Conformity

From early on in life, most people are taught to think of their lives in terms of fulfilling obligations. They are given orders by parents, teachers, and other authority figures. They begin to apply this mindset to what should be their personal value judgments. They say they "can't" do things really could do. They say they "have to" do things that they could choose not to do.

Falsely framing personal choices in terms of obligations is a form of self-denial. It denies an individual control over his own life and enables him to escape responsibility for his own choices, thus rendering him a psychological dependent on those who "create" obligations for him to fulfill.

Self-liberated individuals don’t give other people the arbitrary power to impose obligations. They don’t view the opinions of others as having metaphysical primacy. Self-liberated individuals view their self-identity as primary.

Most people go through life having never introspected enough to even know an identity apart from their socially defined one. Most people go through life having never lived a day of their lives in psychological freedom. They surrender their individuality, step by step, day after day.

The process begins in the earliest days of childhood and becomes thoroughly ingrained by adultoood.

As teenagers, they swallow and regurgitate the beliefs and attitudes of peers because they want to bepopular.

As adults, they fulfill unchosen family and social obligations out of a sense of duty. They submit to and support government restrictions on their freedom because they believe that doing so is responsible.

They are victims of their own conformity -- their passive acquiescence to others' ideas and values. It is conformity, therefore, that one must unlearn and grow out of if one wishes to be free -- and ultimately wishes to really live.

Post 1

Monday, January 14, 2013 - 7:45am

Why Brad I do believe that is the most wonderful thing I have ever witnessed you write! Very well done and welcome back.
PS: My apologies for flipping out on you instead of presenting a better argument on past threads.

Post 2

Wednesday, January 16, 2013 - 5:52am

Oh irony rears it's head. I was the most vocal opponent to Brad's posts on his interpretations of Darwin as I believed he was following a path of "social darwinism" (and we all know who was a big fan of that). I lost my cool and embarrassed myself by as Bill pointed out attacking Brad personally instead of refruting his ideas and presenting better ones.

He wrote me a site mail and asked me to post it in whole or in part on his behalf. So I will do this for him ONE time as redress for me being a complete and utter prick to him in the past. Also this is after all the dissent forum where some not so "objectivist" points of view should be viewed or simply ignored/refuted. If I erred in posting this my apologies in advance.

<Cut>

I do not know how to quote from an i-Phone Kyle thanks for pointing it out though!! Need sleeeeeeeppppppp...

In his defence he is articulate and far from the dullest tool in the shed expresses his ideas in a very clear manner.

Jules

[Edited to remove Brad's post, which was rejected]

(Edited by Joseph Rowlands on 1/16, 8:57pm)

Post 3

Wednesday, January 16, 2013 - 10:57am

Jules,

You should quote Brad in your post before someone takes his comment as your own.

Post 4

Wednesday, January 16, 2013 - 11:59am

Jules,

It was the owner of the site who decided that he didn't want Brad Trun posting. And neither he nor the moderators have any obligation to explain themselves to Trun. You might feel like you had minor some obligation to him, but I'd ask that you repay it in some way that doesn't subject the rest of us to more of his observations.

Thanks,
Steve

Post 5

Wednesday, January 16, 2013 - 6:37pm

Brad's posts are limited to the Dissent Forum and every one of them is subject to approval by a moderator.

I'm not at all sure what you're groveling and apologising for, but believe me, Brad's last post, rejected by me months ago, didn't say anything like you just posted, Jules.

I think he's corrupt, full of self pity, dishonest to the core, and begging for an audience to share his subjectivist hate filled garbage.

Post 6

Wednesday, January 16, 2013 - 6:58pm

Teresa, you seem to be implying that the text Jules posted was different from the text that I had attempted to post on this thread. That's not true. What Jules posted was exactly what I submitted, word for word.

Post 7

Wednesday, January 16, 2013 - 7:28pm

Don't think so, Brad. As I recall, the post didn't have anything to do with looking for sympathy from Jules, or whining about having your posts rejected, or being threatened by some guy on YouTube, etc.

But I do recall the blanket, and false, accusation against Objectivism. I honestly don't recall if you described egalitarianism in such an ignorant, forgettable and intrinsic way, but it wouldn't surprise me. That's probably why I trashed it.

