Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, necrovore said:

I don't think the ideas of Trump or Republicans necessarily lead to the storming of the Capitol. For one thing, Trump and the Republicans have been supporters of "law and order" all through the BLM and Antifa riots, and even through the election challenges they tried working "through the system" all the way to the end. Storming the Capitol was not a "law and order" action at all (and in fact it interrupted their effort to work through the system).

Then Trump did not push the idea that there was massive fraud.

And he promoted trust in the judicial system to sort it out.

And peace reigned in the Capitol Building on January 6 2021.

And then I woke up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 593
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

14 January 2021 We will crush their violence enacted under their feast of self-delusion and contempt for our Constitutional rule of law. The republic will prevail. The citizens on both sides are

As America prepares to certify our next President, a large band of hooligans have taken upon themselves to storm the Capitol.  This in the name of Freedom?  Are these hooligans striving to look for th

Also there's an argument to the effect that, well look, the representatives in Congress deserve this. While, strictly speaking, this is correct, it doesn't follow merely from that fact that this is th

Posted Images

1 hour ago, necrovore said:

Nor would their ideas be supported by the aftermath of such a thing.

So do you condemn the people who stormed the Capitol who explicitly advocated for Trump? Could you acknowledge that they were not antifa and also say they are an embarrassment to Republicans and Trump? 

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

"Up until a few decades ago, the mainstream media played fair."

You told me yourself that they used to play fair. Now you're saying you agree that they never played fair, but they just never played as unfair? All I can say is that they have always played this unfair, you just haven't noticed until recently. And yes, Newsmax is guilty and perhaps more guilty than CNN (media in general, not just the mainstream). 

Weird, you are unaware of the radical shift. "Played fair" means that despite a station's/paper's partiality and bias to something or some person, policy or politician they had some integrity, would go to reasonable lengths to give both or other sides a hearing. "Accuracy, if not objectivity - objectivity isn't possible" as a US publisher said. That's true enough. And a publisher- owner is not obliged to give a platform to opposing viewpoints, he has every right to promote his own. Which the viewer has every right to criticize. But at one time they had audiences and readers who came from all bents or persuasions to be taken into account. A reputation with the general public was still important. Now? I have no problem calling e.g. CNN as professionally and ethically corrupt, corrupted for and by an ideological message and political/power goals. Their, the msm's, market is the Left and extreme Left. Therefore, they have given up any pretext of fairness, impartiality, objectivity and even accuracy and integrity.

What is Newsmax especially "guilty" of? Ethical? Legal?

 

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

 

 

 

3.  He will be remembered as the asshole who couldn't cope with losing - completely by his own doing.  Back in December I told a leftist friend of mine that "no, Trump wouldn't try and pull anything immoral now that we all know he's lost; he cares way too much about what other people think of him!  I'm sure he'll accept his defeat with some kind of dignity for future generations to remember him by".  Not true; now I owe him $20 and that actually is Donald Trump's own fault.

Trump has conceded. Period. Do you agree? That you'd preferred him to do so gracefully, is beside the point.

I said all along, look at his actions beyond his mannerisms.

I will boringly have to repeat myself, Trump very plainly placed the highest value in the nation. From the early beginnings until now. I have not seen anything as clear as this. Everyone, including Objectivists, have cynically attributed ~selfish~ motives to his entrance into politics. And have not stopped taking shots at him for everything, fair and foul. That is the greatest injustice O'ists in particular could perpetrate.

 

Actually, Trump's motivation was "selfish" as we know it to be; for the selfish values he had and perceived a great USA to have.

If you guys would entertain that proposal for only a minute, more would be clear to you about his erratic actions.

Terribly disappointed in the election outcomes - Of course he was and is!

Again, for the sake of the nation and his supporters above his ambitions he had to pursue the potential of fraud. He gave up eventually. Now, he probably sees the US as opening the door into Socialism. That notion would drive me dilly if I were in his place. That's who he is "losing" to, from his point of view. His "losing" is secondary.

