Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Statue of Liberty Shrugged?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

MEANING: Whether or not you like the former president or his policy, he remains in control of the republican leadership

You stated it as a fact. The to be restored president. If you meant he might be reelected, you would say that. If you meant that some Republican leadership are trying to get Trump into the presidency because they believe the election was stolen, you would say that. In fact, you would have said that right away when I asked you to clarify. 

What you did instead was provide a cryptic answer. You wanted me to divine your answer based on you stating that January 6 was an insurrection. That really has nothing to do with any of the above. Unless you are one of those nut jobs. You know, the people who want an insurrection so that Trump will be restored to the presidency. The people who actually use that language of restoration or reinstatement. No one else uses those terms in this context. In other words, you can claim those less extreme things, but you are also claiming the extreme things (but won't admit it). The more extreme QAnon belief in some upcoming event. Hence "to be" restored - you're waiting for the event to happen.

On 6/7/2021 at 3:25 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Yes, I am, which is why I asked if there's some context in another thread that I'm missing.

No, he just showed up after a very long hiatus.

On 6/7/2021 at 3:25 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Maybe.  Maybe he just forgot to address it.

Initially, maybe he thought nothing of it so forgot or didn't bother to say more. But he definitely didn't forget to address the question once I asked it. It was the first post in this thread. 

On 6/7/2021 at 3:25 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Whereas if we ask them to tell us what their views are and then proceed to engage with them (politely, at first, but potentially moving on to ridicule and satire) then as upset as they might eventually become about the ridicule, if they persist in advancing those views, the one thing they cannot say is that we didn't address their actual opinions.

I agree with this - for different platforms. Not for moderated forums.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In July 1986, I was with my first life-partner Jerry (d. 1990) sitting in the bleachers that had been set up in Manhattan along the Hudson. We were watching the Tall Ships sailing by. In the evening,

Please tell me that's a joke, that you're not one of those nut jobs. 

HD, I looked up "doxxing" - hadn't heard that term before. My name is Stephen Craig Boydstun. I've never used any other name on the internet. (I came to be shown as another name -Guyau- on the th

Posted Images

4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

... No one else uses those terms in this context. In other words, you can claim those less extreme things, but you are also claiming the extreme things (but won't admit it). The more extreme QAnon belief in some upcoming event. Hence "to be" restored - you're waiting for the event to happen.

Wow... just wow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

Et tu, Brute?

🤣 Sorry.  I was speaking sort of off the cuff, as usual, and should probably work on paying a bit more attention to the details.

Regardless of whether the exact term was "reinstated" or (the one you actually used) "restored" doesn't really make a difference to the gist of my post - that we shouldn't be treating you like we just watched you eat a baby.  I'm sorry about the terminological mix-up but it doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

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

HD, I looked up "doxxing" - hadn't heard that term before.

Alright.  I'm sorry for getting quite so snippy about it, then; I had assumed that you'd known about it.  Suffice it to say that, far from there being occasional legitimate reasons for the odd person to keep their identity a secret here, it's actually a pretty good standard for basically everybody (except mad lads like myself and, apparently, you).

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

Lady Liberty does have a little sister, and she's not blindfolded. (Couldn't resist. :))

In July 1986, I was with my first life-partner Jerry (d. 1990) sitting in the bleachers that had been set up in Manhattan along the Hudson. We were watching the Tall Ships sailing by. In the evening, the President would throw a switch, sending a laser beam across the river to activate the illumination of Liberty, which was reopening after a long refurbishment. The night sky would be filling with glorious fireworks on and on as if an umbrella over Manhattan.

That afternoon was sunny, as the ships sailed by. There were smiles and friendliness all around. Behind us a woman wore a classy T-shirt with a stylized line drawing of the Statue of Liberty, with only the word Forever. A day or two before, the US Supreme Court had handed down their decision affirming the constitutionality of States criminalizing same-sex sex acts. Oklahoma, for example. That was one of the reasons we had moved from our native Oklahoma to Illinois (where Jerry became an attorney), where we were legal. That sunny day with the ships was so sad to me.

The photo below is from 2002 (photo by native New Yorker, my husband Walter). In another year, the Supreme Court would reverse, and thereby make same-sex love-making legal throughout the land. I always remember that I learned of the 2003 decision while I was at Logan in Boston, learned from a newspaper headline. And I always remember my first thought was of Jerry and me that day with the Tall Ships.

Tomorrow belonged to me, these todays, each a “smiling day to be free to kiss in the sunlight and say to the sky ‘behold and believe what you see, behold how my lover loves me.’”

Liberty.jpeg

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

I agree with this - for different platforms. Not for moderated forums.

I might point out, in addition to the fact that sunlight is the best disinfectant, the further fact that avoiding the discussion of a certain idea makes it look like you could not refute it in the open.  In the case of QAnon I think this would be giving it far too much credit.

