Rand and "Black Hate Radio"

I don't know, I ain't from here. I just moved up a few months back from Louisiana.

BTW: The head of the head of the NAACP is mine!

Post 61

Friday, March 10, 2006 - 11:20am

RE: "The show's star, Troi Torain, according to the City Paper, "spits epithets at everyone: "'spics,' 'asslickers' (homosexuals), 'hoes' and 'bitches.' Kanye West is a 'nigger.' Whites are especially despised:...Now for the punchline: "Torain hates everyone, though not equally...Among Torain's biggest losers are black people, especially black women. Torain, who disavows his own African-American heritage, dismisses black identity as 'modern day tribalism.'"

That's interesting...

My perception of Star isn't nearly as negative...

And I've been listening to him for a long time.

For the record, a Black man who despises whites is not unusual or unjustified, although I don't buy that Star despises white people anymore than any others.

Star's "biggest losers" are Black people?

Surely you jest!

Among Torain's "biggest losers" are Black people?

I think among Torain's "biggest losers" are non-thinking, ignorant, feel-bad, followers, perhaps his passion is particularly in relation to Black people.

Just a litte stream of consciousness response...simplistic though it may be.

I find this forum interesting and fairly humorous, however, valuable in terms of it's indication of Star's success and greater success to come.

You go Star!

you fine lil hater you...

(Edited by Get to living! Donna Reed on 3/10, 5:26pm)

Post 62

Friday, March 10, 2006 - 1:11pm

I like the fact that there is an atypical radio personality espousing some individualistic thought, but I think Star has really missed the whole point of Oism. It isn't about hate, and other intrinsic concepts; it's about the fact that we live in a world, a world in which we cannot change except by learning how to do so by reasoning and my deducing the nature of existence. In that view, reason isn't intrinsic either, it is simply what occurs when one tries to survive. The concept of Objective Hate smacks of traditional existential thought in that it does not relate to either an axiom about Nature[Existence] or it assumes an apriorism to the nature of humans. Rand was in Locke's camp about empiricism, being that the mind is tabula rasa, and as such OH has some serious conflicts with just the basics of ITOE and Objectivist Metaphysics in general.

But I do welcome you to the forum as well, it's just nice to have someone else to talk to about the issue as well informed as you, Star.

-- Bridget

Post 63

Friday, March 10, 2006 - 1:29pm

I have been trying to catch Star here and there on the radio, and frankly have yet to hear him say anything all that hateful! As usual, it is probably a bit of an exaggeration. I am still trying to get the hang of the show, though. I think I am a bit too white to understand it, but I figure it will help my street cred!

Post 64

Friday, March 10, 2006 - 9:25pm

I think it's just nice that the show isn't your typical morning show romp. I'll be looking forward to possible parallel podcasting of the show sometime soon. ^^;

-- Bridget

Post 65

Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 2:02am

Hello Ms. Reed,

Thank you for the reinforcement. As I�m sure most of my listeners know my mother is Neapolitan, but I�m never accused of hating on the Italians. Hell, I drag them through the fire just as well. Any way maybe our paths will cross one day when you�re walking your Sheppard and I�m walking one of my five Chihuahuas.

S.

Post 66

Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 2:06am

Hi Bridget,

I�ve already made it clear that Objective hate did not evolve, borrow or branch out from existentialism. Your statement about �living in a world we cannot blah, blah, blah� sounds great, and for the most part you�re right but the descendants of Adam Weishaupt are almost invisible to the naked eye. Also, from your over analytical style I�m sure all you would see is conflicts in my simple vomit. Very soon I�ll present the axioms of OH for the entire world, but right now Id much rather hear about the fascinating and non-decisive theme of Gender euphoria & Gender Dysphoria.

S.

**By the way folks, I�ve made my first real contribution to ROR in the current pole section (Missionary work), I hope I wasn�t to extreme.

Post 67

Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 11:59am

Very soon I�ll present the axioms of OH for the entire world, but right now Id much rather hear about the fascinating and non-decisive theme of Gender euphoria & Gender Dysphoria.

