Over on SLOP

[Serapis Bey]

Mein Gott, what have I done??

Me? A preacher? No. Not in this life, anyway.

Fair enough Michael. I have to admit that I did get a little too big for my britches for a moment there. Still getting my sea legs, I guess.

But intimidation? Little old me? Hardly. I am but a babe in the woods here. You accuse me of "baiting", but I wonder how this "baiting" differs from calling someone out on the carpet to defend their views.

As far as hypocrisy, you probably won't find another individual who has more antipathy to hyprocrisy than I. But I see no hypocrisy here. I occasionally see some problematic premises that I wish to challenge.

As far as me lecturing the little sheep here at OL, you couldn't be more wrong. You may not believe it, but the reason I post here so infrequently is because the discussions I read are often made by folks who are either more intelligent than I, or more informed than I, and my contributions would not add much. Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.

Nevertheless, like most people, there are slices of life which are intimately familiar to me, or which I have extensive knowledge of, or simply have more passion about. When these topics eventually roll around the wheel to land on a thread, I am compelled beyond reason to assert my experience.

Can I be forgiven for assuming this forum is a place to hash out ideas? My impression is that this place is something like a pot-luck, where every guest brings their own unique concoction to add to the growing body of Objectivish knowledge. It occurrs to me that perhaps my mistake was in taking off the gloves in the "Objectivist Living Room". I honestly don't know -- is this subforum meant for folks who want to relax and not be so intense? I would never act this way in your Humor or Music subforums...I'm not that dumb. But in my mind, an intellectual forum is where people disassociate from their personal lives and hash out ideas in the Thunderdome. It's a place where you roll up your sleeves and get down to brass tacks to hopefully learn something new and perhaps expand your perspective. That can't happen when personal feelings act as a brake on any and all discussions. So if I have overstepped my boundaries, I sincerely apologize. I feel horrible when I make such social faux pas.

As for Brant, I have no doubt he has the capacity to either clarify/defend his point of view or point out the flaws in mine. Or refuse to dignify my comment with any response at all. It's all good.

[Serapis Bey]

By the way, I appreciate your "serious" reply to me. I like Rushkoff and the book looks interesting. I've told you before I admire your work in understanding human persuasion -- for the sake of making Objectivism more palatable I assume.

As far as your other progressive author -- well, duh. The reason Progressives have won the war is because they DON'T play nice, and they DON'T use logic. They are intelligent enough to understand human psychology and they work it for all it's worth. It's high time those on the Right (or Objectivists) stop bringing a knife to a gun fight. If we hope to win hearts and minds we need to start playing "dirty". In my defense once again, I cut my teeth in the unmoderated anarchic environment of the internet ca. 1995. I realized long ago that logic and niceness are impotent against the snark and sarcasm of the Left. They only understand power and social influence. So I adapted. I suppose my time there has thickened my skin and sharpened my claws. And honestly, I recognize the truth that you can't really change someone's opinion without those weapons, hence my "smear" of Brant. (Rather tame, all things considered)

[Serapis Bey]

 

You failed. Next time please give me some respect, not because I deserve it but for starters.

--Brant

 

I promise to to do my best, but I can't in good faith make any guarantees. Once I get my blood up (as I did re-reading the Amanda Kijera story), that steam naturally fills the sails which power my speech which flows through my fingers to the keyboard. I suspect this is a character flaw I share with Rand. Btw, who was it that pointed out the reason for Rand's behavior was due to her mind understanding the implications of the most seemingly innocuous comment? Something like: when asked about "Communism", she didn't just consider the concept in some antiseptic mental space, but rather was flooded with memories of her time in Russia, and mentally saw the BLOOD flowing and the lives lost due to such policies. She understandably responded to such queries with something more than an academic's remove. I'm reminded of that quote now.

Nevertheless, I'll strike my previous comment and please let me put it to you nice: Do you think Amanda Kijera's explanation for the real cause of her rape is valid?

[Serapis Bey]

In Septicpiss Bay's defense, he is new here, and newbies to a site like this tend to be either a bit over-aggressive and rude, or sickeningly polite and boring as hell. I prefer to see the aggressive type. They at least bring some energy to the site rather than drain it.

THAT'S THE SPIRIT!!!