I engage with members of the Voluntary Human Extinction movement (whose ideas I consider the very lowest of the low; far worse than any Communist or Nazi).  A little less than a year ago I met a coworker who was actually racist towards Europeans, and would often ask me why white people did certain things or what sorts of thoughts went through the white mind.  I took every opportunity I could to crack jokes about the goings-on in our biweekly White Male Meetings (the attendance of which is mandatory in order to retain your White Privilege - as I'm sure you already know) and after several months he's stopped asking that kind of question and seems to have stopped thinking such silly things, from what I can tell.  Now we're drinking buddies.

I know what QAnon people think because my landlord happens to be one of them.  He genuinely believes that DisneyWorld is a trap for the abduction of children, who are then sacrificed to Satan in a chamber beneath the theme park, in order for the Democratic Satanists to retain their magical powers.  I haven't told him yet that he's making Satanism out to be far cooler (and magic to be an awful lot more effective) than it ever was when I was into it.

 

I know this is a bit of a ramble but I guess I'm mainly wondering what you're afraid of.

 

PS:  Maybe we should actually start a thread to discuss exactly what QAnon is and how much sense it makes.  Lord knows there's been plenty of dissection of leftist ideas on this forum.

 

PPS:  By the way, QAnon supporters actually don't talk about the "restoration" or "reinstatement" of Trump - they believe there's a "dual presidency" right now because they never accepted that his reign ever ended.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
postscript
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Alright.  I'm sorry for getting quite so snippy about it, then; I had assumed that you'd known about it.  Suffice it to say that, far from there being occasional legitimate reasons for the odd person to keep their identity a secret here, it's actually a pretty good standard for basically everybody (except mad lads like myself and, apparently, you).

Oh, that's fine. It was only the term I'd not heard. One poster here had told me by private communication that he didn't want his real name used because he had in the past been physically threatened by some Objectivist quarter. Another has mentioned he didn't want his real name used because of employment situation. Some here, I've surmised, also don't want their real name used due to career, particularly professional academic position and reputation. I imagine (though in this I don't have a definite participant in mind) that some may be well-known names in the subculture who enjoy participating here, but would rather their participation here were unknown across the various factions of the subculture.

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

PPS:  By the way, QAnon supporters actually don't talk about the "restoration" or "reinstatement" of Trump - they believe there's a "dual presidency" right now because they never accepted that his reign ever ended.

QAnon isn't unified enough to say that there is any definite belief system. There are a wide variety of nut job thoughts out there about Trump getting into the presidency again or reasserting his supposedly legitimate claim before 2024. Maybe DA hasn't gone deep enough to believe that the "storm" is coming. But there is something very fishy going on.

19 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

Wow... just wow.

Okay, then tell me, what does stating that January 6 was an insurrection have anything to do with whether you think Trump will be reinstated? No, you didn't say you supported the insurrection. But this is how you reason about the intentions of liars, or people hiding their full and honest thoughts. You have to use the things they didn't say, the things they left out. 

If you want to get into discussing radical politics of direct action, then you can't be cryptic - if you want to get meaningful discussion anyway. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

PS:  Maybe we should actually start a thread to discuss exactly what QAnon is and how much sense it makes.  Lord knows there's been plenty of dissection of leftist ideas on this forum.

Here's a thread I posted different sources I found on the QAnon whilst it ran its course (been pretty quiet now, 'cept for those still nursing a few disparate memories.)

The Bobulinski angle on Binden

Incidentally, @Eiuol, I thought your initial response in this thread contained a reference to QAnon in it, but I see it was edited later.

On 6/5/2021 at 6:14 PM, Eiuol said:

Edited by Eiuol

You were courteous enough to reintroduce the innuendo to no avail thus far, as to elicit an emotive response on @Devil's Advocate's part.

After this story I ran across this reference to Ron Watkins, QAnon as a regular headline in mainstream media coverage seemed to have dissipated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Boydstun said:

Oh, that's fine. It was only the term I'd not heard. One poster here had told me by private communication that he didn't want his real name used because he had in the past been physically threatened by some Objectivist quarter. Another has mentioned he didn't want his real name used because of employment situation. Some here, I've surmised, also don't want their real name used due to career, particularly professional academic position and reputation. I imagine (though in this I don't have a definite participant in mind) that some may be well-known names in the subculture who enjoy participating here, but would rather their participation here were unknown across the various factions of the subculture.

There is a striking difference in psychologies that I now have realized, apparently for the first time. I don't know why this is so. I realized this morning that if I had to communicate extensive ideas to people under a name not my own, I'd have no interest in making the communication at all. I can see that some participants here, using a name not their own, use their communications sometimes to help people interested in specifics in an area and appreciating the help. That has some sense to me, even were the exchange under anonymity. But the kind of communications that Devil's Advocate has made here, looking far back across his postings---and this is true for anonymous others also---are thinking-conversations that include exhibits of their own positions, including ones of some originality. It may be very unusual---I really don't know---but I can't imagine me ever being motivated to muster communications like that in which it would not be known that my remarks were from me, the real, plain me.

