Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

HB v. AB: Is collectivism the greater evil?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 262
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There is much more integration (not just coherence, but mutual reinforcement and support) between modern conservatism and Marxism and postmodernism, than there is between Marxism and postmodernism.

People interested in how a leading religious (Jewish) conservative thinks can watch Dennis Prager chat with Craig Biddle. They cover some hard topics and find common ground. I hope more Objectivists g

Has anyone come up with a more precise characterization of who or what is or is not being suppressed than "rightist" or "leftist"?

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Keep in mind I picked him as a clear example of the mainstream conservative viewpoint, what passes as mainstream for conservatives these days. More or less that it has transformed into something else. He isn't alarming in contrast, he is alarming in similarity. If this is the future we can expect, I don't think it's going to turn out well. 

Focusing tightly on politics and a politician, there is this fact you overlook:

Conservatives want vigorous freedom of speech; Leftists do not.

Why is that? Now - which do Objectivists support?

When the free market of ideas (from free minds) gets nullified or skewed in one direction, the political actions will follow that direction. That's what happens when one whole segment of society gets de-platformed from the monolithic social media. It's *this* which is not "going to turn out well".

The left, by its nature, cannot have dissenters (I keep repeating). They need to drown out opposing opinions. They need a safe space from reality. If there were permitted ongoing open public debate over facts and (American) values, I've read and heard enough from conservatives and the right - and enough from the left - to know that the conservatives will intellectually trounce them. That's how irrational, morally bankrupt and cynical the left has become. The conservatives are well ahead on rationality and reasoning - observing facts and thinking more pertinently than some ARI O'ists lately.

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

Conservatives want vigorous freedom of speech

I don't think advocating for the government forcibly breaking up large corporations - not just tech corporations - is a desire for vigorous freedom of speech.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I don't think advocating for the government forcibly breaking up large corporations - not just tech corporations - is a desire for vigorous freedom of speech.

Well that's his right of (vigorous) freedom of speech to extol. He is wrong.

In the open and ongoing public debate, that issue can be argued at length and dismissed by most. Remove what the owner of a platform doesn't like, and freedom of speech suffers, ideas - good and bad - are driven underground. One-way ideological narratives lead to one party state or a divided country.

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

Well that's his right of (vigorous) freedom of speech to extol. He is wrong.

Well of course. Just to be clear, although I'm ambivalent sometimes about de-platforming because sometimes I think it's done correctly, it is often done for the wrong reasons. This is why I'm sensitive to having the right response. The answer to deplatforming is not to deplatform corporations off the face of existence. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

"The sheer love of deconstructionism".

"The words don't have to be true to do their damage".

If one wants to find what's behind Critical Race Theory - and every 'critical theory', in sociology, law, politics, history, education, literature, etc. which sets out to dismantle/destroy/deconstruct the Western enlightenment, reason, objectivity, and language and put socialism on top, at least listen to Hicks' second part from about 25minutes to 55mins. You will never see the p-modernist Left and their psychological premises the same way, I promise.

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

Since this thread runs closely with another one, I'm putting up Elan Journo's essay again.  https://capitalismmagazine.us12.list-manage.com/track/click?u=e6daac5bbabca715ce33f553e&id=4377f9150a&e=1ce5f80967

Title: ""National Conservatism" Betrays America's Founding Ideals".

[Assuming his premise that national conservatism exists, is malevolent in the US context and is growing as a core culture outside of a few writers (and Hungary) which he seizes on as evidence - I'd ask, does postmodern, socialist, leftism affirm those "ideals"?]

Sub-head: "A Time to Purge".

[Is that a purge BY Leftists of the right-conservatives in business, the media and social media, he means?]

Sub-head: "An Alternate-Reality Version of America"

[Yes, that's the progressive Left's Socialist vision for us, propagandized by the msm]

Sub-head: "Bowing to Authority"

[Right, the authoritarian Left again telling us what's good for us, and many submit]

Sub-head: "Celebrating Authoritarianism"

[Remnants of Trump's "authoritarianism", no doubt. Few are going to accept the view that Trump was authoritarian - against the anti-American, collectivist authoritarians. A bully of the bullies, in favor of the (generally) innocents. Easiest to accept the commonly superficial narrative, which he admittedly didn't help with his mannerisms, but his style should not be confused with his intent]

Conclusion: "Betraying America"

[Yes, and who is most guilty?]

