[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Friday, February 28 - 5:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Good article, Ed.

 

It is telling that a person can be an anti-semite and it is okay if they are black, but let a black be a conservative or libertarian, and they are singled out as race traitors, puppets, and uncle Toms.  Other blacks who've gotten a free ride on their anti-semitism are the supporters of the Nation of Islam: Like Louis Farrakan and Malcom X.  Black Liberation theologists have a record of racism, and sometimes anti-semitism but aren't called on it.  The New Black Panther Party is blatantly racist.

 

I think that there is a psychoepistemology pattern that is visible here.  The use of emotion as rhetoric, and the use of invective as argument.  Make ugly emotional statements about their opponents - arguments that accuse them of being rascist, but since the arguments aren't really about ideas, just about winning (in an arena where the ends are thought to justify the means) - it makes a twisted kind of sense in that they would never address those examples that logic brings up when the examples are on their side.



Post 1

Saturday, March 1 - 7:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Most Americans of African descent reject the Islamic mumbo-jumbo precisely because it is anti-semitic.

 

Therefore, to classify anything but a vocal minority of blacks as supporting islamic-based  racism is steriotyping--a manifestly unfair judgment that, itself, is racist.

 

EM



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Saturday, March 1 - 7:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The Imams are however actively recruiting through the prison system.



Post 3

Saturday, March 1 - 10:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Matthews,

Most Americans of African descent reject the Islamic mumbo-jumbo

I'm well aware of that.  And nothing I wrote implies otherwise.

Therefore, to classify anything but a vocal minority of blacks as supporting islamic-based racism is steriotyping--a manifestly unfair judgment that, itself, is racist.

I specifically did identify the vocal minority, and never engaged in stereotyping.

 

What do you call a person who falsely accuses another of racism?  Think about it... If they did so without any justification it should be a very harsh and ugly term. I can't at the moment think of what it should be, but maybe you have some ideas?



Post 4

Saturday, March 1 - 12:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I was thinking "socialist scum"... but that didn't seem to go over very well before.  Maybe things have changed.



Post 5

Saturday, March 1 - 10:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

>>>Other blacks who've gotten a free ride on their anti-semitism are the supporters of the Nation of Islam: <<<

 

Wolfer, Kindly explain who has been giving these people a 'free ride'?



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Saturday, March 1 - 11:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

...who has been giving these people a 'free ride'?

The talking heads of the left.  The liberal media outlets.  Progressives.  The same people who regularly crucify someone like Thomas Sowell, or Clarence Thomas.

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

 

You didn't answer my question:  "What do you call a person who falsely accuses another of racism?"

 

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 3/01, 11:17pm)



Post 7

Sunday, March 2 - 8:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Sowell and Thomas can be criticized for their ideas from the left because that's what the right/left spectrum is about.

 

Try entering into a forum where real people actually have different ideas from you own and see for yourself. At that  point, you'll be amazed to discover, for example, that those not named 'Wolfer' will have different ideas as to what behaviors constitute 'individual rights'.

 

At that point, perhaps, you'll be blinded with the insight that 300 million Americans cannot all say at the same time, "My individual rights are primary" because the content of said 'individual rights will be different, one from another. In other words, to have your way, you'll have to prove your points.

 

In this sense, it's evident of the vile stupidity of some on this forum to call my common-sense observation 'socialist'. They simply don't know what the word means.

 

You, however, and Uncle Fred are different. You always have points to make, rergardless of my disagreements. My suggestion is that both of you are lowering yourself a bit each time you fail to denounce the idiocies of the fissiles, thereby inhibiting an honest exchange of ideas.

 

Now I'll continue a response to your last post:

 

No, It's not within the standard canon of leftism to accept Afro-Islamico-mumbo-jumbo. What is true, however, is that three major tv news providers take a value-neutral stance, which is somehow seen as a geometric left of Fox's outright hostility.

 

What's also true is that segmentsof the left share the same hostility to Israel as any Islamic.does, regardless of color, culture, or genetic inclination.

 

Lastly, I suppose thee's always the 'black swan example that you're free to cite as overwhelming proof.

 

Re racism, I wrote:

 

"Most Americans of African descent reject the Islamic mumbo-jumbo precisely because it is anti-semitic.

 Therefore, to classify anything but a vocal minority of blacks as supporting islamic-based  racism is steriotyping--a manifestly unfair judgment that, itself, is racist."