Edited by Boydstun
Link to post
Share on other sites

Echos of Monty Python in this lonely chamber...
Guest: "I came here for an argument."
Moderator: "No, you didn't."
Guest: "Yes, I did!"

To the issue of my credibility, I invite anyone to review my previous posts and topics.  They will reveal that I am at worst, a pain in the ass.


To the issue of the withholding my legal name, I respectfully remind you that the identity of the messenger does not validate the message in itself and that there are many reasons to avoid volunteering your legal name, age, gender, etc., on the internet, not the least of which is identity theft.  The fact is, it is not (yet) required for access to this forum, and until it is, I choose to post anomalously as a matter of privacy.

 

As reference to my political beliefs:

On 5/6/2016 at 6:55 AM, Devil's Advocate said:

The following disturbs me more than the leader.

Darkwing Donald is channeling a political force that is only united by anger, and whose only agenda is payback.  In most respects, I believe he is simply the patsy of the growing mob he represents; a form of puppet king.  If elected, and I give them better than 50/50 odds of getting there, America will become a darker place.

------

I believe my reception here today bears that out.

Now if anyone cares to discuss the premise of this topic, that those who secure the liberty of others to demand rights to a freedom from want, might choose to withdraw their services for a time (please read the following carefully), NOT TO STAGE A COUP OR SPILL BLOOD, but to simply retire, hunker down, or move off the grid, as did the producers in Atlas Shrugged.  Given that those to actually secure the liberty of individuals in a social context are primarily military, police and 1st responders, I had initially envisioned the emergence of a charismatic general with popular support acting for the good of the nation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Devil's Advocate said:

Moderator: "No, you didn't."
Guest: "Yes, I did!"

Hey, anytime you want, you can explain what January 6 has to do with what you think about Trump being reinstated. You told me to judge you based on that. So I did. I told you it was cryptic. You never clarified.

16 minutes ago, Devil's Advocate said:

Given that those to actually secure the liberty of individuals in a social context are primarily military, police and 1st responders, I had initially envisioned the emergence of a charismatic general with popular support acting for the good of the nation.

Something like a Trump being reinstated by the Supreme Court by virtue of his supposed charisma acting for the good of the nation. This would not be a coup really in the eyes of people seeking it, because Trump would be the one legitimately in charge. Maybe not whole hog Qanon, and you are being speculative, but there is a philosophical commonality between you and them. Close enough that you think they are probably right but want plausible deniability.

For what it's worth, and for anyone reading, what I managed here is to get you to be more concrete. Not those wishy-washy metaphors making your questions more palatable yet bland. What kind of defense of liberty, what means to do so, what kind of direct action?

Now, I do suspect that there is a real possibility of a charismatic general doing exactly this given various national and international politics. But I think it would be unequivocally bad, with precedent in Chile. Shrugging on the defense of liberty, followed by what you envisioned, is a cause of authoritarianism. The only sense in which shrugging could be a rational choice is founding a new country, immediately replacing the old defense of liberty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Boydstun said:

... But the kind of communications that Devil's Advocate has made here, looking far back across his postings---and this is true for anonymous others also---are thinking-conversations that include exhibits of their own positions, including ones of some originality. It may be very unusual...

Some time ago, in another Objectivist Forum, a poster noted that I appeared to assemble information in the form of images as, I guess a kind of transformation of written content.  I do tend to think in terms of images, but as that is natural and unremarkable to me, I haven't any idea how different this may be generally.

On reflection, my hope is that it is unique. I'd like to be really good at something no one else does!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Political Philosophy

Political philosophy, capitalism, rights, law
For current topics, post in Current Events

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It looks like this thread may have been more properly "Current Events" than here, as I see little to no political philosophy in the thread, all through it. Be that as it may, DA, here's my two cents worth on your post two before last. (Sorry I couldn't get back to you sooner; my hands were simply out getting dirty pulling weeds.)

No. Do not suppose Atlas in its producers-going-on-strike is the world you live in or ever have or will live in. I read Atlas ten years after it was issued. I was a young man and supposed the government powers and initiatives projected in Atlas were unfolding around me. I thought for sure that was the story of the real and darkening world around me when Nixon imposed wage and price controls. That was a low point.

