Such as? If anything the woman was hyper rational, making spock look like a romantic poet.
Her comments on racism in the South and Native Americans betrayed her lack of knowledge of history and her biased observational skills. It also betrayed her racism, bigotry, lack of humanity and arguably her evil nature. Any ideology (and she was a demagogue, not a philosopher) that justifies genocide is evil. She rationalized with beliefs, not facts.
She basically created cult of the productive. In her mind the Europeans were more productive than the natives and thus the land’s rightful owners. That’s not feelings (as you allege), but cold and hyper-rational.
She’s female Nietzsche with an appreciation for rough sex.
You just typed “in her mind.”
Yep. She reasoned ‘in her mind’ (where do you reason) that Europeans produce more than the natives they took the land from brutally. That just so happens to be true via math. She also points out that the stone age natives didn’t claim title to lands.
That’s cold terminator-level calculus. It is the exact opposite of “feeling”. Excusing genocide and conquest on the basis of the meritocracy of production is monstrous, but it ain’t feeling.
The Jamestown settlers would probably disagree.
Ah, the Terra Nullius argument that the Brits applied to Australia.
4 Likes
Produce more of what?
Which is false. She had zero knowledge of Native American history and culture. The Aztecs had an empire. In the Southwest there were permanent dwellings and towns. There was the Iroquois Confederacy which proves that they had concepts like diplomacy. We know that there were trade routes from Mexico to the Northeast. And when we consider that white settlers could claim land by simply occupying it (no title) it makes the whole title claims a load of crap. I know she liked to consider herself more American than Americans who were born here but, had she gone to school here she would know our history and not make up shit based on movies.
It’s hypocrisy. Someone whose family and everything taken from them (and I believe it was legally done) has no issue with the Other having it done to them. Fair is fair unless it happens to her.
It is feelings because she made a judgement about how much value some human lives have based on her personal views. A superior, in her opinion, culture has the right, a man made concept which is mutable, to eradicate an inferior, in her opinion, culture.
A value system you make up that justifies your actions is all about feelings. Rand wanted the world to be like what she imagined it to be and came up with an ideology to “prove” what she saw was reality. It’s that simple. She didn’t want to believe that wealthy whites could be racists so she blamed what was going on in the South on white trash (her words). Again, that shows zero understanding of historical as well as contemporary reality. But she had to rationalize things to fit her narrative and personal values.
It’s also very easy for someone like her to talk about the “evils” of sacrifice but she would never have been asked to make the ultimate sacrifice. If the US were invaded would she be leading the fight against the enemy or hiding behind those who are willing to lose their lives for the benefit of people like her? So who exactly is the slave and master?
1 Like
Balance that with Cortez. Routing tens of thousands with 492 men.
Coincidentally, learning more about Cortez and Montezuma. Holy fuck were they two awful humans that absolutely deserved each other. Nowhere else on earth at the time could Cortez have landed and faced someone with more blood lust than himself.
Aztec culture was built by serial killers for serial killers. 80k people sacrificed in 4 days. They had ‘fattening pens’ so they could send people to their gods pleasantly plump.
1 Like
Everything beyond flint tools, tanned skins and maize. Basically everything past the stone age.
I’ve already said she was wrong and that it was a cult of productivity, to the point of it being an equation (> production = superior person . You’re fighting positions and statements I didn’t make.
Lack of beasts of burden in Mesoamerican civilizations and an adequate source of protein. Hence cannibalism - warriors were “rewarded” with extra protein rations.
1 Like
Maybe the disagreement is based on how we view her bullshit. I see it as feeling based (belief, opinion as well as emotions) and perhaps you don’t. I see her as the L. Ron Hubbard of philosophers. She was not particularly well educated in general, let alone in philosophy.
1 Like
Well Socrates never used the phrase epistemology lol. We’re talking past each other a bit agreed. Have an excellent weekend.
Latest update:
In DEM circles, Warren is becoming more and more the “favorite”???
MAGA.
4 more years.
Well…!
I just received an e-mail to contribute to “The Impeachment Defense Task Force”.
(Man…where is my credit card when I need it?)
Right.
I’m on it.
2 Likes
Should be interesting.
Trump has asked the Supreme Court to block a subpoena for his Tax Records (a request that has been rejected by two lower Courts).
(@thunderbolt23…is there any type of precedent here that may be applicable concerning the subpoena of records not directly related to the Presidency?)
I don’t know of any. Trump’s team is claiming a kind of unlimited privilege - “because I’m President” is pretty much the extent of it - that protects these materials. I can’t see SCOTUS going for it.
Expanding on that - Trump’s team is claiming that personal disclosures like this would impair the ability of a president to do his job. As the Second Circuit said, that makes no sense - presidents voluntarily disclose tax returns as a matter of course and tradition, and it never hampered their ability to perform.
You’re obviously incorrect. If a President wants to funnel money to himself knowing his tax returns could absolutely impair the ability of him to do that job.
1 Like
@thunderbolt23 and others:
It is now being investigated whether or not Trump lied to Robert Mueller.
It just doesn’t stop.
Most likely this will fall under “the Witch Hunt” narrative. Also; I think that this is the danger of anyone “following their instincts”, much less the President of the United States.
Most likely Trump’s “instinct” is to tell lies and half truths with the end justifying the means. This eventually catches up with all of us.
We’ll see,
@loppar, @thunderbolt23 and others;
One thing that I think is being missed about the value of these experienced, often demonized “Deep State” individuals in State, Commerce and other departments is that they are the ones who truly iron out the Specifics of things like treaties and tariffs.
Yes. There is a President and some cabinet level person who sets the overall policy, and who shake hands for the cameras when there is an “agreement”; but it is up to these individuals to sit down and iron out the specifics; hammer out the details; and actually write the documents.
This is not work for inexperienced surrogates like Kushner, Giuliani and others…and I think we are beginning to see the cost in terms of what is being reveled in these hearings; what is happening with China; and with our diplomacy in general.
I think that any President is ill-advised to demonize these dedicated public servants and to crush their moral in doing so.
Thoughts?
3 Likes