quote:We've established nothing of the sort. Possibly when they choose voluntarily to become part of one. But there's a technical term for someone who is bound by terms from birth. The term is "slave".
Does that make us all God's slaves, on your point of view?
I certainly never agreed to become subject to the Commandments.
posted
So now slavery is a positive and necessary thing in your worldview.
That's .. even more profound dilution of a word. It's like deciding to redefine words like 'rape' to include even friendly eye contact.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: http://www.cis.org/PanelTranscripts/ConservativesAndImmigration
Lots of other interesting stuff in there as well.
That is pretty interesting. Frum is a well-spoken guy who likes to tell his own party what they don't want to hear (or, at least, don't want publically disseminated).
In my reference, though, there aren't any asians. Just hispanics that Sharron Angle was bizarrely insinuating were probably asian.
quote:The Tea Party Senate hopeful is in the middle of a new controversy after telling a group of Latino high school students that some of them looked Asian.
Angle, speaking at Rancho High School, was responding to students asking the candidate to explain recent ads she has run attacking her opponent, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, over illegal immigration.
The ads depict dark-skinned men who appear to be Latino crossing the border.
Angle's reply was caught on tape and sent to The Associated Press.
"I think that you're misinterpreting those commercials," Angle told the students. "I'm not sure that those are Latinos in that commercial. What it is, is a fence, and there are people coming across that fence."
Citing the diversity of the U.S. population, Angle added: "I don't know that all of you are Latino. Some of you look a little more Asian to me."
The comment left several students grumbling, with one girl whispering, "I hate this lady."
Angle furthered her point, talking about her half-Latino grandchildren and then bizarrely mentioned she was once mistakenly called "the first Asian legislator in the Nevada Assembly."
With two weeks until Election Day, Angle and Reid are locked in a heated, neck-and-neck race.
(hey sharron, the people in your commercial are hispanic)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: In my reference, though, there aren't any asians. Just hispanics that Sharron Angle was bizarrely insinuating were probably asian.
Oh I know, but I think that that and the odd "first Asian legislator" bit won't play well among Asian communities either anyways.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is another interesting article on the loose-leaf tea partiers.
quote:There is genuine populist anger out there. But the angry have been deceived and exploited by posers who belong to the same class of "elites" and "insiders" that the Tea Party movement supposedly deplores. Americans who want to stick it to the man are instead sending money to the man.
Really, can they go more than 5 minutes without performative contradiction? I think not.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the least, the tea party's well-managed populist anger does prove that the Kochs are fsking geniuses.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: At the least, the tea party's well-managed populist anger does prove that the Kochs are fsking geniuses.
A fair bit of the things that happen in politics in our country make a lot more sense to me if I assume that they are the result of the two old guys from Trading Places making bets about the the absurd things they can get people to do.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:"I think that you're misinterpreting those commercials," Angle told the students. "I'm not sure that those are Latinos in that commercial. What it is, is a fence, and there are people coming across that fence."
Ah, Canada too. Premium WTF.
quote:Sharron Angle to Asians: I'm you By Jeff Yang, Special to SF Gate ... Attempting to soft-pedal the impact of the ads to a clearly hostile audience, Angle suggested that the students had "misinterpreted" them -- that the images might not represent Latinos, and the border being discussed might not be the one between the U.S. and Mexico. "Our northern border is where the terrorists came through -- that's the most porous border that we have," she told them.
The students were obviously skeptical that Angle's primary immigration concern was the nonexistent boundary between Nevada and Canada, so the candidate chose to press the issue using a different tack -- stating that, in our diverse country, it's difficult to even tell races and ethnicities apart ...
quote:And that's the fundamental racial hypocrisy of the populist right. Like their rising star Angle, they espouse the notion of the "melting pot" -- of chocolate and caramel swirled into and subsumed within America's vast vanilla social fondue. But however much people of color assimilate, most of us still "look" Latino, "look" Asian, "look" black. And that means when we're pulled over by Arizona troopers, or we hang out in the wrong Detroit bar, or we force the jammed door of our own home in Cambridge, Mass. -- we instantly unmelt from the pot. ... The truth is, those who proclaim the virtues of the melting pot, who demand an end to the identification of humans by ethnicity and color, are often the first to dial 911 when they see a dark-skinned stranger, and the ones who pull their purses closer and roll up their windows when passing through a nonwhite neighborhood. They want to ignore race in the name of eliminating racism -- but only selectively, when it benefits an entrenched and unequal power structure.
