Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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 by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 337
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

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

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

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 by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

apology.jpg.6ff598f8fb60a554efb37f721bac5a61.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by MisterSwig
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 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...