But anyone who knows me (a statistically insignificant number of people) will tell you that I'll give anybody a chance to make ignorant statements, if only because I'm more than happy to find new targets to point and laugh at.
After all, as I pointed out before:
You're just like all the other Birchers loving on Ron Paul. You're always out there looking for somebody to hate - the next Great Satan. Because if you can focus everybody's eyes on the bad guy over there, you can rob them blind over here.And of course, RatNat is a devout worshiper at the altar of Ayn Rand, who was a stunningly bad writer. I think Gore Vidal said it best, though.
Communists, Muslims - you don't care. And you don't mind if great evil is committed in the name of Good - as long as it matches your personal definition of "good," anyway.
It's actually sad, watching petty, insecure people make claim to a knowledge of "the Big Picture." You pretend to be rational and logical, but ignore truths when they're right in front of you.
Here, for example, you even used this link to bolster your claim that "6% of Muslims are extremist," while ignoring one important fact: you got it completely ass-backwards.
The statistic cited there only said that 6% of extremists are Muslim. The other 94% aren't, and the threat of Muslim terrorists is being overblown.
Go read it again. You were faced with the truth, and you either ignored it, lied about it, or just got it completely wrong. Just like you do with almost every other subject.
Like I said, your name must be meant ironically, right?
This odd little woman is attempting to give a moral sanction to greed and self interest, and to pull it off she must at times indulge in purest Orwellian newspeak of the ‘freedom is slavery’ sort. What interests me most about her is not the absurdity of her ‘philosophy,’ but the size of her audience (in my campaign for the House she was the one writer people knew and talked about). She has a great attraction for simple people who are puzzled by organized society, who object to paying taxes, who dislike the ‘welfare’ state, who feel guilt at the thought of the suffering of others but who would like to harden their hearts. For them, she has an enticing prescription: altruism is the root of all evil, self-interest is the only good, and if you’re dumb or incompetent that’s your lookout.So, you're welcome to hang out, just don't muck up the carpet.
[...]
Though Miss Rand’s grasp of logic is uncertain, she does realize that to make even a modicum of sense she must change all the terms. Both Marx and Christ agree that in this life a right action is consideration for the welfare of others. In the one case, through a state which was to wither away, in the other through the private exercise of the moral sense. Miss Rand now tells us that what we have thought was right is really wrong. The lesson should have read: One for one and none for all.
Ayn Rand’s "philosophy" is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous...
Nameless,
ReplyDeleteActually Rational is sort of a good dewd in a funny sort of way. He does seek out liberal friends. It's better not to actually read his blog. He behaves himself better on his favorite liberal websites. I have had very few conservative friends over the last five years. When you think about it, it's rather hard to do. At least he does reach out. Ya gotta give him that. He's not a troll. A troll is basically an agitator, right?
That's why I ended the way I did. As long as they behave themselves, anybody is welcome here. But so far, I've found him to be condescending and churlish; and as for not reading his blog... well, ignoring what somebody says elsewhere, and only noting what he says in front of you? That's part of how David Duke got elected, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteI "reach out," too. (Here, for instance.) And it's hostile territory over on the Right Wing websites, where the order of the day is to demonize anyone you don't agree with.
And as I've established above, RatNat's reaction to facts that don't fit his agenda is to either ignore them or lie about them. So what reason do I have to take anything he says without a grain of salt (if not the whole salt shaker)?
Imagine that... She must have been schooled by the same people as Madame Pelosi, Herr Reid, and Fuhrer Obama.
ReplyDeleteHoly guacamole. I see what you mean. He is a sick puppy. I used to have a right-wing acquaintance who flirted with racism rather overtly claiming that slavery was ancient history. I pointed out that our cleaning lady when I was a child was the granddaughter of a slave in Virginia only one hundred years earlier which drew some DAR type out of the woodwork. Then he switched his blog to "members only."
Interestingly, I just remembered her name she is the Vanishing American. I just learned a new word, "ethnopatriot." Wow. Time to check in with Southern Beale!
ReplyDelete"Actually Rational is sort of a good dewd in a funny sort of way."
ReplyDeleteNo, actually, he's a mewling asshole who used to infest Elizabeth's "The Middle Of Nowhere" site. None of his arguments are anything other than oft debunked nonsensical reichwing talking points. He's a moron and reading his shit is a complete waste of time.
democommie
Nameless,
ReplyDeleteIn taxonomy circles, there are controversies in how to define categories and assign examples to them. Lumpers may claim that signature traits and commonalities are more important than variations within a given group; splitters may fuss over every variation within a taxon and divide them into separate classifications.
