the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

[iambiguous]

Look what I found:

You're not being ironic, are you?

She's like a caricature of a cartoon character Randroid.

Oh, and [of course] she's a Kid.

So, have you nailed her yet?

[Magnus Anderson]

But isn't objectivist someone who thinks he's better than everyone else?

[Magnus Anderson]

Is that a silence I am hearing?

[iambiguous]

Is that a silence I am hearing?

Note to myself: Move on to others.

[Magnus Anderson]

You are refusing to answer simple questions.

The video claims that objectivists are herd-like. How is that the same as alpha-man-like?

[Lev Muishkin]

You are refusing to answer simple questions.

The video claims that objectivists are herd-like. How is that the same as alpha-man-like?

An objective notion is only so, because the majority accept it as true regardless of their own opinion. Thus objectivism is a complete denial of the individual, and personal views. To be an objectivist is to FOLLOW the received wisdom: the wisdom of the priest, the king or tyrant. Ae these what you refer to as "alpha-men". The men that own you?


An objective statement is perfectly okay for matters of scientific interest, but when it comes to culturally and morally mediated assertions pur objectivity is absurd.

[Lev Muishkin]

The girl in the video is just like any other religious acolyte.
She's a follower, and that is all objectivists are: followers of someone else's view of objectivity.

[Magnus Anderson]

An objective notion is only so, because the majority accept it as true regardless of their own opinion. Thus objectivism is a complete denial of the individual, and personal views. To be an objectivist is to FOLLOW the received wisdom: the wisdom of the priest, the king or tyrant. Ae these what you refer to as "alpha-men". The men that own you?

An objective statement is perfectly okay for matters of scientific interest, but when it comes to culturally and morally mediated assertions pur objectivity is absurd.

Hey Lev,

Wikipedia redirects me to Ayn Rand's concept of objectivism where it is stated that objectivism's main tenet is that "reality exists independently of consciousness". Google, on the other hand, gives me as a number two in its list of definitions a sentence that says "the belief that certain things, especially moral truths, exist independently of human knowledge or perception of them". These two definitions sort of agree, don't they? So we can say that objectivism is the idea that what is true is independent from what anyone thinks is true. Kind of hard to disagree with, isn't it? Now where I disagree with you is the idea that moral statements have no truth value. Moral statements are simply ought statements such as "You ought to do X" which mean nothing other than "You ought to do X if you want to maximize the chances of attaining your goals". Such statements are either true or false. You should either eat in order to remain alive or you should not. Hard to dispute. So the idea that moral objectivism is a complete denial of individual is not true. It's not MORAL OBJECTIVISM that denies the individual, it is MORAL UNIVERSALISM that does so, the idea that there is a set of moral rules that apply literally to everyone on Earth. The more general the morals, the worse.

But . . . this has nothing to do with this thread because this thread has nothing to do with objectivism in the conventional sense of the word. Rather, it has to do with something not quite defined . . . perhaps dogmatism?

[promethean75]

behold... andy has become a universal prescriptivist.

*nods*

[Magnus Anderson]

I am a cognitivist, and more specifically, a moral realist who also thinks that sone but not all moral statements are universally applicable.

So . . . no (:

[phoneutria]

remember when andy used to post like a raging teenager?
Pepperidge farm remembers

[promethean75]

I think it's time you all learned the truth about pepperidge farm.

https://youtu.be/9XGrHkJQ1gg

[iambiguous]

remember when andy used to post like a raging teenager?
Pepperidge farm remembers

On the other hand, we can always go back to the OP and discuss why it is not applicable to you and Andy and...Satyr?

[phoneutria]

I think it's time you all learned the truth about pepperidge farm.

https://youtu.be/9XGrHkJQ1gg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_7HxDM-MKI

[iambiguous]

I think it's time you all learned the truth about pepperidge farm.

https://youtu.be/9XGrHkJQ1gg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_7HxDM-MKI

Actually, things like this have almost nothing to do with the reason I created this thread. Though I suspect that's their point.

[Meno_]

Very generally, objectivism contains for the most part a construction of reality based on acceptance / denial matrixes.

And in furtherance, an extended implication is offered to share, by projectively identifying the way to go; and thence forward becoming a test of certainty.

Objectivism is measured by such tests, to verify the credibility of individual opinions ; setting the bottom tier of a defensive assurance, on this most basic level.

[iambiguous]

Talk about the "psychology of objectivism"!

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/20/us/p ... e=Homepage

For more than a week, a plain-spoken former federal prosecutor named Sidney Powell made the rounds on right-wing talk radio and cable news, facing little pushback as she laid out a conspiracy theory that Venezuela, Cuba and other “communist” interests had used a secret algorithm to hack into voting machines and steal millions of votes from President Trump.

She spoke mostly uninterrupted for nearly 20 minutes on Monday on the “Rush Limbaugh Show,” the No. 1 program on talk radio. Hosts like Mark Levin, who has the fourth-largest talk radio audience, and Lou Dobbs of Fox Business praised her patriotism and courage.

So it came as most unwelcome news to the president’s defenders when Tucker Carlson, host of an 8 p.m. Fox News show and a confidant of Mr. Trump, dissected Ms. Powell’s claims as unreliable and unproven.

“What Powell was describing would amount to the single greatest crime in American history,” Mr. Carlson said on Thursday night, his voice ringing with incredulity in a 10-minute monologue at the top of his show. “Millions of votes stolen in a day. Democracy destroyed. The end of our centuries-old system of government.” But, he said, when he invited Ms. Powell on his show to share her evidence, she became “angry and told us to stop contacting her.”

The response was immediate, and hostile. The president’s allies in conservative media and their legions of devoted Trump fans quickly closed ranks behind Ms. Powell and her case on behalf of the president, accusing the Fox host of betrayal.

“How quickly we turn on our own,” said Bo Snerdley, Mr. Limbaugh’s producer, in a Twitter post that was indicative of the backlash against Mr. Carlson. “Where is the ‘evidence’ the election was fair?”

The backlash against Mr. Carlson and Fox for daring to exert even a moment of independence underscores how little willingness exists among Republicans to challenge the president and his false narrative about the election he insists was stolen. Among conservative media voices and outlets, there’s generally not just a lack of willingness — they have proved this month to be Mr. Trump’s most reflexive defenders.

This is simply how the objectivist "minds" function. Not only does their la la land reality not require any actual accumulation of evidence, but god help those who deviate even in the slightest from the One True Path.

And boy does it take me back!!

Back to the days when out on the extreme left end of the ideological spectrum, it was the same thing with us. It was never enough to be a Marxist-Leninist. You had to embrace the one and the only true account of it. Over and again in the Guardian or the Militant the most fierce criticisms were often leveled not at the capitalists but at the communists or the socialists who dared to deviate from the righteous path in regard to the Soviet Union or China or Cuba or feminism or homosexuality or, well, everything.