectivism have been logical and predictable: first result visible was the diminishment of good will among all citizens, by group, and then comes fractures in societies when the freedom for other tribes gets eroded. Ripe then for any ideology to enter and take power.

 And we are not talking about a "target of racism", whatever that means exactly: An individual has the right to do business with whom he wants to, and that right must be defended. Whatever his true or pretended justifications are. Loss of one's rights means loss of all men's rights. 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that response in place of a cogent argument? I notice you've implicitly accepted the mystical constructs of "groups", qua groups. I.e. that tribes are pitted against, or above, or beneath, other tribes.

Which collectivism conflicts with and ultimately wipes out the concept of individual freedom and rights. Fix the 'group dynamics' and "injustices" (past ones will do, if new injustices can't be found) and individuals will fall into line and we repair a society? Somehow. You have causality reversed.

Something to straighten out that you should already know: there is only the individual.

The "undesirable society" containing all these so-called injustices is being exploited and posed against a Utopian fantasy, by Social Justice worriers, activists and demagogues. An impossible Utopia requires total power to - briefly - enforce, and their leaders know it.

 

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Fix the 'group dynamics' and "injustices" (past ones will do, if new injustices can't be found) and individuals will fall into line and we repair a society? Somehow. You have causality reversed.

All I will say is no, this is not what I think. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Eiuol said:

All I will say is no, this is not what I think. 

Well - good. Then you know individuals cannot be socially engineered to be 'moral', most egregiously, by 'group identity', commonly "identity politics". Your usage of "justice" indicated for me some ambivalence of its meaning, pointing towards social justice-worrying. These are two distinct areas not to be combined. In justice before the law, Joe the barber has the (individual) right to be (morally) wrong. And his individual rights have to be upheld by all. Thereafter, by the objective virtue of justice, you or anyone has the moral right to judge him, avoid him, and articulate opposition to his acts. In fact, it is the freedom of action everyone has which makes one's vilification or vindication of others' acts sometimes and often necessary. The meeting (not colliding nor conflicting, where rational) between rights and personal ethics came to the fore in a "full term" abortion debate. I conceded one area: that although this medical procedure for no emergency cause is irrational, i.e. immoral, not to add cruel, in my and a few other Oists view, the rights of a mother to do so can't be over-ruled, should be defended on principle.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

(An interesting contrasting view here. If one is able to access the article through the link, it has many embedded links to back up assertions. Where I have ellipses, the material is important and extensive; I simply did not want take all the text, rather than stimulate hitting the link to the source.)

FOR CONSERVATIVES TO HAVE ANY HOPE TRUMP HAS TO LOSE

Peter Wehner - 24 August 2020

Quote

 

. . .

The president is reshaping the judiciary in a conservative direction through his court appointments, but he has also given up on core conservative beliefs in limited government and responsible entitlement reform. He’s shredded federalism and embraced protectionism, both of which cut against conservative principles. It was also on Mr. Trump’s watch that, even before the pandemic hit, the United States set record annual deficits and exceeded $22 trillion in debt. (If Joe Biden becomes president, prepare for Republicans to rediscover a rhetorical commitment to fiscal discipline.)

The president’s conservative defenders point out that he has reduced unnecessary regulations on businesses, but they overlook the fact that he has proudly embraced crony capitalism and aggressively used the federal government to tilt the playing field and pick economic winners and losers.

. . . Before Mr. Trump, the Republican Party spoke out against so-called identity politics, yet today it embraces the worst form of white identity politics. . . .

. . .

Under Mr. Trump, then, the Republican Party is only incidentally conservative. At its core it is now ethnonationalist and populist, meaning that in its anti-establishment fervor it incites rather than refines public passions; it is increasingly antagonistic toward free markets, inward-looking and reactionary, hostile to diversity, pessimistic rather than optimistic, encased in cultural grievances, more interested in looking backward than forward.

. . .

The “party of ideas” is a phrase Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to describe the Republican Party in the early 1980s; today, large segments of the party are anti-intellectual, anti-science and dismissive of medical experts, to the point that it has turned wearing masks during a pandemic that’s spread by respiratory droplets into a “culture war” issue.

The party of law and order aggressively defends a president who is lawless. A party that for many years positioned itself as the defender of objective truth, a bulwark against subjectivism and ethical relativism, has as its leader a serially dishonest man who is engaged in a daily assault on reality.

. . .

Any attempt to rescue conservatism from the ashes, then, has to begin with the defeat of Donald Trump in November. If he wins a second term, whatever latent conservatism remains in the Republican Party will be extinguished. The redefinition of the Republican Party into the Trumpian Party will be complete and very difficult to undo. Conservatism as a political philosophy, as a political sensibility, will be homeless.

. . .

This time around, Mr. Trump is fully known. No one believes he’ll change, and he has assured us that he has no intention of changing. His governing ineptitude and borderless corruption are undeniable; so, too, are his psychological and emotional disorders. He is not well, and the wreckage of his presidency is all around us.

Conservatives and Republicans therefore have to ask themselves: Are we willing to entrust our cause and our country to him for another term? Do we really want Mr. Trump’s venomous approach to politics and life to be even more deeply imprinted on the Republican Party? Isn’t it already poisoned enough for many young, nonwhite and suburban voters?

The detoxification of the Republican Party and the conservative cause therefore begins with the de-Trumpification of the Republican Party and the conservative cause. It is in the best interest of the country and conservatism to rid itself of the Trump presidency. Only then can the healing and rebuilding begin.

When it comes to his policy agenda, Joe Biden is no conservative. I wish he were. But despite efforts by Trump supporters to pretend otherwise, Joe Biden is not Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Moreover, conservatism places a premium on prudence, human dignity, respect for the law and institutions, commitment to truth and reality, and a reasonable and reasoning governing temperament. In all of these respects, and others, Mr. Biden is more truly conservative than Mr. Trump.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it a good think if Trump finally kills off the cancer of "Conservatism" with his reelection? Forced to rebuild the Republican party after his second-term catastrophe, maybe we Capitalists will finally be able to gain influence, and inspire the party to be truer to a party that exists to protect individual rights.

Edited by EC
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thought, EC. Isn't it funny how anti-Trumpers in the GOP and in the Democrats are sounding more alike? I guess that's what's meant by the Deep State. As moral grayness and nihilism descends over the world, many Americans want to give up their independent spark to be just the same as other people in other places. Go ahead and try it Mr. Wehner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

From the Wehner op-ed:

Quote

Understanding how easily a large, multiethnic nation can break into warring factions, conservatism finds ways to strengthen our bonds of affection, knowing that despite even deep differences we are not enemies but friends. It believes in objective truth while acknowledging the limitations of human reason and wisdom. 

Wehner sounds like a clueless stooge still bouncing around in the idealism of multiculturalism.

 

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...