When we encounter differences of opinion, how shall we classify them? As lumpers or splitters? Is there a convenient scale that we can use … something on the order of: Predators, Stalkers, Fly-By Trolls, Acquaintances, Guests, and Friends?
Do we classify them by motive? Is there a scale for those who bait and taunt us versus those interested in a genuine debate and challenge? A good troll is hard to find, and housebreaking a troll is difficult at best.
Last, but by no means least, there are differences of opinion within our own community with regards to the care and feeding of trolls. Some relish a debate; while others have hair-trigger tempers and stomp on them. As for me, it depends on my mood: I have good days and inky days.
I have conservative friends who are not trolls, and I consider Pamela a genuinely good person. Extremists on the far right have victimized her - prompting me to write this defense. Pamela values her friends more than politics and tends to shy away from debate and confrontation.
Rational Nation is a friend and sometimes blogging partner of Pamela. In the past, he had two annoying habits - baiting and blog whoring – but he is almost housebroken now (except for rainy day mishaps). I no longer torment RatNat as much as I used to; he is not a bad person and certainly not the most toxic troll in Cyberspace. To his credit, he did post this article in response to some issues raised by yours truly. Perhaps RatNat is having his own private struggle with hyper-partisanship; so I give him more slack these days.
No doubt, there are some genuinely bad apples in Cyberspace – an insect in the silverfish family who predated this community last year, plagiarized over 8,000 words and then violated the confidentiality of private email. And another troll who is so evil and pathological, we do not utter his name in civilized company.
Within our own ranks, there are ranges of attitudes and responses as to what constitutes a troll (and to what degree), so I am trying to be agnostic as possible - always leaving room for a consensus to emerge.
Nameless - First I should thank you for the plug, even as negative as it is. So, thank you, I am quite sure your progressive audience will enjoy it. As for those who might happen along your site and read this, you know the conservatives like me who actually do read and listen to leftist views, they will view this for what it is.
ReplyDeleteIf "behaving themselves" means to talk and walk the liberal line so as to be welcome here then I am definitely in a place I do not wish to be. Freedom of thought requires acceptance of opposing views. Even if you disagree.
There are many things I dislike about the republican party {particularly the reactionary wing} , there are as many I dislike about the democratic party { especially the hard far out left}, as tyranny comes in many forms.
As to Rand, yes I advocate her objectivism, so what?
The clash of philosophies and political views have been commonplace for, well, since humankind begin to think. I suspect it will continue to be this why. For this I am glad. Are you Nameless?
As they say, "its been real, and its been fun, but it sure as hell hasn't been real fun." And isn't that part of the "game" Nameless?
Octo - I thank you for your words.
ReplyDeleteI have always been more of a "classical liberal" advocating limited government and maximum individual liberty. Not unlike the founders of the nation. So, to this I plead guilty, however I shall continue to hold to these principles.
At the same time I find reference to President Obama as a Marxist rather foolish and in fact unfounded. In fact, as I've learned more about Marx I have lately become annoyed at the general misrepresentation of Marx's economic theories. In fact I commented on a conservative site, which will remain unnamed, on this very subject in response to another commenter(s) off the wall remark about Obama being a Marxist and guess what... Comment deleted forever. The good thing was the other commenter(s) remark was deleted as well. Progress? I leave it to your community to decide.
Perhaps the sides will never fully agree. Likely they won't. This is good, as dierse opinions and a free press is what will ultimately protect liberty.
Same goal? Different paths to get to the same place? That's how I like to think of it these days anyway.
Unfortunately there are few on either side {the extremes I mean} that see it that way. This is resulting in polarization, I admit I have been guilty from time to time. But so has the left to a degree.
At any rate thanks for your measured support and the link back. Perhaps capitalism and liberty can survive the crony capitalist and corporatist modern day environment and the road toward fascism we have been on for awhile. Reference Professor Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels.
Well I object to being dismissed by such categorical arguments as well. I have no idea whether I'm a Progressive or a liberal or a conservative or a libertarian and I hope I'm not so consistent that I base my opinions on "what would a liberal say" questions. Truth matters.
ReplyDeleteI have a hard time thinking that "well the liberals do that too" and "but so has the left" isn't simply a childish evasion of responsibility. I prefer to have my words taken at face value and I try to do that to others rather than assigning them a category and categorically dismissing them.