-------

Viddy well, my fellow druug. But as for GID, it's just a medicalization of one's own identity. Some folks fancy jeans, some folks fancy cats, and some folks fancy frocks. Course that's most in the vein of transvestism, none the else, I think it makes the most sense to consider it as such, since I don't really believe I was born in the wrong body. I simply believe I was never a man, because to me manhood and womanhood are things earned.

People don't call cowardly males, men, unless they're either trying to be inclusive bleeding hearts or are rather dim. We don't call immature females, women, unless like in the similar case above.

Also, such terms in themselves do not completely connote one sex or another. But it would take another thread entirely to explain. And I don't feel like hijacking your stagelight, Star. :)

-- Bridget

Post 68

Monday, March 13, 2006 - 11:29pm

Greetings back at cha, Mr. Torain

Five little canines?

Wow!

We should have a meet and greet.

But are you teaching them hate?

If they encountered me and my doggie in the the street, would they attempt to eat our feet?

Those little babies can be feisty and meeeeean.

*smile*

By the way, I'll certainly vouch for your non-discriminatory hate.

That's one thing I like about you.

If you were bamboozled and self-loathing, kicking your own azz and kissing others, I wouldn't respect you and might send you some real hate mail.
Okay, I'm lying about the hate mail. I wouldn't consider you worth the minute or two it'd take to type it.

Post 69

Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 12:09pm

By the way, I'll certainly vouch for your non-discriminatory hate.

You mean racially non-discriminatory hate, I take it. There's another meaning of non-discriminatory, and that's "indiscriminate." Obviously, indiscriminate hate, like indiscriminate love, is a contradiction in terms, because these emotional responses presuppose a standard of value - a standard of discrimination or preference. Indiscriminate hate is like promiscuous love; it cheapens the meaning of the concept - obliterates it in fact.

But to make an emotion of hate the focus of your values is to define yourself in terms of a negative. What is far more important than what you hate is what you love -- what you value. Knowing what you're against doesn't tell me what you're for. It doesn't tell me whether or not you're someone I can respect. If I know what you're for, I automatically know what you're against. But if I only know what you're against, I don't know what you're for.

Never define yourself in terms of what you oppose, when you can do so in terms of what you support, and communicate a great deal more of your values in the process.

- Bill

Post 70

Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 12:45pm

Excellent post Mr. Dwyer.

- Jason

Post 71

Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 2:59pm

No, Bill, I wrote what I mean and I mean what I wrote. You got it...sans the spin and/or the "other" meaning.

Not "indiscriminate" (at the very least, it has haphazard connotations, and in my reference to Mr. Torain, I'm not there).

Non-discriminatory, non-discriminate, non-discriminating...I think the three are similar to suffice.
Moreover, as the term applies to Mr. Torain's "Black Hate Radio" article excerpt, and his shows which I've listened to for years, NOT limited to "racial"

I get your point on the one hand. If one is against poverty, that may seem to imply (for some) that he is "for wealth"...
and that is not necessarily so.

By the same token, does "Pro-Black" mean "Anti-White"?

If one supports public education, does that mean that he/she is against private?

If one practices Christianity, does that mean that he is against other religions?

(For that matter, isn't it what we do that best speaks to and/or (at least) indicates/implies what we're for and/or against?
And/or enhances or contradicts it?)

Also,

Does what we're "for" necessarily outline all that we're "against"?
My initial response is no...and that there's room for inaccurate inferences and faulty assumptions and conclusions there.

At any rate, learning what someone is opposed to in the initial "getting to know him/her" process is cool for me.

Personally, I'm as intrigued by what an intriguing person opposes as I am by what he/she embraces.
And within the context of this thread, an "edutainment" radio show would merely arouse intrigue.

For example, I'm greatly intrigued with Mr. Torain and would not even venture, here, to outline my perception of him. Although, I submit, it's positive. As well, it's based on his radio show, what he says, what he doesn't say, his interactions with the people he works with, his guests, his history in radio, as well as implications, my own inferences and my overall (before getting to know him intimately) perception of men, and Black men in particular, who set goals and work arduously at achieving them, who create their own opportunties, who set some of their own standards instead of struggling and toiling for all of their lives to meet the standards of others, and who define themselves for themselves.