In all, while not invalid, and pretty much boilerplate Ayn Rand, I find this to be one-sided rationalizing and context-dropping against religious right-conservatives (always the soft target compared with the rabid Left). What the essay does not contain could fill a book. The Right, warts and all, recently had RESPONDED to the surge of Post-Modernist, neo-marxist, ideological activism they could see in politics and society. What Journo has not seen is the causation. That's not a NEW "betrayal" by conservatives, and Rand was clear about their lacks, long ago. Journo slides by the imminent problems as if the left doesn't matter and isn't there.  

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

Gosh, was this Youtube discussion about the attempt by the left to stifle intellectual dissent, a victim of the left's ... attempt to stifle intellectual dissent? 

I anticipate and trust Bernstein makes a transcript available.

https://www.capitalismreview.com/2021/03/academic-cancel-culture-and-the-lefts-attempts-to-stifle-intellectual-dissent/

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

The account that the video was hosted on was terminated. That doesn't mean it was deleted because of the video or discussion. Plus why would you post it here? It has nothing to do with the thread topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaving aside that it is not a clampdown against free speech (you really can say anything you want, the freedom exists even if no one likes what you say and doesn't want you on their property), you mostly have clutter here. Try to be organized and make a new thread rather than stacking on new topics in the same thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 (you really can say anything you want, the freedom exists even if no one likes what you say and doesn't want you on their property)

So the freedom of dissent exists but there is no place free to dissent. The very meaning of dissent is saying things some others don't like.

If you can see, there is a "purge" by left owned, "authoritarian" social media of -anything- and they don't have to justify themselves - they consider 'right wing'. That's stating opinions anything rightwards from their leftist beliefs.

When social media has turned into the giant of communication and discourse it has, they effectively rule what masses of people think and are allowed to say. Modern censorship.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

Respectfully, this thread was created by whYNOT. Shouldn't it be his to take in directions he deems best? I created a new thread in a different forum because I'm only interested in the reason they got cancelled, not really whether this is evidence against collectivism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thank you Mister Swig! The topic is the same as it started, collectivism against individualism. Superficially, you'd think a non-starter for Objectivists, and beneath discussion. I'm not adept regarding all these social platforms but to the reports I do hear it's apparent that people and publications are being suspended (banned/whatever) from them by the truck load. "Algorithms" picking up no-no words and phrases, some may try to justify, but who programs them and why do so? They are only the method and say nothing of the intention. Clearly - because these powerful, billionaire, autocratic social media owners are afraid of words. Which means scared of thoughts and ideas. That's the fear of free minds. Which indicates a terror of individual freedoms. Ultimate end - to gain and or maintain the hold on political power. When the nay-sayers have been silenced, or usually will 'second-guess', i.e. self-censor their minds in sacrifice of truthfulness and integrity, only the yay-sayers are left behind, which eventuates in a society of timid mice. Cancel - "deconstruct" - books, knowledge, facts, reason and a culture, and one may eventually cancel/deconstruct human beings. The evils of collectivism against individualism, absolutely.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to distinguish between directly monitoring content that only a human can do with all the nuance of language, or outsourcing that to computer algorithms that can't distinguish the nuances of language resulting as a big net that catches everything even the things they don't want to catch. Both are wrong, but the first kind is considerably worse than the second kind. The second one results in many errors when it comes to things like political topics. It happens all the time. More often than not, no one is out to get you. It's just not cost beneficial for them to worry about the errors. 

That is not fear of ideas, but glorification of technocracy and utilitarianism. Even if Bernstein was effectively caught as an error given that probably no one sees him as posing any kind of threat, it doesn't matter in their eyes. If the algorithm works pretty good 90% of the time by catching people who actually glorify racism, they don't care what happens to the other 10% that have at best a very remote spurious correlation to those hateful people. 