As to the American flirtation with Fascism, it's been a long one, but to say that environmental standards, government inspection of food, support for education and all the other things that are given by some as mileposts on that road is idiotic and dishonest in my opinion while the kind of incestuous crony capitalism, deregulation and a government that sits like Pontius Pilate washing his hands of responsibility, quite frankly looks enough like fascism to ring alarm bells. Now who is it advocating such things while calling humanists and liberals Fascists? Not me or anyone here.
"This is resulting in polarization, I admit I have been guilty from time to time."
ReplyDeleteIs this not an admission of being guilty of polarizing Capt?
I stand by my statements.
Gentlemen,
ReplyDeleteOctopus returneth to point out examples of unnecessary ‘stuff’ that usually triggers testy exchanges:
Sandbox arguments starting with “both sides do it” or “you started it first.” The origin of this impasse did not start with the last Neanderthal or the first Cro-Magnon. It started shortly after the Big Bang when matter gained a slight advantage over anti-matter. Circular accusations are immaterial and unproductive.
Partisan labels that treat readers and their opinions with an overbroad brush. Not all liberals are ‘libtards’ nor are all conservatives ‘fascists.’ I am confident that most of us, RN included, enjoy clean air and water. Salmonella is a non-partisan, equal opportunity pathogen. Identity politics forces us to square off in absurd ways.
I would be willing to wager this: Ask RN how he feels about crony capitalism, income inequality, and the impact of Citizens United on free and fair elections. His answers may give you more reasons to start a conversation than end one.
No two people can agree on everything, but the human species has proven itself all too adept at finding excuses to agree on nothing. Prove the cephalopod wrong. Pleeze!
My hat is tipped to the cephalopod.
ReplyDeleteAs an honest political hack(fed up and retired) I fully support patronage and crony capitalism. As my Dad siad when asked by a local reporter why he hired friends; " Who do you want me to hire? My enemies?"
ReplyDeleteCan't hire everyone but it's good to know that you have a friend at city hall and not just a user.
Joe - user, pull peddler,crony capitalist, to the victor goes the spoils, power corrupts - absolute power corrupts absolutely, the end justifies the means... as society has moved on the infinite tread wheel of time it is indeed interesting how little we have learned.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it as something to do with the inability of many to truly understand "rational self interest."
But I'll save that for another post someday at RN USA.
Anyone seen this? [Snort, snort.]
ReplyDeleteRational self-interest.
ReplyDeleteNo great victory has ever been won under the rallying cry of "rational self-interest." No heroic act can ever be accomplished by a person acting with "rational self-interest."
No mother would ever protect their child from death. No soldier would ever charge a machine-gun nest to protect his platoon.
No policeman or fireman would ever do their jobs.
Rational self-interest is only possible if other people, acting with irrational valor, pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, to attain a society where other, lesser people, have the leisure to act with purely selfish motives.
"Rational self-interest" is the rallying cry of the coward, the self-involved, and the immoral.
I find irony in the fact that anyone would try to proclaim the glories of a concept such as "rational self-interest" on Veteran's Day. A day set aside to honor people who acted without recourse to that particular concept.
Congratulations, RatNat. You've managed to make me pity you.
Nameless - You are part of the problem. Like many you fail to think beyond your restrictive sandbox of self importance and self proclaimed intellect.
ReplyDeleteYou pity me? Fair enough, for it is the likes of you that I pity the most. Well, if I had the time to waste on such childish indulgences.
Let me lay it out for you...
1) I is in my rational self interest to give my life so that my children (and yours) my be free.
2) It is in my rational self interest to be concerned about the middle class in America because it is the only way capitalism can survive. Hence giving my children an grandchildren he life I and my wife have enjoyed.
3) It is in my rational self interest to fight against crony capitalism, corporatism, and tax payer financed bailouts in the name of too big to fail, and to fight to take monied influence out of politics so my posterity my enjoy liberty.
4) It is my selfish self interest to save my loving wife from death should I ever be placed in such a position because I value her life above my own. Choosing willingly to protect her life over my own because I would not to live without her.
5) It is in my rational self interest to treat my employees well and equitably as it is their efforts and dedication that insures my departments ultimate success.
6) It is in my rational self interest to be concerned with the strength of our nations ethical fiber because to do otherwise may result in a loss of liberty. If not for me perhaps for children or grandchildren.
Nameless, I have no more time for your cynical and nameless games. Your sandbox is way too small for me to fit in. I am through responding to your irrational remarks.
Octo, I apologize if I have overstepped in your forum. I am making a real attempt to find common ground with individuals that hold different views, w/o attacking them or "pitying" them.
However, Nameless has just given reason to rethink my position. Too bad for me really as I was just beginning to enjoy your sight.