Did he "pull anything immoral"? That's entirely too strong a condemnation, HD. We hear the media and Dems play it, we'd think so: Lies, incitement - and all the rest - The massacre at the Capitol! Horrible people without any value but power, ignore them.

Dignity? Personally, I would rather suffer some public indignity in order to stand for my values. Once more, national value came first to Trump. And who cares about what others think about you, apart from the average second-hander public figure?

At the end of that, a little empathy for the man would be in order rather than recriminations.

By my reckoning you didn't lose the bet. He will be accorded a greater dignity in time to come.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Storming Of The Capitol. New Ideal. Ghate and Journo.

Among the topics covered:

  • How the storming of the Capitol resembled the 9/11 terrorist attacks
  • Trump’s level of moral responsibility for the attack
  • The arbitrariness of Trump’s conspiracy assertions
  • Our culture’s descent into irrationalist tribalism
  • The increasing authoritarianism on both the right and the left
  • The importance of recognizing the varying degrees of support for violence and authoritarianism on both sides of the culture
  • The importance of recognizing the various forms of dictatorial aspiration
  • The tribalistic attempt to claim victimhood in order to scapegoat the other side
  • Why the attackers were not “patriots” but nihilists
  • The commonalities between the storming of the Capitol and the BLM protests
  • The attack as an attempt to defy the rule of law
  • The political institutions worth supporting in an irrational political culture
  • The philosophical causes of tribalism
  • How to think rationally about election fraud claims
  • What should happen to Trump in the future given his moral responsibility for the attack
  • What is the best path forward for America
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose everyone can access that New Ideal video. I listened to the opening, might continue, might not, for the 2 hour duration.

"What came to mind was 9/11": said Journo.

WHAT was that again?!

I've heard much rationalism from ARI over time, the dropping of context all over the place, but this statement is extreme, not to add emotionalist. How does one compare and categorize and evaluate the two such disparate attacks into a single concept?

Ghate demurs somewhat. But there I gave up. 

(and btw, the "death toll" Journo mentions, is two. One man and one woman died violently at others hands. Three others died of natural causes, a stroke and a heart attack for two that I read, deaths which could have happened in a crush at a football game. Therefore, broken down, ONE person was killed by an an attacker in the mob - and that's the sum of the (violent) "death toll" which has been made so much of).

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

The Storming Of The Capitol. New Ideal. Ghate and Journo.

Among the topics covered:

  • The increasing authoritarianism on both the right and the left

 Reference: The Storming Of The Capitol

"The first is: I think the iron rule of autocracy is very simple. It's this message: If you challenge me, you will lose and I will win. I think that's like--that's just it. That's the rule. So, you apply that anywhere in history, anywhere in the world, at any time in history, anywhere in the world, and the successful autocrat--and the autocrat can be the leader of a drug gang in your neighborhood, or it could be the leader of a political party, you know, in a democratic country. But, if you're the leader, what you want to convey is: If you challenge me, you will lose and I will win." (Gary Shiffman, Link)

I believe Gary Shiffman's quote captures Trump's autocratic character quite well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An autocrat in personality, AGAINST the (Socialist- leftist) autocrats. You can't be sweet to your sworn enemies. That much "autocracy"  I could accept. The rest is superficial. His mannerism and rough behavior, so unlike an urbane and practiced Obama (for instance).

Now, naturally, all the critics of Trump, fair and otherwise, will be coming out of the woodwork.

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.

Given all that, this election would have been a landslide victory. So what changed? I doubt Trump changed.

For some, many, the US was doing "too well" - what is there to say about them they haven't already exposed?

The body blows the country took swung the situation in their favor. Despicable - were and are the Democrats and Left for feeding and taking advantage of misfortune and the wide havoc and disharmony at the cost of Americans. 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do want to add one more thing.

People are asking whether now is the time for violence -- or if not now, when. I think Ayn Rand already answered that question: the initiation of force is wrong, but retaliatory force is a "moral imperative."

The Democrats are getting more and more abusive toward Republicans. Some of this is through the government and some of it is through "cancel culture" and riots and the like. Now that they are in power, this will probably continue. I could be wrong -- the Democrats are divided into moderates and extremes. However, the moderate position is inconsistent, so I expect the extremists to be able to dominate.