Many terrible steps have been taken by our government, but if one reads the government steps in Atlas, they simply have not been taken in all these decades in the real world. (I noticed that during the financial meltdown during Bush-Obama, nationalization of the banks was not a seriously considered option; in earlier eras of this country, it would have been.) From my own perspective, the worst thing going on in the last couple of decades with the government is unbalanced budgets. Debt, debt, debt. The little one can do about that is make that one's top issue in discussing political problems. During the 2020 Primary interval, one Independent and one Republican tried to make that their top issue in their Presidential bids. Both found there was no interest among the voters, and they soon ended their campaigns. Still, I think the issue must be gotten to the top for the future of our country. Notice this is not an issue one learns about from or is tops in Atlas. That's not a criticism of the politics in Atlas, only of real people with mythology and handwaving in place of seeing one's real surrounding world and what is more important in the political scene, seeing through all the diversions of culture wars and sloganeering.

But most importantly, locally, individually, is one's controls of one's own life. No, do not withdraw. Some of my young comrades in the '70's were saying withdraw. No. They were wrong, and it would still be wrong. Try to make money for yourself and your family. Try to get more and more education. That is what I did, and, with some good fortune in the mix, I've had a good life. I think that is still the way to make for one's life and happiness, right here, right now in this country.

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

Hey, anytime you want, you can explain what January 6 has to do with what you think about Trump being reinstated. You told me to judge you based on that. So I did. I told you it was cryptic. You never clarified.

Eiuol, I honestly don't know how to clarify my initial response to you, "I believe that January 6th was an insurrection promoted by republican party seditionists, to state it bluntly. You may judge me by that."  Are you trying to get me to confess that I'm actually a republican party seditionist testing the waters here?

You and I have quibbled over definitions before, but this is a bit much for either of us.  I intentionally use the word 'restore' to indicate moving forward as opposed to returning to a prior state.  My use of, "to be restored", is the factual expression of an agenda (not shared by me), but not the fact of having occurred (yet).  I believe that it is entirely possible that it can happen, but I am certainly not advocating for it to happen by initiating a discussion examining whether Atlas and Lady Liberty have something in common to shrug.

42 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Now, I do suspect that there is a real possibility of a charismatic general doing exactly this given various national and international politics. But I think it would be unequivocally bad, with precedent in Chile. Shrugging on the defense of liberty, followed by what you envisioned, is a cause of authoritarianism. The only sense in which shrugging could be a rational choice is founding a new country, immediately replacing the old defense of liberty.

Now we're getting somewhere, thank you!

I envision that a General Galt would not command support in a overt form of military coup, but would talk the troops away from his adversaries as Napoleon did, https://www.warhistoryonline.com/napoleon/100-days-napoleon-returns-exile-rallying-army-words-alone-m.html , the obvious goal being standing down government's monopoly on force in a secure manner that could be recalled at a moment's notice, alert but non-responsive to anything but an objective defense of the founding principle of liberty.  A new country is not required.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

Are you trying to get me to confess that I'm actually a republican party seditionist testing the waters here?

That would be nice, but more like I'm exposing something that I say, and I think it's bad. I guess we could say that you weren't expecting some sort of... Spanish Inquisition.

3 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

would not command support in a overt form of military coup, but would talk the troops away from his adversaries as Napoleon did

It is still a method of asserting authoritarianism or dictatorship. Julius Caesar did the same sort of thing, where he used his own army to assert authority over the Senate to create the Roman empire. And as I recall, Machiavelli would argue that overt military action is less effective than making sure people love you and rally behind you rather than strictly using fear.

3 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

obvious goal being standing down government's monopoly on force in a secure manner that could be recalled at a moment's notice, alert but non-responsive to anything but an objective defense of the founding principle of liberty. 

Having the charisma alone to convince the the military to stand down (without an existing mechanism of the government to accomplish the same thing) makes this general a military dictator. Maybe you like him, but he is still a dictator. No one is controlling that military except for the general. There is no check on the general. You rely on him to be virtuous and good, assuming that he would only use the military against the initiation of force. There is no example from history where there was a charismatic general where there was anything but dictatorship in the end. The only way I see to avoid this is to starting the government which immediately implements checks and balances, effectively a new constitution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

I do tend to think in terms of images, but as that is natural and unremarkable to me, I haven't any idea how different this may be generally.

That is actually a bit abnormal. If I remember correctly (and I'm speaking purely off-the-cuff here on a cigarette break, so I may not be) I believe most people think primarily in auditory fashion, as a sort of "inner monologue". I know that's the way I do (although I almost always have an inner soundtrack playing as well).

So congratulations - you're slightly abnormal! Maybe that's why you don't seem to be recognizing the secret passphrase ...

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

That is actually a bit abnormal. If I remember correctly (and I'm speaking purely off-the-cuff here on a cigarette break, so I may not be) I believe most people think primarily in auditory fashion, as a sort of "inner monologue". I know that's the way I do.

So congratulations - you're slightly abnormal! Maybe that's why you don't seem to be recognizing the secret passphrase ...

Yep, for me it's more of a slide show...

Anyhoo, perhaps I'll reinstate myself as, "Abby Normal" someday.

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...