<iframe id="ytplayer" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://youtube.com/watch?v=5dA3DePirsE?version=3" frameborder="0"/></iframe>

[Serapis Bey]

Kacy:

"Blacks aren't more violent. Thugs are more violent.

And before you start telling me that blacks are more likely to be thugs, I'd suggest you look around the world and not just in Detroit."

Oh, but I have. The 8x violent crime rate is a national statistic, not state. Look around the world further than the U.S.? See Africa. Need I say more?

"Dude, just come out and say it - you believe that blacks possess some inherant more destitution. Don't be afraid - just own it. Don't softball us. You believe there's something in their genetic makeup that gives them a propensity toward violence and crime. Come on, you can say it."

Don't put words in my mouth. If the black community can't get their house in order, I'm tempted to blame it on them, but that says nothing about ultimate causes. A genetic makeup is certainly a possibility, but it's equally plausible that fatherless homes have as much to do with young black males growing up without discipline. My intention in this thread is not to pinpoint the ultimate causes of black dysfunction, but to eviscerate the bullshit excuses which implicate whites as the boogeyman and whatever else that places the blame on anything other than the black community themselves.

What are YOUR thoughts on the matter?

gill doni

[Serapis Bey]

Apropos of nothing (I think), but since i'm well inebriated at this point and feeling sentimental, I wanted to give a shout out to Robert Kolker.

Mr. Kolker, I was but a wee lad in 1995 when I first logged on to the information superhighway as it existed at the time. One of my first stops was at a.p.o. I can recall being hunched over the green phosphorescent screen in the school library as all of us online entities interacted with such luminaries as Jimbo Wales. Good times. But your name stood out to me because of your intransigence in all the debates. I will never forget your staunch defense of infanticide. To this day my thoughts on the abortion issue are still in flux, but that's not the point. The point is, you were the first person who blew my mind with your unassailable logic. Sure, I had read Rand by that point, and of course she was something of a rebel, but for whatever reason her rebelliousness still felt...comfortable...right...somehow. It never really challenged my ethos. But your writings did. I was shocked...appalled...and fascinated. I didnt know what to think, but you left an impression on me. More than Rand ever did, you fried my circuits with your near sociopathic devotion to FACT. I ascribe no moral valence to this characterization. I bring it up only to say that it awakened me to TRUE independent thinking of the sort that gets people into trouble. And I thank you for that. I'm not sure how muchc this counts as a tribute, but regardless...

Bob...this Bud's for YOU

http://forum-img.pinside.com/pinball/forum/?bb_attachments=261416&bbat=28767&inline

[Brant Gaede]

And honestly, I recognize the truth that you can't really change someone's opinion without those weapons, hence my "smear" of Brant. (Rather tame, all things considered)

"Tame" + "Amanda" = contra your asseveration. I'm neither stupid nor an idiot. Her rapist saw right through her bs and took her for the only value she had for him--the value of a victim. Don't get me wrong; if I had been there with a gun he'd have been a dead rapist. Of course, Amanda would have then complained about me, not him.

--Brant

you didn't know my opinion, but you wanted to "change" it?

[Brant Gaede]

You failed. Next time please give me some respect, not because I deserve it but for starters.

--Brant

I promise to to do my best, but I can't in good faith make any guarantees. Once I get my blood up (as I did re-reading the Amanda Kijera story), that steam naturally fills the sails which power my speech which flows through my fingers to the keyboard. I suspect this is a character flaw I share with Rand. Btw, who was it that pointed out the reason for Rand's behavior was due to her mind understanding the implications of the most seemingly innocuous comment? Something like: when asked about "Communism", she didn't just consider the concept in some antiseptic mental space, but rather was flooded with memories of her time in Russia, and mentally saw the BLOOD flowing and the lives lost due to such policies. She understandably responded to such queries with something more than an academic's remove. I'm reminded of that quote now.

Nevertheless, I'll strike my previous comment and please let me put it to you nice: Do you think Amanda Kijera's explanation for the real cause of her rape is valid?

No.