Damn, Brad. Why can't you be more interesting and profound? Shame.

Post 8

Wednesday, January 16, 2013 - 8:44pm

Jules, please don't post for other people. Even if you think you owe them. When I restrict them to dissent or put them on moderation (or even invalidate their accounts entirely), it is a choice I've made about whether and how they may participate here. If you post for them, you aren't just doing them a favor. You're also negating a choice I've made regarding how my site will be used.

This particular post you put up for him was on I rejected a couple of days ago. When Brad was just spouting his white supremacist nonsense, I only restricted him to dissent. I put Brad on moderation because he was getting personal with his attacks. And I reject this post because instead of trying to argue a point, he had to get personal with Bill. And I'll continue to reject his posts, as I just did again with another one, whenever he decides to go on the attack. If you add value to the site, I forgive some hostility and sharp words. But a belligerent racist? No thanks.

Post 9

Wednesday, January 16, 2013 - 8:53pm

Yes as Steve pointed out It was not my place to do so. I am sorry Joe for any trouble this caused, of course feel free to kill that post. It wont happen again.

Post 10

Thursday, January 17, 2013 - 6:27pm

A 3rd Party Observation

Apparently, what just happened here was someone utilized manipulative, deceptive tactics to underhandedly circumvent the will and private property of this site's owner. What a terrible thing for someone to do.

Imagine a 50th Anniversary party and the wife sends out invitations but also personally contacts every invite to remind them that her husband is a recovering alcoholic who has slipped up before and therefore it is terribly important for him and her that no one brings alcohol to the party. Now imagine someone known to be a big drinker, caught outside with a bottle he is trying to bring in against the will of the hosts. And then instead of respecting their will, he involves others, manipulating some innocent relative into sneaking the alcohol in anyway. By involving others, he is jeopardizing the relations of these other people with the hosts -- in effect, throwing them under the bus. And he is not just going against the wishes, but also jeopardizing the health and well-being of the hosts of the party, too.

It takes a terrible person to do something like that, yet something like that appears to have just occurred here.

Ed

Post 11

Friday, January 18, 2013 - 5:03am

I've never had as many private emails as I got after writing the post above. I'm responding to all of you here publicly. Yes, I also received email from Brad (so you are not alone in that). No, I don't plan on responding to Brad. Notice that I preferred not to even name him above. I do not need to get drawn into the particulars of a he-said, she-said drama regarding anyone else and Brad. For the record, I disagree with and dislike him -- and this judgment supercedes recent events.

Ed

Post 12

Friday, January 18, 2013 - 5:22am

I used to hate him, now I just feel a general disdain. I think it is time I put him in perspective though and simply not think about it at all as it is up to him to develop true character(or remain the same). As I have said before Brad it is culture not race or IQ that is the deciding factor.

Ed, and everyone I apologize again for the shitstorm.

Post 13

Friday, January 18, 2013 - 6:12am

Brad,

I would have accepted your post in the moderator queue if you wouldn't have mentioned William Dwyer, but since you did, I left it in there for Joe to decide. So saying things that Joe disagrees with is OK, but criticising a friend when you are so hated is not OK. Such statements are called "flamebait".

Older people generally don't do well with considering ideas that vastly contrast what they have come to accept and base a good portion of their ideas on. William is old. Give him a break. I still like him, and he is way better than most people. At least William is friendly. Wolfer is old and venomous, sometimes he makes me angry, and yet I still overall like hime, again he is still better than most people. We all have some disagreements, but we don't label eachother as the person holding back a philosophical movement.

Honestly, you have come to RoR and very harshly tried to change everyone's beliefs. Race, or more, intelligence, is a touchy subject. With most people, you need to get on their good side and become their friends before they will consider your ideas. To others, you've made the argument "Here are the facts, so you must agree with me". But you are trying to get others to agree with a very non politically correct idea. So you need to be way more careful with your termonology and your phrasing too. Think: how can I portray my ideas without becoming an outcast in society? Or if you can't, then I guess you will decide whether you want to be an outcast. Here you have become an outcast.