Feel free to stop in any time at RN USA Octo, you're always welcome.
Oh, no. Sorry, RatNat. You don't get to change the definition of words, simply because you don't like how they make you look.
ReplyDelete"Rational" - unencumbered by emotion. Strict intellect.
"Self-interest" - me. Over all. Just me. Nobody else matters, except for what I can get from them.
That's the basic tenet of Ayn Rand. "It is me that matters over all others." Basic immoral (but perfectly rational) logic.
The basic flaw in your argument, in fact, is right there in your first line.
1) I is in my rational self interest to give my life so that my children (and yours) my be free.
Bullshit. Complete and utter horsecrap. Rationality and self-interest both insist that you save yourself first. Just because you don't like the fact that this definition makes you a coward doesn't mean that you get to redefine it.
If you're being rational, you run the fuck away.
If you're using self-interest, well... let me just emphasize one word. Self-interest.
Your children can fend for themselves. My children can damned well go live in Penn State.
You're the one that wants to quote Rand, Ratty. You want "rational self-interest"? Live with it.
"Rational self-interest" says to soak the middle class for whatever you can get. You aren't here to set up a society - it's take what you can get and run.
Fighting against crony capitalism, corporatism, and tax payer financed bailouts only makes sense if you can't profit from them, and you'll lose money if they exist.
It is my selfish self interest to save my loving wife from death
What? Really? Why? What possible benefit can you gain from that? There's always somebody else to fuck.
...because I value her life above my own.
Then you aren't using "rational self-interest," are you? Jesus Christ on a pogo stick. You aren't even trying here. "I'll claim rational self interest, but then I'll try to find exceptions!" You sound like Michele Bachmann, explaining how her "flat tax" will have "several rates."
I'll give you #5. You're right there.
#6, though? Really? No, it is in your interest to ensure that other people use a strictly defined "ethical fiber," because that makes them easy to exploit.
I am through responding to your irrational remarks.
Standard response of the intellectually lazy.
On the other hand, all of this last set of remarks are predicated on strict rationality. So I suppose you'll get right on answering them, right?
Go ahead. I can wait.
Last comment Nameless... The bullshit is all yours.
ReplyDeleteAnd your name suites you. Nameless. Perhaps you might consider changing it to... BrainlessNameless.
At any rate the pleasure has been all mine.
"Is this not an admission of being guilty of polarizing Capt?"
ReplyDeleteNo, not if we're being honest. If we're not being honest then I can dismiss any truth by calling it "polarizing," can't I? Pretending to have some congruent ideas and using that flimsy alliance as a wedge was your purpose in posting here in the first place.
And for what it's worth, I consider that rational or enlightened self-interest trope to be a fraudulent misrepresentation of what Rand is selling -- and whether or not you consider my intellect to be real, imagined, self-proclaimed or self-evident, that's another distraction designed to siphon off the momentum of discussion into some maelstrom. Your credibility as a philosopher or anything else rests only on your self-assertion of the superior insight this sad, tired old cult gives you. You know, people don't like door to door salesmen, well mannered or not. And you're not.
And if you're proclaiming the virtues of your cult - and Rand was indisputably the center of a personal cult - and being here for the purpose of doing that you don't get to condescend to us for being so arrogant as to disagree. I'm sorry, I think her ideas conceal other ideas, as Nietzsche warned and I don't need to waste any more of my morning explaining her ulterior motives and hidden goals and the inevitable outcomes in any society embracing them. It's been done in depth and I don't need to reprise it any more than I have to explain the origin of the Universe to any dull-witted fundamentalist who wanders in telling me I'm not as smart as I "proclaim" myself to be.
So please stop posturing and pretending that the starting of arguments wasn't your purpose of being here or that you're the champion of some noble cause.
You're welcome to think I'm an idiot or that we're all idiots if that allows you to feel better about yourself, but it's a weak and even impotent argument. I'd suggest you stop now since all you have left to offer is that you're angry and frankly, I don't give a damn.
Angry? Not at all. I haven't the time to waste on being angry. i\It saps my Karma.
ReplyDeleteLast comment Nameless...
ReplyDeleteReally? * ptpththh * As if.
Sorry. Not your site. You don't get to cut off responses if you don't want to reply.
The bullshit is all yours.
Nope. Just following your idiot trope to its logical conclusion. Trying to claim that any society that doesn't oppress its weaker members has ever been built on "rational self-interest" is complete crap.
The people who support it also like to quote variations on the phrase "invisible hand of the free market," as if listeria was just another flavorant in cantaloupe.
(Oh, and Cap? High five)