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. The Declaration of Independence was the same kind of thing -- it was not a declaration of war. It is possible to have a peaceful secession.

"Brexit" was a peaceful secession, and there's been talk of a "Texit," too, if Texas secedes. Texas would probably be joined by many other states.

The last time secession happened was the Civil War. However, the South was seceding in order to infringe rights (by maintaining slavery) and not to preserve them, and that's fundamentally different. Of course Lincoln said that he didn't care about slavery and that his purpose was to "preserve the Union," but that only means he did the right thing for the wrong reasons.

The Democrats basically want to reintroduce slavery, but in a different form. As such I think the Democrats would refuse to let the Republicans go.

If the Republicans walk away and the Democrats shoot them in the back, then it will have been the Democrats who started the war.

It is unfortunate that the Republicans don't have enough of an intellectual framework to create a rigorous new Constitution for themselves. If they base it on religion, as they probably will, then they're going to have significant problems before long. They would do well to imitate the Founding Fathers. If they allow free speech, it is still possible for problems to be corrected.

However, if the Democrats are enough like Nazis, they might be able to make it as hard for Republicans to secede as it would have been for the Jews to "secede" from Nazi Germany. A secession requires significant organization, and that requires state governments to organize it. If state governments are unwilling or unable to organize such a thing, then expect millions of people to try to flee the United States. (Then Mexico might pay for the wall after all...)

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

So do you condemn the people who stormed the Capitol who explicitly advocated for Trump?

I condemn them regardless of what they advocated for.

8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Could you acknowledge that they were not antifa

Some of them were Antifa and I think it's wrong to evade that.

8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

and also say they are an embarrassment to Republicans and Trump?

Why should Republicans and Trump be embarrassed? They didn't do it. They didn't ask for it. They couldn't have benefited from it. Their ideas don't support it. They can't control, or be responsible for, the choices or actions of other people.

If a bunch of idiots wear Ayn Rand paraphernalia and go on a rampage, should Objectivists be embarrassed? Why?

Isn't it collectivism to say that if some members of a group do something, all the members of the group are responsible?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, necrovore said:

Some of them were Antifa and I think it's wrong to evade that.

I specifically said the people who were advocating for Trump. Most of them were. In the link I gave you showing people inside the Senate chambers, they were all for Trump. If you condemn them, great. But you did seem to retract from saying it was a complete false flag before, to now the claim that there were agents provocateur, many of them were Trump supporters, but Trump had no responsibility (I disagree but it's something I guess).

26 minutes ago, necrovore said:

Why should Republicans and Trump be embarrassed?

Maybe I use this phrase differently than most people. I meant they "an embarrassment" in the sense of "although they claim to be on my side, they are not, and if I did not condemn them, I would have to be embarrassed because of implicit approval shown by my silence". As long as they condemn it (and make clear exactly who they condemn), they shouldn't be embarrassed by these events. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

"Played fair" means that despite a station's/paper's partiality and bias to something or some person, policy or politician they had some integrity, would go to reasonable lengths to give both or other sides a hearing.

I don't know what you're trying to tell me? Like I said, the media never played fair. Sure there are degrees of unfairness, but the 1890s were easily as bad as today if not worse.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, 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. The Declaration of Independence was the same kind of thing -- it was not a declaration of war. It is possible to have a peaceful secession.

I agree.

44 minutes ago, necrovore said:
9 hours ago, Eiuol said:

So do you condemn the people who stormed the Capitol who explicitly advocated for Trump?

I condemn them regardless of what they advocated for.

Okay, that makes a big difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

I don't know what you're trying to tell me? Like I said, the media never played fair. Sure there are degrees of unfairness, but the 1890s were easily as bad as today if not worse.

 

Aren't you missing something? (besides not being around in the 1890's)

The reach the Press had then was about a billionth of what it is now. There was no global network TV and social media.