I am interested in the idea of selective citizenship. I'm just not sure at this point how I would go about determining whether a person would be accepted as a citizen. I guess it would be something like "The person has shown to be a net benefactor to the establishment". Yes, maybe people who are determining whether this is true may consider prejudices when first looking at a candidate, but then after getting to know the candidate a better determination can be made.

Clearly the US's constraints: whether (you were born on US soil) or (if you can remember some US history and are not a criminal) is not good enough to determine whether a person should be a citizen (particularly a voting citizen). An establishment should still be crafted in a way where it can flush out citizens that are making it unsuccessful. Something like all citizens must have a net positive impact on the establishment's goals, otherwise a citizen is outcast.

Post 14

Friday, January 18, 2013 - 7:20am

After seeing the severe beating of Kevin McCarron in Greenwich village by a pack of muslim young men with tire irons and baseball bats I have been pondering solutions to this as well Dean. None of them are easy. One thing I do know. If I lived in NYC I would definitely break the law and conceal carry a 9mm for protection. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Post 15

Friday, January 18, 2013 - 9:05am

William is old... but friendly. Wolfer is old and venomous.

Gee thanks, Dean :-)

For those of you who are young, it isn't a good idea to let your youth be a great part of your identity or a core value. Youth is the one thing you are guaranteed to loose completely (if you live long enough) - it leaves you bit by bit every day. Those who, in their minds, see themselves as tribal members of The Young, create an 'us vs. them' dichotomy which carries with it a kind of artificial barrier between generations - barriers that do no them good, and just make it harder to gain any value from the generations that have already been down the road they will be walking.

If you had a test coming up soon (and life does test us), and you learned that someone you know, someone that is some day ahead of you in these studies had taken that test, wouldn't you want to learn what you could from them? Does it make a difference that the person is days or weeks or months older? What about many decades older? In other words, how big is the generation barrier you've created?

Youth should be enjoyed as a passing sensual pleasure, like a good run down a ski slope. Not a part of your core identity, but a thing being experienced that feels good in the moment.
------------

And, it isn't a good idea to judge a person's intellectual acuity or flexibility based upon their age - some people get wiser with the passing of time... but maybe I'm just biased towards thinking that way :-)

Post 16

Friday, January 18, 2013 - 9:42am

I do not find Steve to be venomous at all! He just does not take any sh%t from anyone. Bill's body may be older however he is sharp as a tack and has a beautiful mind! (He just won't play hockey with me when it is -30!!)

Post 17

Friday, January 18, 2013 - 9:57am

Joe wrote,

When Brad was just spouting his white supremacist nonsense, I only restricted him to dissent. I put Brad on moderation because he was getting personal with his attacks. And I reject this post because instead of trying to argue a point, he had to get personal with Bill. And I'll continue to reject his posts, as I just did again with another one, whenever he decides to go on the attack. If you add value to the site, I forgive some hostility and sharp words. But a belligerent racist? No thanks.

Joe, I just got an email from Brad complaining about your rejection of his post and telling me that he didn't "get personal" with me but instead said,"William Dwyer is a nice, honest, reasonable person. But he prescribes open immigration..." Is this true? You also characterized him as a "white supremacist." Although he is a racist, I wouldn't call him a "white supremacist." These are not necessarily the same.

Addressing Brad, Dean wrote, "Older people generally don't do well with considering ideas that vastly contrast what they have come to accept and base a good portion of their ideas on. William is old. Give him a break." Oh, please! Dean, this is hilarious.

Post 18

Friday, January 18, 2013 - 10:44am

Steve,

Being old with a brain full of valid useful ideas is better than being young with an empty brain. Younger have to re-evaluating existing ideologies and may come up with new self consistent ideologies. Go to old if you want something done now as it was in the past, and young if you want to attempt something that could be revolutionary.

Not that there is some hard line between "young" and "old", or that number of years old determines which group a person falls into for a particular task.

Yes I'm getting older too. :( Maybe one day we'll have technology to reverse detrimental problems that come along with growing older. But it will still stand that the more you know, the more you have to re-evaluate when you find a contradiction or consider changing a belief.

Bill,

I hoped not to offend you, glad you were amused.

Post 19

Friday, January 18, 2013 - 1:23pm