 

Now you're free to agree with my opinion that such behavior constitutes 'racism', or not. You're also free to have said opinion, or not. But I did not say that you do, in either case. I wrote what I wrote because it's clear that others not named "Wolfer' or 'Matthews' do indeed use such a steriotype.

 

Therefore, calling someone a 'racist' is an issue of terms, ranging from my particular employ of generic steriotyping, to that of outright dislike of an individual based upon color, to that of genetic coding of IQ via physical appearence.

 

So, no, I don't see calling someone a racist is necessarily a moral fault, but  rather, merely a question of  right vs wrong by virtue of definition.

 

EM

 

 



Post 8

Sunday, March 2 - 9:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Matthews,

Sowell and Thomas can be criticized for their ideas from the left because that's what the right/left spectrum is about.

But that isn't what I discussed.  I said, "...let a black be a conservative or libertarian, and they are singled out as race traitors, puppets, and uncle Toms."  Are you saying that this doesn't happen and that individuals like Sowell and Thomas are only criticized for their ideas?

-----------

Try entering into a forum where real people actually have different ideas from you own...

I have. Unlike you who has probably only been posting for a short number of years, I have been on the planet and contending with different views for over half a century. Besides, with you on this forum I don't need to go elsewhere to find someone who does not believe that there are such things as objective, universal individual rights. You think that 'individual rights' are just subjective ideas that this or that person conjures up in the mind and are often totally unlike what anyone else thinks.  I think that alone means that your status should be "Dissenter" - not as punishment, but simply put, you are not an Objectivist and you hold views that are strongly opposed to Objectivism.  And you should be a welcome addition to the dissent forum.
--------------

...the vile stupidity of some on this forum to call my common-sense observation 'socialist'.

They might be calling your view points "socialist" for other reasons - perfectly valid reasons, given the wide range of types of socialists that exist (there are even "libertarian socialists" which I see as completely nutty).

 

There are posts where you have supported activities that involve redistribution. There are posts of yours where you treat majority vote as sufficient even if it sacrifices an individual. You came onto this site with a fierce defense of Krugman. You support anti-trust laws.  You are okay with FCC regulation of the airwaves.  I could go on and on, but why bother. I don't think anyone on this site thinks of you as a libertarian - not any kind of libertarian that we would recognize, i.e., one whose basic premise is NIOF.
---------------

No, It's not within the standard canon of leftism to accept Afro-Islamico-mumbo-jumbo.

You can do better that that. I didn't say it was "within the standard cannon" - I said they turn a blind eye to some who do accept it.
----------------

What is true, however, is that three major tv news providers take a value-neutral stance, which is somehow seen as a geometric left of Fox's outright hostility.

If you really think that the major tv news providers are value-neutral, they you are standing so far over to the far left that it is distorting your view.
----------------

I wrote what I wrote because it's clear that others not named "Wolfer' or 'Matthews' do indeed use such a steriotype.

Therefore, calling someone a 'racist' is an issue of terms, ranging from my particular employ of generic steriotyping, to that of outright dislike of an individual based upon color, to that of genetic coding of IQ via physical appearence.

So, no, I don't see calling someone a racist is necessarily a moral fault, but rather, merely a question of right vs wrong by virtue of definition.

Bullshit.  Look at the context. You wrote that comment in a post addressed to me, immediately after I had named specific black, pro-Islamic militant figures that the left chooses to accept and doesn't condemn for being close to militant Islamisist. So, your statement was a dishonest way of sneaking up so close to calling me a racist in a declarative sentence that it amounts to the same. Next, you go on about it not being a moral fault to call someone a racist because it is a matter of definition or fact. Here is what I asked - note the part I've emphasized: "What do you call a person who falsely accuses another of racism?" And by "falsely" I mean without evidence, or knowing that there is no evidence.

 

That is the question you still haven't answered!

 

 

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 3/02, 9:27am)



Post 9

Sunday, March 2 - 3:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Wolfer,

 

>>>let a black be a conservative or libertarian, and they are singled out as race traitors, puppets, and uncle Toms."  Are you saying that this doesn't happen and that individuals like Sowell and Thomas are only criticized for their ideas?<<<<

 

When you make highly generic statements such as this --without specifying who, precisely, is doing the singling out--- you're indulging in gossip.

 

.No, It's not within the standard canon of leftism to accept Afro-Islamico-mumbo-jumbo.

>>>>>You can do better that that. I didn't say it was "within the standard cannon" - I said they turn a blind eye to some who do accept >>>>>>>>

 

Ditto--who is 'they'? Where are your examples?

 

..(ME).the vile stupidity of some on this forum to call my common-sense observation 'socialist'.

