Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence

[whYNOT]

1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

 

Bit of a weird position to take on Objectivism Online but okay.

The innumerable intricate doings, inter-actions and responses of humanity is the central purpose of the media. There never was or can be an absolute, objective truth to a story, unless anyone thinks human facts are simple, and humans are perfect witnesses, absolutely truthful and themselves, objective. A newspaper etc., only ¬trying¬ to apply those objective standards to every story which arises, would not be able to properly function to publish other stories, lose readers and advertisers and so lose profits. As well as his profit motive, a publisher isn't duty-bound to publish a story which conflicts with his ethical and political stance. I.e. - be "objective" himself.

Edited January 20, 2021 by whYNOT

[Harrison Danneskjold]

12 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Everyone loves a winner and can't stand a loser. The losing is kinda proof of something (I am not sure what, someone's moral depravity?). "My" candidate wins, I gather some of the glory, likewise and obversely with 'losing'.

It seems like consequentialism - with a dash of mystical determinism. If you win, you're good, if you're good you win. This isn't a sport or chess game - the objectively better person often 'loses' in love and politics.

I return to a year or two ago, before Covid-19, before 'racism' was pushed by the Leftist agenda, before BLM riots and protests, before the election, before the Capitol - when Trump (whatever ARI could sneer about him) was doing well and America was on a good path at home and abroad. Individual freedom was on the rise, if one could see the signs. Nothing is as effective as people active, purposeful and working, and certainly such people have not the time and patience for social metaphysics and social justice or racist nonsense.

Firstly, I think you might want to brush up on what was happening a year or two ago, before COVID.  Although it was decidedly better than things are now (most of which actually was not Trump's fault) we weren't exactly living in Galt's Gulch.  The race issue, for one, came to public prominence under (and I'd argue because of) Barack Obama and has only gone downhill from there, regardless of Trump.

 

Secondly, a loser is bad enough, but a poor loser is the worst; a loser who just can't handle their own loss.  A loser who has no qualms about whipping everyone up into a paranoid frenzy and endangering the very existence of the game they've lost, in the most public pity-party I have ever seen before, is something still several rungs of Hell lower.

 

Do you remember before the election, when those on the left were looking forward to Trump's fans reacting just as badly as Hillary's had in 2016?  And those on the right were saying "no; that's never gonna happen; we're a far more responsible and self-controlled bunch than them"?  I bet Hillary Clinton has been eager to get out of bed every single morning since November.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Harrison Danneskjold]

8 hours ago, necrovore said:

The Democrats basically want to reintroduce slavery, but in a different form.

I think that kind of thinking is one of the main factors that got us into this mess.

 

SOME Democrats (like AOC) want to set up a racial/sexual/whatever caste system and SOME Democrats (like Bernie Sanders and possibly Joe Biden) are willing to go along with it.  Not all Democrats are like that; have you listened to interviews with Andrew Yang?  And some Republicans want to prohibit all immigration and establish an official state religion.

The fact that we have two primary political parties does not mean that we have two primary ideologies at work in the culture.  We have quite a variety of the latter - most of which are very bad, but few of which can be grouped together and reasoned about in any sensible way.

You might want to be a bit more cautious in declaring what "Democrats" or "Republicans" want because that's not necessarily an easy thing to ascertain.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Harrison Danneskjold]

23 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

The innumerable intricate doings, inter-actions and responses of humanity is the central purpose of the media. There never was or can be an absolute, objective truth to a story, unless anyone thinks human facts are simple, and humans are perfect witnesses, absolutely truthful and themselves, objective. A newspaper etc., only ¬trying¬ to apply those objective standards to every story which arises, would not be able to properly function to publish other stories, lose readers and advertisers and so lose profits. As well as his profit motive, a publisher isn't duty-bound to publish a story which conflicts with his ethical and political stance. I.e. - be "objective" himself.

Since I've never personally tried to apply our own concept of "objectivity" to the media before (it's just not a priority for me) the only thing I can point out is that doesn't seem to be the way you're using "objectivity" right there.

[whYNOT]

38 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

I'll bet you $20 that a year from now you won't have anything nice to say about him either.

Ha! I think the opposite and I'll take the bet. I had not expected perfection of your ex-president, like I never do of any leader any place. But I understood two essentials: his highest regard for the independent good of Americans and a US not confined (sacrificially) to perform its traditional duty to the world - AND - the completely horrible people he opposed who opposed him and that same US independence.