FINALLY, you say -

Never define yourself in terms of what you oppose, when you can do so in terms of what you support, and communicate a great deal more of your values in the process.

Uh, I take it...YOU MEAN - that "one should never..." as opposed to directing/iinstructing me, personally...
or Mr. Torain.

Either way, it can be perceived as a wise admonishment or as arrogance...*s*

How an individual defines him or herself is likely most effectively based on what he/she desires to communicate.

Thus, how you define yourself may work for you and how another chooses to define him/herself may work very well for him or her.

(Edited by Get to living! Donna Reed on 3/14, 3:24pm)

(Edited by Get to living! Donna Reed on 3/14, 3:26pm)

Post 72

Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 5:37pm

You�ve been naughty Mr. Dwyer, (Time for an up date)

Since when did unbiased, equal and just, become synonyms for confused or no careful distinctions?

* * *

�Envy� is not the emotion I have in mind, but it is the clearest manifeststation of an emotion that has remained nameless; it is the only element of a complex emotional sum that men have permitted themselves to identify. Ayn Rand - The Age of Envy

* * *

Until now � OBJECTIVE HATE by Star

The concept of love was once described in our scrolls as sexual intercourse. Fortunately
man has evolved from this barbaric state. To now acknowledge an undersized part of
your nature as hateful not evil, allows you to blossom and define yourself as a total man.

Although hate is an antonym of love, the fully embraced concept of being romantic, having intense feelings, or the worship of, walks a fine line of SELFLESSNESS wouldn�t you say? Oh how I do enjoy to frolic and wither in the iniquity of my desires, but Id much rather know that when I�m being engulfed that its because I have earned that pleasure and not had to pay for it.

Right in the front of my small mind lye�s the concept of standard discrimination, (not communism) for the purpose of education and advancement. In fact once upon a time in this beautiful country of ours this new concept; Objective Hate by Star, may have been the best thing for the Negro struggle as apposed to affirmative action. Of course giving those who are mentally sophisticated the freedom of guilt and debt.

Surely a man of your caliber can connect these dots� I�m not for ignorance Mr. Dwyer, my life has been consumed by Objectivism, I am the living proof of its author. Join me in this new battle Bill; together we could smash the archives of insanity. Please offer the forward for my book that so many have refused to give. Provide your stamp of knowledge and intellectual drive that still burns deep with in you and together we can rule the solar systems yet to come.

S.

Or if you prefer - Darth Hater

(Edited by Star The Hater
on 3/14, 7:08pm)

Post 73

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 12:43am

Donna, what I had in mind was something like the following: If I say that I hate communists or am against communism, that doesn't say what political system I favor. I could be for facism, Nazism, democratic socialism, or some variant of a mixed economy. But if I say that I'm for laissez-faire capitalism, that tells you that I'm against these other systems. If I say that I oppose Islam, that doesn't tell you what religion I support or that I support any religion. I could be an atheist. But if I favor Catholicism - if I think it's the right religion - then that tells you that I consider these other religions to be wrong - to be advocating a religious doctrine that is incorrect.

By the same token, does "Pro-Black" mean "Anti-White"?

That depends on what you mean by "pro-black"? If you simply mean that you are for the rights of black people, then that does not necessarily imply that you are against the rights of non-blacks. But if you are not, wouldn't it be better to say that you for the rights of all human beings, blacks included?

If one supports public education, does that mean that he/she is against private?

No, but it does mean that you are against the right of people to spend their money on the school of their choice. Since public education is financed by taxation, people are forced to contribute to public schools, even if they would prefer to send their children to a private school. To say that you are for public education means that you believe in forcing people who favor private education to support public education instead.

If one practices Christianity, does that mean that he is against other religions?

In a sense, yes. It doesn't mean that he is against freedom for other religions (which I think is what you were inferring), but it does mean that he believes that these other religions advocate doctrines that, at least in some respects, are incorrect. Otherwise, why would he be practicing Christianity rather than some alternative religion? - unless you and I have very different ideas about what it means to subscribe to a particular religion.