 

>>>.They might be calling your view points "socialist" for other reasons - perfectly valid reasons, given the wide range of types of socialists that exist (there are even "libertarian socialists" which I see as completely nutty).>>>>

 

For sure. Words mean what fissiles say they mean at the time that they say them.

 

Re my own views: I'm for drastically lowering taxes because it will be to everyone's benefit to have increased productivity.

This is Libertarianism without the ideological frou-frou.

 

I write under the assumption that, sharing the same basic goal, the non-fissiles among you people would be interestid in discussing the extent to which your frou-frou is wrong, and as irrelevant as it might be to what needs to be accomplished.

 

In other words, I'm beginning to feel that 'objectivists' are who they are because they've lost focus. Ol and Michael do seem to be far more open-minded, btw.

 

In other words, I can live with Krugman because he's against what I'm for, but be needs to be engaged on a level highr than that of juvenile-name-calling. That means (gasp!) understanding his use of the Euler that describes how people make buying decisions.

 

Otherwise, my 'views' are nothing but common-sense observation, not a belief: of course individual beliefs are sacrificed when they are overruled by a group.

 

>>>>If you really think that the major tv news providers are value-neutral, they you are standing so far over to the far left that it is distorting your view.
>>>

 

Lots of studies indicate fox glosses far more than the other three majors. Or perhaps you're saying that the act of studying soemthing is 'leftist'?

 

>>>Bullshit, etc...<<

 

My point is that I don't attach any emotive value to 'racism' whatsoever. It means too many things, as noted, to pass moral judgment. A totally honest and intelligent person can feel that blacks are on the average innately stupid, and despise jazz, soul, hip-hop, rap, basketball, ebonics, and bbq'd ribs with watermelon, as well.

 

Now you wrote:

 

>>>Other blacks who've gotten a free ride on their anti-semitism are the supporters of the Nation of Islam: Like Louis Farrakan and Malcom X<<<<

 

 

Again, I'm asking you--who, exactly is giving the 'free rides'?.  

 

Eva

 

 

 

 



Post 10

Sunday, March 2 - 6:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Fissile?  So now I am Uranium 235.  Well Eva at least you are not a slow neutron!

I find it amusing that you have repeatedly asked that your age and sex not be entered into any equation when it comes to judging the validity of your arguments while at the same time refuting or denigrating people here who have been around a long time.

I for one have not done so and have only replied to your words.

Just because you toss around the "idea" that taxes should be lowered is only a small part of the equation and does not mean you are libertarian.

As Steve and others have pointed out numerous times you do not argue in good faith nor are your ideas much more than regurgitated slanted history lessons.  What you are lacking is integration of these ideas and making them your own.  You need to think more and back up your assertions if you want to be taken seriously.  This is not an attack but simply advice.  

 

By the way lumping people into a group you have termed "fissiles" is highly offensive and derogatory.  If you want people to take you seriously attack a persons ideas and not the person. 



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Sunday, March 2 - 7:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Matthews writes:

I'm for drastically lowering taxes because it will be to everyone's benefit to have increased productivity.
This is Libertarianism without the ideological frou-frou.

This is NOT Objectivism, nor even libertarianism.  Would the reduced taxes be matched with decreased spending or would we just take the deficit orgy to a new high?  Is that a call for a balanced budget?  Or is asking questions like that "frou-frou"?  If it is a call for returning to a balanced budget, what would she cut - we are talking massive cuts given the amount we have been borrowing, especially when added to the drastic tax cuts.

 

There are many, many conservatives who hold the same belief ("drastically lowering taxes") - even rabid members of the religious right.

 

For Matthews, political principles are just "ideological frou-frou."

 

She says that she feels that Objectivists are who they are because they've lost focus.  (I feel pretty focused, what about you other readers?)

 

She has repeatedly been clear in her belief that "individual beliefs are sacrificed when they are overruled by a group" - and for her that is not just a fact, a reality, because not having 'principles' it becomes the sole and only principle.  And what is the cure?  Compromise.  How's that been working?

 

People who strongly disagree with her are called "fissles."

 

Can ANYONE here (not named Matthews) give me a reason why she should be a full member as if she is in agreement with, much less friendly towards Objectivism's main principles... as opposed to being a member of the Dissent area?



Post 12

Sunday, March 2 - 7:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

>>>>Would the reduced taxes be matched with decreased spending [?],,,

 

Well yes, duh. Must everything be spelled out?