Those two poles I have never found cause to move from, in all that has transpired.

You'll see. The horribles are only going to reveal themselves further, in the coming months, in their unashamed desire to dictate to and control Americans and therefore will largely vindicate Trump - so demonstrating how clearly he perceived them to be from the start. Better than most intellectuals, I add.

Easiest money I ever made.

Edited January 20, 2021 by whYNOT

[Harrison Danneskjold]

1 minute ago, whYNOT said:

the completely horrible people he opposed who opposed him and that same US independence.

Oh, absolutely.  I wouldn't try to defend almost any of his public opponents; most of them are worse.

3 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Easiest money I ever made.

We'll see...

[whYNOT]

34 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Since I've never personally tried to apply our own concept of "objectivity" to the media before (it's just not a priority for me) the only thing I can point out is that doesn't seem to be the way you're using "objectivity" right there.

Quite. Objectivity is a misnomer for O'ists looking at "Press objectivity". The newspaper people would laugh if Objectvists informed them of its fundamental meaning. No, they'd agree, this absolutist objectivity is an impossible aim in our work. As I'm getting at, human restraints, time and space restraints, profits and Editorial Policy limit them, even with the best of intentions.

The best they can aim for I think is tell the facts (as accurately as possible) and outside of Opinion pieces NOT tell us their moralizing of the facts (which has become their No. 1 activity, since facts are accessible all over the internet).

Edited January 21, 2021 by whYNOT

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Three on page three.  And also...

On 1/8/2021 at 3:09 PM, Dupin said:

No.  "Idiots" is vulgar.  I ought to have written: 

His detractors call him "authoritarian" when his problem was that he wasn't authoritarian enough.

This made me literally laugh out loud.

[whYNOT]

2 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

 

Do you remember before the election, when those on the left were looking forward to Trump's fans reacting just as badly as Hillary's had in 2016?  And those on the right were saying "no; that's never gonna happen; we're a far more responsible and self-controlled bunch than them"?  I bet Hillary Clinton has been eager to get out of bed every single morning since November.

I'm okay with indulging in some whataboutism. 2017:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/video-exclusive-film-crew-releases-never-seen-footage-2017-inauguration-riots/

Although not as bad as the Capitol attack, which, in turn, who can think was anything comparable to 9/11? (like some drama queens feel). Keeping a sense of proportion is every bit Objectivist, I believe.

Edited January 21, 2021 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

7 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

A national mask mandate on federal property. I believe that it would be unconstitutional for him to mandate it nationally but time will tell.

Right, on federal property. I apologize for the oversight.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/biden-signs-3-executive-orders-mask-mandate-social-distancing-federal-property-racial-equity-rejoins-paris-climate-accord-video/

Not in any hurry, is he.

Edited January 21, 2021 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

 As I'm getting at, human restraints, time and space restraints, profits and Editorial Policy limit them, even with the best of intentions.

 

Trying to break this ¬objectivity¬ distinction (from the common parlance about the media) down:

Rand: "Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness". 

Whereas, Press "objectivity" in reportage is entirely ¬dependent¬ upon the "perceiver's consciousness" - on people's minds, emotions and memories.

Individuals who usually do not hold to reality existing independent of their minds. At two levels, the second level of subjectivity, what they inform an interviewer they saw, which might dishonestly deviate from the primary level, what they believe they saw.  Therefore the uncertainty of eye-witness accounts. Or: He said- she said.

That's the material Press people have to go on for their news sources, so would be non-objective.

(And if anyone says that "photographs never lie" i.e. are objective, I have to disabuse them).

 

Edited January 21, 2021 by whYNOT

[MisterSwig]

On 1/20/2021 at 6:40 AM, necrovore said:

When the Republicans decide they have had enough abuse, when they realize they have nothing to lose, the correct thing for them to do is not to engage in the use of force, but to walk away. That would amount to a "secession" if you want to call it that.

Secession is for politically defeated groups. Most individuals don't have the luxury of walking away from a labor-divided city, state or nation. They must stay and fight the system they hate. There is an extremely high barrier for entry into the marketplace of the self-exiled. Sometimes it's easier to make a living by storming castles.

Edited January 21, 2021 by MisterSwig

[Harrison Danneskjold]

9 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Most individuals don't have the luxury of walking away from a labor-divided city, state or nation.