--Brant

she was a juicy, stupid, ignorant, idiotic, defenseless rapist target--I'm blaming the victim, secondarily--being a rape victim seems to have been her best value, to both her and the rapist

a white guy was going to kidnap and rape me in college--I was slim, young, drunk and "juicy"--I cut him on the arm with a knife: it didn't occur to me to appeal to the Aryan brotherhood in him--damn!

~smoked out~

[Brant Gaede]

I think Islam is a nasty religion that needs to be fought intellectually, culturally and demographically. As for terrorism, it's mostly state-sponsored and/or sanctioned, directly and indirectly, and by Western countries by the nature of their response. Fighting a war on terror as such means fighting Muslims as such and all that does is help manufacture terrorists so the war expands as long as--in this case--the United States can keep up its losing battle.

So, you should fight the countries that sanction, support and pay for the exportation of terrorism. The two biggies right now are Saudi Arabia and Iran. After 9-11 the US was okay in invading Afghanistan, but should have gotten out in a year or less. It should never have invaded Iraq. Saudi Arabia should have been told to stop exporting its stupid Islamic sect of a religion or its oil. Its choice. Of course the latter causes the same result as the former.

You have two levels of engagement: culture to culture and state to state. It's not the proper business of a state--if a state has any proper business is one question and whether it exists is not--to wage a cultural-intellectual war for all it has is bullets. Actual real war--the use of force or threat of force, one state against another--requires power, brains and art. Since all the U.S. has used is power since 9-11, it's a couple of trillion bucks into a mostly self-created mess that has destabilized the most dangerous part of the world.

I like to think of myself as something of an intellectual--never mind my 12-gauge tactical shotgun I keep around for any pretty white boy home invaders (or blacks or Mexican-Americans or Arabs or Jews) trying to find good or better answers to difficult problems. Interjecting these conversations with what is referred to on SLOP as "KASS" is like short-circuiting one's brain. And complaining, as some do over there, that Objectivists are not being KASS neo-cons called Objectivists without examining the philosophy and its adherents for any reasons, is proof positive of its anti-intellectual locus and focus.

OL has a social function, but it's not primary. As a KASS club I only see Eric and Bob drinking the wine, eating the cheese, and slapping each other on the back. Bob is good for a lot of brainy things, but not how to fight a war.

--Brant

"Getting to know me, getting to know all about me . . ." (sing it!: "Getting to know you . . ." )

[Serapis Bey]

Brant, I don't quite see the connection between your foreign policy post and the preceding discussion, but no matter - I agree with nearly all of it. (Although I do make some allowances for the oil angle to it all -- not because I'm against oil companies but because I have been swayed by the Peak Oilers, and if what they say is true I'm tempted to be a little more forgiving of our involvement in ensuring the spice continues to flow). "Nation-building" is folly. I certainly have no love for the bloodthirsty warmongers we often see in certain parts of O-Land. I would hope my "tribute" to Kolker is not construed as a total endorsement of all his views. Far far from it. As I matured and put some distance between myself and Orthodox Objectivism, it became hard to avoid the suspicion that all the ARI position papers and editorials I read endorsing complete involvment in the Middle East was due to the heavily jewish staff there. For the record, I condemn neocon nuttery.

BTW, thanks for answering the question. You're OK in my book.

p.s. I've seen this "KASS" acronym before, but I don't know what it means. Care to fill me in?

[Brant Gaede]

Kick ASS

--Brant

[caroljane]

It means, go Oilers! If you have been swayed by them at their peak, you are an OLer after my own heart.

[caroljane]

This one caught my interest. Slopper Sandi sends a heart-to-heart between Stefan Molyneux (who lives in Canada) and an American doctor (who sends his patients to the Bahamas, a Commonwealth country because Obamacare is so awful.Er, premise check?

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

Daunce,

What are you getting at?

Speak plainly or I'll thwack ya.

[caroljane]

Sorry, Kyle. Please, don't hurt me!

I can't remember what connnections I was making here, if any. I was just blurting (I didn't read the interview Sandi linked) in reaction to my bias against (1) Sandi, whose arguments on any subject seem to mostly comprise quotations from fictional works, (2)Molyneux. who I think is a creep and a hypocrite and that goes for his lovely wife too and (3) medical professionals who (3a) oppose, disparage and misrepresent national healthcare systems of other countries yet (b) leech off said systems when it suits their convenience. I still think Dr Mr Dr H is way cute, though.