56 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

When the nay-sayers have been silenced, or usually will 'second-guess' and 'censor' themselves in sacrifice of truthfulness

No one is silenced. These media platforms are not depriving you of anything when they say you can't post. You aren't left off worse than before you had these platforms. If you don't like it don't use them. The only people that second-guess are those that are over concerned about what others think. Who cares if people on YouTube don't like you. If you think you have to fake what you say in order to get anybody to listen to you, what the hell are you doing there? The argument to make against them isn't one about freedom of speech, but how should people use the freedom that they have? 

57 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

The topic is the same as it started, collectivism against individualism.

Well, it demonstrates disorganized thinking if you categorize all of it together in one lump. Also the topic is not collectivism versus individualism, it was religion and collectivism as the topic. That's how you had it. Now you changed it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Also the topic is not collectivism versus individualism, it was religion and collectivism as the topic. That's how you had it. Now you changed it. 

Yes, if it had been collectivism versus individualism, there would not have been much of a disagreement on this forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

I'm trying to distinguish between directly monitoring content that only a human can do with all the nuance of language, or outsourcing that to computer algorithms that can't distinguish the nuances of language resulting as a big net that catches everything even the things they don't want to catch. Both are wrong, but the first kind is considerably worse than the second kind. The second one results in many errors when it comes to things like political topics. It happens all the time. More often than not, no one is out to get you. It's just not cost beneficial for them to worry about the errors. 

That is not fear of ideas, but glorification of technocracy and utilitarianism. Even if Bernstein was effectively caught as an error given that probably no one sees him as posing any kind of threat, it doesn't matter in their eyes. If the algorithm works pretty good 90% of the time by catching people who actually glorify racism, they don't care what happens to the other 10% that have at best a very remote spurious correlation to those hateful people. 

No one is silenced. These media platforms are not depriving you of anything when they say you can't post. You aren't left off worse than before you had these platforms. If you don't like it don't use them. The only people that second-guess are those that are over concerned about what others think. Who cares if people on YouTube don't like you. If you think you have to fake what you say in order to get anybody to listen to you, what the hell are you doing there? The argument to make against them isn't one about freedom of speech, but how should people use the freedom that they have? 

 

 I don't believe you know what's going on. "Errors"? There is only one game in town for the open and vigorous interchange of ideas and that's mass social media.  If you aren't heard there one's ideas hardly exist, but to a few.

This has nothing to do with "depriving" me, per se. It deprives the intellectual culture. I wouldn't join any of the large media but that is where the vast majority of people hear their facts/disinformation and opinions. "If you don't like it don't use them"- is a cop-out. We are talking about the argument and effects of mainstream ideas here, not mine alone. And ¬I¬ might not second-guess what I want to say (here), but millions of others will do so, just to keep their accounts on YT, FB etc. Therefore, a profound compromise of candid discourse. The loudest voices and most multiple overwhelm the rest.

For the people who "glorify racism", if banned they just get driven underground and fester there without opposition to eventually, probably, manifest their ideas in action. You ought to listen to Jason Hill: The only way to combat hate speech is MORE speech.

Of course the platforms have the right to do what they please. Which does NOT absolve them of criticism and condemnation. Rights and property rights do not make what they practice rational and morally good.  The main ones visibly have a clear single agenda, one ideological-political aim - which supports Leftism-collectivism (critical race theory, etc.). And has been suppressing others. Can you see and read?

And btw, I don't appreciate your authoritarianism. it's this stream of obstructions and objections I - more than anyone else - get from you which "could" make me second guess my input, and withdraw from debate.  I won't do that.

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

Well, it demonstrates disorganized thinking if you categorize all of it together in one lump. Also the topic is not collectivism versus individualism, it was religion and collectivism as the topic. That's how you had it. Now you changed it. 

Here's a reminder: https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2021/01/the-left-is-vastly-more-evil-than-religious-conservatives/

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

"Errors"?

I'm telling you how it works. All they have are statistical methods to detect the likelihood that someone is committing a violation of terms of service. They are literally unable to monitor closely every single video by a human to check the nuance and intention of the statements in videos. Because of that, there will be some sizable portion of people who are moderated but didn't violate anything in actuality. And YouTube doesn't care enough to fix those issues because it's not profitable enough. Yes, they intend completely to have algorithms to pick people out, but that doesn't mean every single person picked out was intended to be picked out. That an error of the algorithm, it's failing to work as intended. 