I strongly disagree.  You do have the option of running off into the wilderness and being a subsistence farmer anytime you want to.  Just because it's not the easiest or most fun option (even today) does not make it cease to exist nor entitle anybody to anything they haven't earned!  It's really weird to hear (presumably) a non-Communist getting cozy with that line of reasoning, but in case you've forgotten...

9 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Sometimes it's easier to make a living by storming castles.

If you're claiming the right to "storm castles" simply because you feel you need to - so does any burglar!  So let's not start imagining that peacefully walking away (in any form; not just secession) isn't an option.

 

Furthermore aren't you anticipating a civil war anyway???  If so then HOW are you disregarding the subsistence farmer option?????  Are you just tired of being alive or what?????

Edited January 22, 2021 by Harrison Danneskjold

[whYNOT]

On 1/20/2021 at 7:45 PM, dream_weaver said:

 

The Nanny state requires willing charges to submit to having a nanny.

Yes. One can't have one without the other. The feature of Nannyism is psychological and moral dependence on a Leader who reminds one of a mother (or father) who knew best, who took care of all your wants, cocooned you in her embrace and set your moral tone. It is a national reversion to childhood, where one, and all the other kiddies too, have to toe the line and conform. And those bad girls and boys who won't submit in their individual rebelliousness, they, sadly, will need to be publicly punished. Preconceptual and sensationalist, the feelings which one takes from one's nanny's behavior and appearance and comforting words, count above all. A leader today who would buck this trend, encouraging personal responsibility, and, worse - looking and sounding hard and uncompromising, will terrify and anger the children.

Big government- and a socialist government - receive ideological-economic critical exposure from us but seldom is the necessarily psychological underpinning of them given attention. Infantilism, the precursor to socialism. 

[whYNOT]

On 1/21/2021 at 12:59 AM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

I'll bet you $20 that a year from now you won't have anything nice to say about him either.

Wait and see. I'm a fair guy and offer you a chance at double or quits. $20 says that a year from now you will recollect Trump's term with more fondness.

As -maybe - the last period of a movement towards independence, individual freedom from others and the state - chaotic as it seemed. 

Freedom, if one can handle it, can *look* chaotic. Totalitarianism, as contrast is tightly ~organized~ by its nature.

Edited January 22, 2021 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

On 1/21/2021 at 3:35 AM, whYNOT said:

On 1/21/2021 at 3:35 AM, whYNOT said:

Trying to break this ¬objectivity¬ distinction (from the common parlance about the media) down:

Rand: "Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness". 

Whereas, Press "objectivity" in reportage is entirely ¬dependent¬ upon the "perceiver's consciousness" - on people's minds, emotions and memories.

Individuals who usually do not hold to reality existing independent of their minds. At two levels, the second level of subjectivity, what they inform an interviewer they saw, which might dishonestly deviate from the primary level, what they believe they saw.  Therefore the uncertainty of eye-witness accounts. Or: He said- she said.

That's the material Press people have to go on for their news sources, so would be non-objective.

 

 

 

 

The further phase after collection of newsreports, compromised by "reality" NOT existing "independent of any perceiver's[e.g a witness', an informant's] consciousness" is that the reporter, writer, editor, publisher and/or anchorperson - also -supplies their own primacy of consciousness to the substance, tone and delivery of the story.

How do we play this one?

How do we want it to come across to our public?

Who will the report benefit - our side or theirs?

What should we include, what leave out?

Do we spike the story, tone it down, barely/never mention it, or give it maximum, dramatic coverage?

(And make certain Carol over at MSNBC knows what we're doing so they do the same).

And so, crudely: "the fake news", which has the power to emotionally influence millions who believe it as Gospel. Who, of course lap it up according to their preconceptions. Since, to finalize the journalistic process, they the end users are just as much given to reality existing *dependent upon* their consciousnesses as are the media people. A ragtag assault on the Capitol is equal to 9/11 is equal to every violent assault in history... why, because I feel so and wish it to be. Countrywide protests/rioting, conversely were innocent and justifiable "protests". CNN wouldn't lie to me.

Edited January 22, 2021 by whYNOT

[MisterSwig]

13 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

You do have the option of running off into the wilderness and being a subsistence farmer anytime you want to. 

I don't think so. Most people are too weak, too unskilled, or too poor to create and sustain a completely independent farm. Even if you have the minimal funds, strength and skillset, one bad season or disaster and you're toast. The great minds and laborers of the past developed farms to support villages and cities, sedentary societies. Not everyone can do it. It's hard work. In addition to the right environment, it requires a lot of knowledge about various subjects, and a lot of grit and determination from a strong individual.

