History questions not worth their own thread IV

[say1988]

Feeling a soft spot getting hit? I don't even recall mentioning you. Why are you piping up now?

He prompted the whole discussion?

Post 369, the first reference to "invading Greece"

We prevented the British from invading Greece. That alone has to be worth something.

 

[overkill9]

He prompted the whole discussion?

Post 369, the first reference to "invading Greece"

Which was prompted by my original question of british sentiment about america, derailed in such a manner by mentioning something outside of main point. Either way, I find it interesting someone would quickly jump at that statement while it really was nonspecific as if they are.

 

[privatehudson]

Eh, you helped pique my interest. I'll add it to the "to read" pile.

Damn, if I kept the books I wanted to read in a pile It would reach the ceiling

 

[Traitorfish]

I think they call that "WHers Disease".

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Source? Or is it a newpaper weekly comic or something.

It is from one of the best known web comics, which is updated every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
http://xkcd.com/610/

 

[privatehudson]

I think they call that "WHers Disease".

Yup, I've got a dose of that.

 

[overkill9]

It is from one of the best known web comics, which is updated every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
http://xkcd.com/610/

Thank you for letting me know Magister.

Question for ayn rand: Which was/is the more fantastic (fantasy) of the two philosophies, ayn rand's or communism?

Also, why did ayn rand's philosophy not gain much traction in mainstream society?

 

[Dachs]

That's not, uh, really a history question. Or even a question that has a factual answer.

 

[overkill9]

That's not, uh, really a history question. Or even a question that has a factual answer.

Not even history on philosophy? I am not really looking for a definitive 'this is it' on this - it's just really wanting to get some opinions on probable causes/philosophical comparisons on two different matters of historical importance (varying from one the another of course).

 

[Traitorfish]

The first question isn't comprehensible, let alone historical.

The second is, I would have thought, self-evident: that Rand was an eccentric crank who did not participate in any of the political or philosophical discourses of her day, involving herself exclusively in a peripheral and cultish milieu of her own creation. The limited public presence she possessed in her lifetime was owed not to her philosophical or political output, but to the appeal of crude egoist morality-tales to certain aspects of American society, and despite the upsurge of "Objectivist" web-blether, that is still essentially the case today.

 

[LightSpectra]

Light spectra: Now you can't handle a bit of criticism and still got something on you to mention it back because you are so bitter about it even now? Thank you for letting everyone know

Can't handle criticism? Yikes. Harsh words coming from the guy that thinks it's justified to execute or intern non-whites if they exhibit critical (p.t. 'treasonous') attitudes by, uh, being non-white.

 

[overkill9]

Can't handle criticism? Yikes. Harsh words coming from the guy that thinks it's justified to execute or intern non-whites if they exhibit critical (p.t. 'treasonous') attitudes by, uh, being non-white.

I love your fantasy interpretation of what I say. It's such a typically brainless way of thinking.

Ayn Rand's idea was in direct contrast to communism, both somewhat far fetched, so comparing them is a part of philosophical history.

Another easier topic than: What caused the downfall of Khwarizmi empire so quickly?

Moderator Action: Infracted for flaming (this and subsequent post).
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[LightSpectra]

I love your fantasy interpretation of what I say. It's such a typically brainless way of thinking.

Interesting how you think since you're excessively verbose, that anything you actually say reflected upon you is you being victimized by faulty interpretations.

Many of those japanese were pro-imperial japan, and should be grateful they weren't strung up on posts rather than being sequestered in camps with food, water, SCHOOLS, baseball, and of course no sign of genocide and extermination that any other countries in that era would have implemented if they had a sizable populace that is of enemy nation's origin. Words are cheap. Actions show the truth.

Most importantly, you need to make a case for severe double standards and how many japanese brought it upon themselves by not-so-secretly spouting anti-american rhetoric while living in america, working in its jobs, and generally being parasitic and traitorous elements that in any other nations would have faced not some meaningless harrassments, but outright state sanctioned pogroms and murder complete with rape and degredation that would be rewarded with medals and rewards for 'exterminating traitors'. When they decided to come to america, being japanese had to be in the past - they are americans now and should have known they are subservient to its laws, customs, and legacy. Instead, they created little isolated communities and guarded neighborhoods that is an active expression of anti-social and anti-american sentiment. They can deny it all they want, but the fact is they are piggy backing on civil rights movement to expand their 'rights' at everyone else's expense, while ignoring their own racism, bias, and ignorance and generally whitewashing or denying their faults.