[Selene]

Selene asks:

"You do have a source for this statement...correct?"

Mark may have overstated his case. He didn't specify what area of the country or what time period he was referring to. A quick google search turned this up -- stats for NY in 2011:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=57c_1336487670

The thing to remember with these sorts of stats is the relative percentages of the population demographics. For example, white victims at 8% means vastly different things depending on whether the proportion of whites in the total area is 80% vs. 20%.

I don't know how I missed this post.

I will have some more data for us to peruse. However, this article jumped out at me:

"The biggest challenge is restoring the family unit," said Rev. Lynch. "The destruction of the black family is the main cause - the root cause - for all of these ailments that we see in our community. The violence, the teenage pregnancy. The infant mortality rate in our community - and people watching this - many of them know the history. In 1920, 90 percent of black families had a father in the house. In 1960, 80 percent of black families had a father in the house. In 2011, it's only 30 percent. Three out of 10." - See more at:

http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/news_archives/Ten-years-later:-Black-on-black-violent-crime-rate-rises#sthash.JD4sfHT0.dpuf

http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/news_archives/Ten-years-later:-Black-on-black-violent-crime-rate-rises

[Selene]

Now this article by Van Jones, a serious marxist/communist and one of the smartest revolutionary's out their is compelling.

The better question for public debate is this: do the actual government statistics bear out the claim that Blacks contribute disproportionately
to the crime rate? Or is this largely a stereotype, which is driven by the disproportionate rate of ARRESTS and CONVICTIONS of Black people?
And does the over-focus on Black crime conceal an alarmingly high crime rate within the white population?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-jones/are-blacks-a-criminal-rac_b_8398.html

FEDERAL LAWMAKERS RECOGNIZE YOUTH OF COLOR ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY BY THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM.
Since 1992, when the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) was amended, the federal government has acknowledged that youth
of different races and ethnicities are treated differently by the justice system. As such the federal government has promoted policies to
ease those disparities. [2] The Republican Congress reauthorized the JJDPA in 2003.



THE IMPACT OF THE "RACE EFFECT." In a seminal meta-analysis conducted by researchers Carl Pope and Richard Feyerherm for the Justice
Department, two-thirds of the studies of state and local juvenile justice systems they analyzed found that there was a "race effect" at
some stage of the juvenile justice process that affected outcomes for minorities for the worse. Their research suggested that "the effects of
race may be felt at various decision points, they may be direct or indirect, and they may accumulate as youth continue through the system."
[3]

One aspect that seems to rear it's head concerning this issue is how to objectively frame the issue without all the question begging terminology.

Additionally, I found it quite difficult to figure out who you were quoting in your posts.

More to follow.

A...

[caroljane]

Somebody should tell Super Slopper and Lonely Guy Dog B. about conservativesonly.com, a dating site that excludes feminazis, communists etc. and has recently expanded into Canada, according the NatPost. Talk about the triumph of hope over lack of experience.

[tmj]

The thread is not about crime, which is not funny, but about race-mongering statements on a purported Objectivist site. Blacks suffer terribly from black on black crime of all sorts. I do suspect that blacks are considerably less likely to report rape to the police than whites. If whites hadn't given blacks the welfare state, starting with the 1960s' Great Society, and draconian drug laws, black crime wouldn't be much worse than white crime today. If whites hadn't given America Medicare, Medicare wouldn't be threatening to eat America alive in the near future. If whites hadn't given America war after war . . .

--Brant

damn whites!--damn 'em to hell!

it would be easier to damn them if you could them apart

[william.scherk]

The thread is not about crime, which is not funny, but about race-mongering statements on a purported Objectivist site. Blacks suffer [ . . . ]

damn whites!--damn 'em to hell!

it would be easier to damn them if you could them apart

When I was eighteen, I heard from a friend this following tale featuring his mother:

'My mom says, "I'm not prejudiced, but I don't like the Dutch. They are diry and bossy. I worked for a couple of them."'

It stuck in my mind and I have repeated it hundreds of time, often with this fine-tuning:

'I am not prejudiced, but I don't like white people. They are dirty and bossy. I worked for a couple of them.'

Edited March 3, 2013 by william.scherk