14 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Furthermore aren't you anticipating a civil war anyway???

No. I'm not fond of making predictions or anticipating human events that are largely out of my control. I anticipate the sun coming up each morning and me writing down my thoughts.

As for a civil war, are you sure we aren't in one already? Should Civil War 2.0 look like 1.0? We don't declare war on other nations anymore, why should we declare war on each other? I doubt we'll have any conventional-type battles unless a state actually secedes and the Union has the balls to attack. Until then the various factions will continue coalescing and forming citizen groups and drawing political lines. Periodically they'll conduct hits and raids on each other in the form of violent street assaults and protests and pillaging of the enemy's buildings. Like what's going on now, especially in the last year. Not really war, but not really peace either. Two hostile tribes of apes screaming and swinging animal bones at each other.

 

[whYNOT]

Resist! Non-violently, goes without saying, intellectually and with passionate conviction. A good article I thought:

http://ip1.thejmg.com/t/1830259/2735224/96630/36/

Edited January 22, 2021 by whYNOT

[Doug Morris]

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The feature of Nannyism is psychological and moral dependence on a Leader who reminds one of a mother (or father) who knew best,

Reminds me of Trumpism.  Trump's base believed everything he said, even if there was no evidence for it ("The election was stolen!") and even if it went against science ("Don't wear masks!").

[whYNOT]

6 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Reminds me of Trumpism.  Trump's base believed everything he said, even if there was no evidence for it ("The election was stolen!") and even if it went against science ("Don't wear masks!").

Should be reminding you of Bidenism - the Nanny state, de luxe.

Wait and see, presuming you can't see yet.

[dream_weaver]

6 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Reminds me of Trumpism.  Trump's base believed everything he said, even if there was no evidence for it ("The election was stolen!") and even if it went against science ("Don't wear masks!").

Biden Nannyism, good. Trump Nannyism, bad. A variation on "If you don't like dad's answer, ask for mom's answer instead."

[Doug Morris]

1 minute ago, dream_weaver said:

Biden Nannyism, good. Trump Nannyism, bad.

Anybody's Nannyism is bad.

Analogous to a kid being raised by parents who may disagree on some things, but who both embrace the altruist morality.  The kid won't understand at first that they are wrong, and may well never understand it.

[whYNOT]

19 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

Biden Nannyism, good. Trump Nannyism, bad. A variation on "If you don't like dad's answer, ask for mom's answer instead."

And then there's Kamala to come, it gets worse.

Sowell on Harris:

 

[dream_weaver]

31 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Anybody's Nannyism is bad.

Analogous to a kid being raised by parents who may disagree on some things, but who both embrace the altruist morality.  The kid won't understand at first that they are wrong, and may well never understand it.

In this case, the republican 'parent' and democrat 'parent' are being manipulated by the 'kids' and have yet to grasp they're being played.

Yes, Nannyism is bad in this context, and the implication you read from my post is another area I can seek to improve my communication skill.

[whYNOT]

3 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Anybody's Nannyism is bad.

Analogous to a kid being raised by parents who may disagree on some things, but who both embrace the altruist morality.  The kid won't understand at first that they are wrong, and may well never understand it.

Hang on, you are drawing a false equivalence, there is and has been a distinct gulf between the Leftist children and the average conservative and Trump supporter - - it is the first who predominantly were and are making all the noise and social upheaval, e.g., demands for safe spaces and safe words. Etc. The latter are and have been self-restrained and self-responsible for the most part and for the great majority. Natch, this is where the attack on the Capitol will be conveniently cited: as though the few hundred attackers out of some thousands who were there, represent the average Trump supporter (numbering over 70 millions, I believe). And on a single day, not every day for several years. The "exception that proves the rule", that attack was a bug not a feature of the mass of them. 

Same with altruism that broadly had its origins with the religious and has now been hijacked far more extensively by the Left. There is where sacrificial conduct and demands have soared lately, with the Leftist kids.  Any self-respecting conservative, the grown-up, I read and hear from is aghast at the depths of self-sacrifice they go to, gleefully sacrificing every value they can get their hands on, the nation too. 

No, the bond that the supporters have with Trump is anything but a - Nanny with children - one. Quite the opposite. He seems to respect them for being independent, American adults and they know this.

Edited January 22, 2021 by whYNOT