Source

tl;dr if you migrate to America and don't become white, you "should be grateful [you] weren't strung up on posts rather than being sequestered in camps" or put into "state sanctioned pogroms and murder complete with rape and degredation" as a punishment for the "many Japanese" (no citation given on a single Japanese-American being charged for treason) that were, uh, non-white.

 

[overkill9]

Interesting how you think since you're excessively verbose, that anything you actually say reflected upon you is you being victimized by faulty interpretations.



tl;dr if you migrate to America and don't become white, you "should be grateful [you] weren't strung up on posts rather than being sequestered in camps" as a punishment for the "many Japanese" (no citation given on a single Japanese-American being charged for treason) that were, uh, non-white.

Ah, so being an American means you become white? Who's the racist now Light?

My argument is based on their actions - you would know anything about it if you ever lived there and understood anything about these things. Don't try to argue documental evidence in things that are primarily socio-cultural in its nature to the extreme. If you want to argue that point further, ask Plotinus to open it back up since he closed it down.

Back to the questions. Anyone continuing the thread?

 

[privatehudson]

I sometimes wonder if Rand would be anywhere near as well known today without games like Bioshock prompting interest in her philosophy. I'd certainly never heard of her before playing the game, but I'm not terribly interested in philosophy to be honest, so perhaps she's well known to people who study the subject?

 

[overkill9]

I sometimes wonder if Rand would be anywhere near as well known today without games like Bioshock prompting interest in her philosophy. I'd certainly never heard of her before playing the game, but I'm not terribly interested in philosophy to be honest, so perhaps she's well known to people who study the subject?

Or people who bothered to read her door smasher book with 80 pages of non-stop fully righteous rambling by a protagonist that doesn't even bother to show his face until the third and final chapter of the book.

That and people get either really pissed at being shown the hypocrisy of their good will by some sharp jabs at their soft underbellies, or fall down and worship the dust and particles on the book as word of holiest god that deserves to run a country.

Either way, controversial author that requires people to read a lot, so not many people wanting to do that.

 

[History_Buff]

Ayn Rand's idea was in direct contrast to communism, both somewhat far fetched, so comparing them is a part of philosophical history.

Well, Communism is a fairly legitimate political and philosophical doctrine. Turned out to be fairly flawed in its predictions, and a really difficult way to organize society.

Rand's writings were fantasies attempted to dress FYGM as a real philosophy.

 

[Dachs]

Or people who bothered to read her door smasher book with 80 pages of non-stop fully righteous rambling by a protagonist that doesn't even bother to show his face until the third and final chapter of the book.

Surely by "fully righteous" you mean "self-righteous", right?

 

[overkill9]

Well, Communism is a fairly legitimate political and philosophical doctrine. Turned out to be fairly flawed in its predictions, and a really difficult way to organize society.

Rand's writings were fantasies attempted to dress FYGM as a real philosophy.

As enticing as communism can sound to many people, I believe that in essence it is just as far fetched and even more of an Alice-in-the-goddamn-wonderland philosophy. It does a wonderful job of pointing out every shortcomings of its oppositions, but if you ever read Karl Marx, he does not even devote a single chapter, no a single paragraph into explaining how such a worker's utopia should be run or governed in detail. It is as if he is saying "Happily ever after" when certain problems were killed, washed out, convinced out, or debunked.

It is step one to conquer/fight/liberate and take hold of a nation. Step two to virtually infinity is about maintaining them, governing them, and keeping it in tact. It goes to show you that, much like anyone who believes that after a 'certain problem/threshold/etc' has been destroyed thing will be better, it is not about established institutions or rules but basic human nature and intent behind them that is the root cause. By attempting to say political and socio economic change could rid people of greed, envy, and lead to happy equal paradise of proletariat utopia, Marx proved himself to be a short-sighted intellectual with his head in the clouds and refusal to take rein and dominate the human nature rather than essentially running away from it.

 

[overkill9]

Surely by "fully righteous" you mean "self-righteous", right?

Yes, I think the sarcasm got lost in just the text Thanks for clarifying it for everyone.