10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

This has nothing to do with "depriving" me, per se.

Exactly, because you still have the freedom to say these things. 

10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

We are talking about the argument and effects of mainstream ideas here, not mine alone.

That's what I said. It's not about the freedom to say things, but how you should use your freedom. YouTube is not using their freedom rationally.

10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The only way to combat hate speech is MORE speech.

Politically speaking yes, but it doesn't follow that you should abandon content moderation on private property.

10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

And btw, I don't appreciate your authoritarianism.

What, did you feel attacked because I said your thinking is disorganized? Otherwise I don't know what you're talking about. The objections are to get you to think more clearly about this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2021 at 7:53 PM, Eiuol said:

What, did you feel attacked because I said your thinking is disorganized? Otherwise I don't know what you're talking about. The objections are to get you to think more clearly about this thread.

This is disingenuousness. I'm telling it for what I've seen from you, referring to a few years of many dozens of your responses which have amounted to obstructionism of the content of my posts.

The tendency from orthodox Objectivists is apologism for big tech. These are innocent companies, yeah? Here is the greatness of man's mind harnessing a wonderful technology producing a vast service to humanity and making huge profits - hey, that's capitalism for you! They are to be applauded! And they have rights of property to ... etc, etc. Naivete or rationalism and rationalizing going on there.

Except, like other participants in the "anti-racist" industry, social media  display the usual leftist ideology which has exacerbated and encouraged collectivist-tribalist divides - under the pretense of keeping society moral and looking virtuous. Do I have to repeat the list of institutions involved, from universities to the msm? And social platforms are one integral part.

The "algorithms", bannings and suspensions, conveniently, always seem to end up picking out so-called rightists above all. The measures are obviously meant to suppress rightist influence and opinions, and therefore, opposition politics.

Not the innocents they seem to be, Big Tech are power-lusters. That "capitalism" serves to amass large wealth, it fronts for their socialist ideology and the only innocents are Objectivists who believe what they see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

I'm telling it for what I've seen from you, referring to a few years of many dozens of your responses which have amounted to obstructionism of the content of my posts.

I don't know what you're talking about so I can't comment. I treat you the same as everyone else generally, but I do think you make more errors than most so I tend to criticize you harshly and often. 

29 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Do I have to repeat the list of institutions involved, from universities to the msm? And social platforms are one integral part.

We have an impasse on this specific topic, because I don't think it is nearly so integrated as you think it is.

29 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

The measures are obviously meant to suppress rightist influence and opinions, and therefore, opposition politics.

My position is not that they are unbiased or making objective decisions. My position is that the bias is merely due to profitability, nothing else. They don't care what your opinion is. They care if the opinion they permit or moderate leads to profitability. They don't care to improve their algorithms because they see no downside to letting them fail to work properly. It should be clear though that I'm not *supporting* the way these companies do things on a moral level. 

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

 

We have an impasse on this specific topic, because I don't think it is nearly so integrated as you think it is.

My position is not that they are unbiased or making objective decisions. My position is that the bias is merely due to profitability, nothing else. They don't care what your opinion is. They care if the opinion they permit or moderate leads to profitability. They don't care to improve their algorithms because they see no downside to letting them fail to work properly. It should be clear though that I'm not *supporting* the way these companies do things on a moral level. 

 

The "way these companies do things on a moral level", de-platforming whom they deem immoral, means they can be and must be challenged on rationally moral grounds. They are not innocent businessmen who, with moral extortion applied, had to bend with public opinion in order to continue marketing their products (like the Aunt Jemimah Co.). Big Tech hold a de facto monopoly and know exactly what they are doing with their people-power and their wealth, where and for whom to use them.

"Profitability", don't make me laugh.

Of all the disastrous, race polarizing, influences that've come out lately, spreading even to other countries - the movement BLM has been at the forefront. And yet, guess who funds them:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi9rbiCrrPvAhWVuaQKHd0nCnkQFjAGegQICBAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theverge.com%2F21362540%2Fracial-justice-tech-companies-donations-apple-amazon-facebook-google-microsoft&usg=AOvVaw0z1bfQ_opiPIRbEPN9T4HT

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
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...