posted
i was surprised to wake up this morning and discover that the incident where a rand paul supporter up and curb-stomped someone was on the top of news.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Believing in objectivism to be the answer to how society should be is, pretty much, hoping for a utopia that ignores human nature. Jut as much, in fact, as any supposed narrative about how the american left wants to set up an impossible utopia.
Objectivism(*) was developed starting from a careful observation of human nature. (*: all except for Metaphysics, of course)
Posts: 41 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PMH: Objectivism(*) was developed starting from a careful observation of human nature.
I don't think I can classify what Ayn Rand did to observe human nature in order to develop her socioeconomic theory as very careful, or at least I could say it was too utterly confounded by internal emotional and irrational biases to have ended up tenable (and has a virtually guaranteed chance of never even being tried) given certain social and psychological realities inherent to the human condition.
This goes even beyond her whole cracked-out meth addict thing. I'd say even more important is the soviet angle. Ayn Rand saw her family destroyed by a supposedly Communist state and was reacting to a childlike sense of dispossession. If all you see is the worst parts of government action soon you learn to hate governments, and the end result on her philosophy was predictable, even understandable.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On its own and in the right context, not really. Like if you were really interested in the Botannical Gardens, became a member, and showed up for a 3-day retreat there, you might be delighted to listen to an hour-and-a-half lecture on the primary species of rhododendron found in the US, and you might be avid at following along the accompanying pamphlet, footnotes included.
But if some guy [that you don't know***] wandered into your Wednesday evening pool party (or up to your dinner table, or what have you) and started going on in great detail about various types of rhododendron, it might get tedious.
That's what BlackBlade was saying about becoming a member of the community. You can talk about most everything here and from most any different perspective or platform, but it really should be talking with people rather than at them. Long diatribes with footnotes and little other communication is going to fall into the latter camp.
So, in context, kind of. But that can change.
---
Added: ***Of course, if it's a guy you know, it's different. It's just Uncle Phil, who's really into his rhododendrons, and boy, he knows a thing or two about soil mixtures. But, you know, he reviewed your noir detective novel and gave some awesome feedback, and remember that time he chipped in and made grasshopper pie when Elma's fridge was out. He's a stand-up guy. He puts up with you going on and on about your bunions, and so you humor him about the rhododendrons. It's all good. At least you know he isn't going to do the equivalent of whipping out a toxic plant-duster and spray you all with carcinogens screaming incoherently about "stem dieback, you suckers!!!"
Because those rhododendron fanatics ... man. They can flip on ya.
posted
Yes...CT is wise. From her post we take away the most important advice today--don't trust the rhododendron fanatics. Something about learning how to spell rhododens...rohdowd...rhodododo...that big word drives people insane.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: New user. Has revived three threads, including this one.
Seems to be going after correcting every Rand mention on the forum. This might take a while.
True story.
Is there something wrong with that? (seriously, honestly, sincerely)
Yes, there is. Not everyone comes here to talk about Rand/Objectivism; if there's already an active thread discussing it, why bump others? A limited number of threads can be displayed on a single page, so it makes sense to avoid having multiple active threads on the same topic. Keeping the discussion to a single thread has the added benefit of ensuring that everyone is on the same page, as it were, since all of the current discussion of a given topic is in one place.
There there's also a "soft" argument against simultaneously reviving multiple dead threads that contain discussion of Rand/Objectivism: It makes you seem like you have an axe to grind.