Whomever they were unfair to could only affect a relatively tiny number who read of it, regionally. Now the slightest 'unfairness' or controversy is picked up from the news and regurgitated across social media internationally every second of the day. An individual's reputation can be and is being destroyed in one day. Not only are there degrees of unfairness, but immensely greater degrees of audience numbers, therefore greater influence and vastly more power (by the media) nowadays. If you haven't seen the journalistic decline of the NYT and CNN (which was a quality station at the time of the Iraq war) compromised with a totally "Woke" ideology, I can't help you. CNN's coverage today was plainly gloating about Trump's departure ("in disgrace") and unctuously worshipful of Biden. 

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

 

Some of them were Antifa and I think it's wrong to evade that.

 

Why should that be such a problem for anyone to, at minimum consider the evidence.

It looks to me that many people desperately WANT the whole ugly affair to be laid at the feet of the Republicans and Trump--alone and unaided. Perhaps that wraps things up nicely for them. Villains or heroes, the intrinsicist's delight and no moral greys.

That possible Antifa infiltration doesn't remove ¬any¬ blame from the Trump supporters, mind.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

That possible Antifa infiltration doesn't remove ¬any¬ blame from the Trump supporters, mind.

I don't think it's right to call them "Trump supporters." They may have been wearing the logos but their actions did not support Trump, either in fact or in theory.

If a bunch of idiots put on Ayn Rand paraphernalia and went on a rampage -- would it be right to constantly refer to them as "Objectivism supporters"? As if all supporters of Objectivism are like that? As if Objectivism supports rampages like that?

Edited by necrovore
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

First executive order of business of Biden's: mandatory national masking. The Nanny state has begun.

The court's struck down the entity that is currently sitting in the office of the honorable of the governor of the state of Michigan's executive order akin to being able to make law ex-nilo. Now it has been delegated to the Michigan Department of Health to enforce the regulations (that they create ex-nilo.)

The Nanny state requires willing charges to submit to having a nanny. The department of de-education has been cultivating that soil since implementing compulsory education. The operation of moral law does not require anyone's belief. And by extension: nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, I'm sorry for the random tangent about Fact and Value.  Secondly...

16 hours ago, necrovore said:

However, where I differ from you seems to be, I don't think the ideas of Trump or Republicans necessarily lead to the storming of the Capitol.

I disagree.

 

If the election was in fact "stolen" (as Trump has been saying since before it could've even happened) and if the entirety of all three branches of our government were in on it (which necessarily follows from the idea that nobody; not one judge or politician has been willing to give Trump's objections a fair hearing) then the unavoidable conclusion is that this problem cannot be solved with words.  Which means that it can only be solved with guns.

Which isn't to say that Republican ideas had much to do with January Sixth, but that Trump's ideas most certainly did.  Hopefully there will still be a Republican party after Trump.

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

So do you condemn the people who stormed the Capitol who explicitly advocated for Trump? Could you acknowledge that they were not antifa and also say they are an embarrassment to Republicans and Trump? 

I will.  They're an embarrassment to Americans in general.

13 hours ago, whYNOT said:

"Accuracy, if not objectivity - objectivity isn't possible" as a US publisher said. That's true enough.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Trump has conceded. Period. Do you agree?

Technically.  Sixty-four days after he should've conceded, the day after his mob showed everyone the true nature of their "patriotism" and two weeks before such a gesture would've ceased to be relevant anyway.  If he's gonna throw all the exceptions and qualifications he can into any admission he deigns to make then I'm not gonna accept them without a few qualifications of my own.  So I guess he technically did admit to technically losing.

 

12 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I said all along, look at his actions beyond his mannerisms.

I do.  When I talk about his "endearing mannerisms" that's my own attempt to fairly represent some of the things that I know I liked about him until recently (and I'm assuming they're things that you're probably still fond of, too).

 

I (presumably like his supporters) actually liked the way he presented himself; bragging about how everything he did was "the biggest" and "the best" and how he extended such sayings to everything America has done as well.  He wasn't about to feel ashamed of anything he considered boast-worthy (although he was never too clear on exactly what he did or did not place in that category or why) and it was cute.