(For that matter, isn't it what we do that best speaks to and/or (at least) indicates/implies what we're for and/or against? And/or enhances or contradicts it?)

Well, if all you knew about a person is what you saw him do, that certainly wouldn't tell you that his actions conform to or contradict his explicit philosophy, since you wouldn't know his philosophy to begin with; nor would his action tell you as much about the rest of his values as if you did know his philosophy.

Does what we're "for" necessarily outline all that we're "against"?

If I say that I'm for freedom of choice (on principle), then that means that I am against any interference in a person's freedom of choice, regardless of what kind of interference it is. It means, for example, that I oppose laws prohibiting abortion, that I oppose laws prohibiting freedom of speech, that I oppose involuntary servitude, such as military conscription, etc. But, of course, to say that I am for freedom of choice does not tell you that I am against modern art or religious superstition in the sense that I regard them as having no artistic or intellectual merit. I may be against them, and I may not. So, of course, to say that I'm for some specific principle or idea does not tell you everything else that I'm against.

FINALLY, you say -

Never define yourself in terms of what you oppose, when you can do so in terms of what you support, and communicate a great deal more of your values in the process.

Uh, I take it...YOU MEAN - that "one should never..." as opposed to directing/iinstructing me, personally...
or Mr. Torain.

Did you really think that I was referring only to you or Mr. Torain?? Of course, it was intended as a general statement. Why would I say that only you or Mr. Torain should do this?

At any rate, I hope this helps to explain a little more clearly what I had in mind when I wrote my previous post.

Thanks for your comments.

Star,

You write,

You�ve been naughty Mr. Dwyer, (Time for an up date)

Since when did unbiased, equal and just, become synonyms for confused or no careful distinctions?

Huh?? Since when did I say that unbiased, equal and just were synonyms for confusion or a lack of careful distinctions?

As to the rest of your comments, I'm afraid you've lost me. I've read your reply several times, and I still can't figure out what you're saying.

- Bill

Post 74

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 2:25am

I understand Bill,

I was wrong the fire is no longer in you! Take care of your self, you will be missed.

S.

(Edited by Star The Hater
on 3/15, 8:53am)

Post 75

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 5:37am

On second thought Bill, I do believe in kicking a man when he�s down.

William Dwyer - There's another meaning of non-discriminatory and that's indiscriminate.
------------------------------

Star - Since when did unbiased, equal and just, become synonyms for confused or no careful distinctions?

-----------------------------
Non-discriminatory - Fair, equal, just, unbiased

Indiscriminate - Confused, making no careful distinctions

-----------------------------

William Dwyer - Huh?? Since when did I say that unbiased, equal and
just were synonyms for confusion or a lack of careful distinctions?

** May I suggest the Single Action type 64 silenced pistol and a can of Shafer in your last hour!

S.

(Edited by Star The Hater
on 3/15, 7:19am)

Post 76

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 6:07am

Donna wrote: "Personally, I'm as intrigued by what an intriguing person opposes as I am by what he/she embraces.
And within the context of this thread, an "edutainment" radio show would merely arouse intrigue."

Well said Donna.

Post 77

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 6:16am

I am intrigued when I see a man in the distance stoking a fire - is he getting ready to burn down falsehood, or is he fashioning a sword?

The fact that he is clearly enjoying smoking a fine cigar while doing it, is the entertainment part.

John

Post 78

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 9:27am

Objectivism, as far as I have been able to understand, is a positive or 'pro' philosophy, per se. Objectivists are 'pro' reason, 'pro' laissez-faire capitalism, 'pro' happiness, as opposed to being 'anti' irrational, 'anti' communist, or 'anti' misery. Even though the above statements may seem like the same thing is being said, they're quite actually different in terms of an individuals sense of life. The main difference is one being of a positive pro-active vision of life and the other coming from the view of negatives, i.e. The glass is half full or half empty. Sense of Life!-as Ayn Rand stressed time and time again.

Post 79

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 11:14am