You don't really participate here unless you're correcting what you perceive to be someone's misapprehension of an element of Rand's work or Objectivism in general. You're so dedicated to the cause that you even revive discussions that died out months ago in order to "correct" people. Some people don't mind this, but a lot of people find it kind of annoying. I think you'll find that the people whose months-old quotes you're addressing often won't reply to your thread resurrection posts. It's best summed up by this classic one-panel XKCD strip:
We've all been there at times, but a five-second glance over your posting history says to me that you aren't just that guy every so often, you're that guy all the time. If anyone says anything about Rand/Objectivism, there you are to correct any perceived errors.
I know where you're coming from. There's a specific topic that's very personal to me and in which I have a great deal of both emotional and intellectual investment. I'm quite knowledgeable on the subject and have formed conclusions that unfortunately make it difficult to discuss with people in the other "camp" or with people who are nominally in my "camp."
There was one fellow on this forum with whom I frequently butted heads on the topic, and we were both completely unable to even tolerate the other one's view. But we both engaged in discussions on plenty of other topics, and got along fine in other threads. I was saddened when we learned that he'd died of cancer, and helped his family rescue archived threads in which he'd participated -- including some where he and I had gotten into it quite heatedly.
I don't discuss that particular topic around here anymore, but it wasn't because of the poster I just told you about. The point is that neither of us was a one-dimensional poster -- because we were able to engage on other subjects and have perfectly normal interactions, neither of us came off as trying to lecture the community or axe-grinders.
Since you haven't engaged the community on any other subjects, at the moment it still seems like you're talking at people, not with them. There's lots of other discussion going on. If you're actually interested in the community and not just in make sure everyone is exposed to Objectivism, why not participate in some of it? You might even consider my approach and actively not participate in discussions on the topic in which you're the most emotionally invested, at least on a temporary basis. It's okay for people to be wrong on the internet, you know? Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
These comments were helpful.. (I just went back & read them.) ...at least somewhat (I think I still don't get it fully -- which I'll try to explain, to the extent that I have the energy.)
quote:Originally posted by CT: On its own and in the right context, not really. Like if you were really interested in the Botannical Gardens, became a member, and showed up for a 3-day retreat there, you might be delighted to listen to an hour-and-a-half lecture on the primary species of rhododendron found in the US, and you might be avid at following along the accompanying pamphlet, footnotes included.
But if some guy [that you don't know***]
I'm not at all used to ... er, the ~sociology~ of forums.. ..but I take it that what's implicit here is that one is supposed to begin his participation in them by.. ..well, I was gonna say "talking /with/ people (instead of /at/ them)".. ..but isn't it really "asking questions, rather than offering opinions"?
...anyway, the theory seems to be that one thereby gets known by the others in the forum - and then is tolerated if he has an issue that he has studied for eons, has good reason to think he understands well, and thinks is incredibly important.
I could buy that.
But OTOH, I question whether any (reasonable) amount of introductory behavior would have changed substantially the reactions that I have gotten to my posts.
I do understand (now) that my jumping in and contradicting large-N posts at once - and as my introduction - was a strange thing to do.
Sadly, I don't even clearly remember why exactly I did it. I think it was just that I had enjoyed Ender so much that when I found these forums, I wanted to see what all was in there -- and since Objectivism is the most important thing I can imagine.. (Go ahead, shoot.)
..I searched for mentions of it.. ..and finding flames betraying the kind of misunderstanding that comes only from approaching a subject shallowly - and from a fixed ~ideology~ - I sorta went bat shit.
quote: wandered into your Wednesday evening pool party (or up to your dinner table, or what have you) and started going on in great detail about various types of rhododendron, it might get tedious.
What if (to be more like what actually happened) he wandered in, heard people badmouthing rhodos, & stood up for them?
(I guess that (even) I wouldn't do that - ~in the flesh~ -- bec it would be more obvious / immediate that everyone esle were friends, & I was an outsider.)
quote:
That's what BlackBlade was saying about becoming a member of the community.
I was surprised to not be able to find where he said that.
Maybe it was on another of my undeadified threads...
quote: You can talk about most everything here and from most any different perspective or platform, but it really should be talking with people rather than at them.
Yes.
The thing that I was trying to do.. (stand up for)
..was inherently an /at/ kind of thing.