I don't think that brashness (that drives everyone at CNN right up a wall) is actually what he deserves to be condemned for: I think what deserves condemnation ARE those actions themselves.  Let's just take a few things off the top of my head...

 

1.  His trade war with China has hurt both Chinese and American citizens while doing not much of anything at all to the CCP (which, you'll notice, is even more active on the world stage than it was when he first took office).  He didn't establish an embassy in Taiwan (which would've REALLY given the CCP something to worry about) or condemn the Chinese government for any of the numerous things for which they truly do deserve just buckets of condemnation.  All the trade war accomplished was to make it slightly harder for the good and productive citizens of both countries to earn their own living.

2.  He responded to the pandemic by printing far more money than any Democrat ever could've gotten away with and just shoveling it out into the country at large.  Granted, this was a far better response than that of many Democratic governors and mayors (whose behavior was truly despicable) but Mister Arch-Capitalist Tycoon has now made every single one of us (except for people like me who didn't accept the handouts 😎) into lousy moochers.

3.  His border wall would hurt both Mexican immigrants and American employers (since a trade is a win-win transaction in any free market, including the black ones) if it ultimately ended up working, only I seriously doubt that it will.  The Cubans, after all, have known how to turn a pickup truck into a fully-functional boat for several decades.  So the only real change his wall is likely to accomplish is that the government has a new project to shovel money into.

4.  He didn't repeal Obamacare; he told his administrators to "make it work the best we can".   Yet another promising money-hole for trillions of future tax dollars.

Not all of his policies were bad.  He lowered taxes (which is always nice), pulled some of our troops out of places they never should've been in the first place and got several middle-eastern countries to stop trying to genocide Israel.  I personally thought the "space force" idea was hilarious!  But a great many of his other policies, once you'd gotten past all the "America first" and "America is the best" rhetoric surrounding them to drill down into what they were actually about, were indefensible.

 

13 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I will boringly have to repeat myself, Trump very plainly placed the highest value in the nation.

I would have agreed with that in the past, given the caveat that Trump obviously never had a clue what would constitute good for that nation or bad for it.  Not since November.

 

I'm trying not to get too far sidetracked into hypothesizing about his personal motives or intentions (partially because I'm unsure how relevant they are to how we should evaluate January 6th and partially because I no longer have anything nice to say on that subject).  Suffice it to say that I don't consider it too strong to call his more recent rhetoric immoral and dangerously irresponsible.

People often compare America to a boat when discussing the people at its helm and I think it's pretty obvious that it's not enough for them to be good people; we also need them to be competent drivers.  Donald Trump has been tweeting while driving for 4 years and (as cute and funny as many of his pronouncements have been) now that we've decided to replace him he's demonstrated that not only was he never that great of a driver but neither was he a particularly good or patriotic person.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, whYNOT said:

At the end of that, a little empathy for the man would be in order rather than recriminations.

And what about HIS empathy?  Empathy for anyone who wasn't born here would be a nice start, but what about his empathy for the people who died on January Sixth?  The people who will now have permanent criminal records because they believed in and wanted to please him?  How about all the people who he has now convinced that America is fundamentally broken and don't know what they can do about it, or any of the still-sane onlookers who've noticed how damn scary his supporters are becoming?  What about any of the millions of Americans who did, in fact, vote for Joe Biden?  Hell, how about some empathy for Joe Biden himself (who is the human being that the rest of us picked to be our next president, and whose presidency may never be fully rid of this insanity)?

 

It's all well and good to say that Joe Biden is the (badly) reincarnated Joe Stalin, except that it's not true.  Neither he nor Kamala are any kind of true believers in much of anything, nor will they be able to unilaterally impress their will (whatever that may be) on us without any Republican resistance.  And Donald Trump never grasped what the alternative could've been anyway.  He said some nice pro-Capitalist things and also some anti-Capitalist things and the very instant he got a reaction he didn't want he gave every other American a big orange middle finger.

 

Since I don't consider it a virtue to love those who spit in my face I'm afraid I won't be giving any moral support to that "man" and I don't think you should either.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
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...