 

EM



Post 13

Sunday, March 2 - 8:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Given a deficit greater than our entire annual economy and the fact that neither of the two major political parties has "spelled it out" I'd say, "Duh, yes it has to be spelled out!"  

 

So, what, specifically, would you cut?



Post 14

Sunday, March 2 - 8:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Ayn Rand refused to endorse Ronald Reagan. In fact, she condemned him.  His first administration did, indeed, cut taxes but not the budget, running up America's national debt.  However, the Laffer Curve predicted the resulting jump in productivity and (as the government measures it) employment. If Carter had been re-elected we would not have had a computer revolution with Apples and Radio Shacks and Commodores and Ataris. 

 

I posit that government borrowing does not distort the free market because at that level all lenders are the most rational of actors.

 

The government of the United States might end up as bankrupt as Detroit (or Edcouch, Texas: read here). In fact, it will.  But it will endure, as have many private firms that lived through bankruptcies.  I am currently reading a biography of James J. HIll, and I have read a biography of his financier, John Stewart Kennedy (Wikipedia here). The biography was The Man Who Found the Money by Engelbourg and Bushkoff. Early railroads went through receiverships with alarming regularity. Bankruptcy is not a moral condemnation, but only a business decision, from which many businesses emerge. The Founders of our Republic understood that, which is why they gave to the national Congress rather than the states the right and the power to write bankruptcy laws.  So, yes, balancing the federal budget is preferable to national bankruptcy, but Matthews is not incorrect in recommending the one without the other.

 

As I understand it, Objectivist purity (measured how??) is not a requirement here on RoR, but only open and honest intellectual engagement within an Objectivist framework; and Matthews generally has offered that.  If we are going to relegate current partipants to Dissent, then I nominate Dean Michael Gores for his endorsement of seeming Neo-Tech revisionisms.  Fred Bartlett has been pushing freedom of association as a primary.  I agree with the sentiment, but it is not a primary. Should he be relegated to Dissent? I must object. Also - correct me if I am wrong - but is it not true that Steve Wolfer enjoys Mozart and Beethoven and even would vote for a woman for President of the United States, if she were ideologically acceptable? Dissent only for Steve? Galt forbid!

 



Post 15

Sunday, March 2 - 8:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

MEM,  What is your relation with Eva?

 

Edit: By the way Michael, even though your posts are many times scatter brain and magician tricks...  I once in a while do enjoy your challenges on anarchy versus minarchy.  And I like to read your historical knowledge on money.  You are generally respectful.  You have many times acknowledged Austrian economics.  All unlike a certian puppet master wanna be.

 

(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 3/02, 8:34pm)



Post 16

Sunday, March 2 - 9:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The good thing about having a very short memory is that I'd forgotten how much I dislike Marotta's strained relationship to logic.  The bad thing about it that he is back and I now remember.

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

I posit that government borrowing does not distort the free market because at that level all lenders are the most rational of actors.

Does that mean that the money is magical and therefore never needs to be repaid?  Does that mean that none of that money would come out of the pool of money that would have been available to private borrowers and leave less for them?  When Marotta says all lenders at that level are the most rational of actors, does that include money sent to support dictators in foriegn nations?  Solyndra?  Government spending - rational?  Give me a break!

 

Is his little mini-lecture on bankruptcy a way of saying that America should just declare bankruptcy?  It kind of reads that way.

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

As I understand it, Objectivist purity ... is not a requirement here on RoR, but only open and honest intellectual engagement within an Objectivist framework; and Matthews generally has offered that. 

Who the hell is talking purity?  I smell a Marotta strawman.  Tell me ONE thing that Matthews agrees with that is a basic principle of Objectivism.  Just one.  I can tell you of many, many things where she is diametrically opposed to basic principles.  

 

Does Marotta believe that Rand would be opposed to "free association" or would she see it fully consistent with her principles - a description of a primary right?  Clearly Marotta decides to ignore the basic fact that someone who totally disagrees with Rand, who makes snide disrepectful remarks about Rand, and dimisses Objectivism and members on this board... and he calls it "open and honest intellectual engagement within an Objectivist framework."  

 

Does Marotta think that arguing that there are no such things as objective moral principles, or that individualism comes second to the collective, or that there should be government regulations on the economies (e.g., FCC, anti-trust laws), claims that Galt stands for monopolies, and repeated unsupported statements that Rand got it wrong, that there are no moral property rights, and on and on, are not arguments that should be made in the Dissent area?



Post to this thread
[an error occurred while processing this directive]


User ID Password or create a free account.