I think that I have gotten at least a little more /with/ -- although maybe only over in Ornery.
quote: Long diatribes with footnotes and little other communication is going to fall into the latter camp.
So, in context, kind of. But that can change.
---
Added: ***Of course, if it's a guy you know, it's different. It's just Uncle Phil, who's really into his rhododendrons, and boy, he knows a thing or two about soil mixtures. But, you know, he reviewed your noir detective novel and gave some awesome feedback, and remember that time he chipped in and made grasshopper pie when Elma's fridge was out. He's a stand-up guy. He puts up with you going on and on about your bunions, and so you humor him about the rhododendrons. It's all good. At least you know he isn't going to do the equivalent of whipping out a toxic plant-duster and spray you all with carcinogens screaming incoherently about "stem dieback, you suckers!!!"
Because those rhododendron fanatics ... man. They can flip on ya.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: New user. Has revived three threads, including this one.
Seems to be going after correcting every Rand mention on the forum. This might take a while.
True story.
Is there something wrong with that? (seriously, honestly, sincerely)
Yes, there is. Not everyone comes here to talk about Rand/Objectivism; if there's already an active thread discussing it, why bump others? A limited number of threads can be displayed on a single page, so it makes sense to avoid having multiple active threads on the same topic. Keeping the discussion to a single thread has the added benefit of ensuring that everyone is on the same page, as it were, since all of the current discussion of a given topic is in one place.
There there's also a "soft" argument against simultaneously reviving multiple dead threads that contain discussion of Rand/Objectivism: It makes you seem like you have an axe to grind.
You don't really participate here unless you're correcting what you perceive to be someone's misapprehension of an element of Rand's work or Objectivism in general. You're so dedicated to the cause that you even revive discussions that died out months ago in order to "correct" people. Some people don't mind this, but a lot of people find it kind of annoying. I think you'll find that the people whose months-old quotes you're addressing often won't reply to your thread resurrection posts. It's best summed up by this classic one-panel XKCD strip:
We've all been there at times, but a five-second glance over your posting history says to me that you aren't just that guy every so often, you're that guy all the time. If anyone says anything about Rand/Objectivism, there you are to correct any perceived errors.
I know where you're coming from. There's a specific topic that's very personal to me and in which I have a great deal of both emotional and intellectual investment. I'm quite knowledgeable on the subject and have formed conclusions that unfortunately make it difficult to discuss with people in the other "camp" or with people who are nominally in my "camp."
There was one fellow on this forum with whom I frequently butted heads on the topic, and we were both completely unable to even tolerate the other one's view. But we both engaged in discussions on plenty of other topics, and got along fine in other threads. I was saddened when we learned that he'd died of cancer, and helped his family rescue archived threads in which he'd participated -- including some where he and I had gotten into it quite heatedly.
I don't discuss that particular topic around here anymore, but it wasn't because of the poster I just told you about. The point is that neither of us was a one-dimensional poster -- because we were able to engage on other subjects and have perfectly normal interactions, neither of us came off as trying to lecture the community or axe-grinders.
Since you haven't engaged the community on any other subjects, at the moment it still seems like you're talking at people, not with them. There's lots of other discussion going on. If you're actually interested in the community and not just in make sure everyone is exposed to Objectivism, why not participate in some of it? You might even consider my approach and actively not participate in discussions on the topic in which you're the most emotionally invested, at least on a temporary basis. It's okay for people to be wrong on the internet, you know?
quote:What if (to be more like what actually happened) he wandered in, heard people badmouthing rhodos, & stood up for them?
(I guess that (even) I wouldn't do that - ~in the flesh~ -- bec it would be more obvious / immediate that everyone esle were friends, & I was an outsider.)
Given that you're reviving long since dead threads, I think the more apt analogy would be something like: What if you read the transcripts of the pool game and then interrupted their game to go over several conversations they'd had at that game over the previous weeks and months?
And how different would it be if that person played the game with them for awhile, got to know them, and then brought it up? Well, they'd probably still frown on bringing up long since dead issues, since it's sort of uncouth around here, but those originally interested in the topic would probably at least hear you out so long as you didn't spam them with it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
