Start a Ruckus

A friend of mine said that he went to the coffee shop to get some coffee and there was a young man behind the counter dressed as a woman.  My friend couldn't decide if it was a costume or "a transvestite living her life."

This really struck me.  There is the potential for starting a ruckus, particularly if you're in a Liberal-minded area.

Before I go on, I want to highlight a bit of political context for you.  Recently, the "gay community" was divided over a new version of ENDA which would extend equal employment protections to Gays and Lesbians for government jobs.  It notably did not extend that protection to transgendered people.

I'd say the vast majority of the "gay community" supports extending that protection to transgendered people, but the division was about whether or not that should be pursued later in order to get protection for gays and lesbians.  You know, one small step at a time.  Obviously, lots of people want all or nothing, so it caused a lot of fussing and fighting.

So, here's what you do: dress up in black face.

Sarah Silverman had an episode on her show recently where she did just that and encountered much strife.

I thought her show was just a joke, but I think it is possible to derive from her humor a valid argument.

If we all agree that there is nothing offensive or wrong with being transgendered, then someone dressing in drag for Halloween could be construed as being offensive in the same way that it would be offensive to dress up as a black person.

I am not really offended by people dressing in drag or dressing in black face, just because I think I need a little more context around the decision to determine whether or not I should be offended.  But I also know that I don't think the same way as many people out there, so I bet you could cause some friction by pushing the envelope like that.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 02:56 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Category: Importance of Ideas
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

Big Sister is Watching

I was just reading over some parts of Whittaker Chambers' review of Atlas Shrugged and I am amazed that anyone cites this piece of dreck.

Even if we avoid looking at the philosophical errors he makes, we find ourselves confronts with several glaring factual errors such as character descriptions and even character names.

It is glaringly apparent that the man did not read the book prior to writing his review.

I happened across this because I was reading the Wikipedia entry on the video game BioShock, which is allegedly an "Objectivist-dystopia."  There is a citation from the Boston Globe which apparently compares the game to the Chambers review.  If that's the case and the game distorts both the facts and the ideas of Objectivism so freely, it makes me wonder why anyone would even call it Objectivist anything.

The comparison is in the introduction of the game review:

I don't usually warm up for a video game review by reading a book review. But to appreciate the new game BioShock, it helps to read "Big Sister Is Watching You," Whittaker Chambers's coolly contemptuous take on Ayn Rand's 1957 novel, "Atlas Shrugged."

Rand's book has sold millions of copies this past half-century. To several generations of libertarians, it's pretty much sacred scripture. But to Chambers, a recovered communist with an eye for the dictatorial, "Atlas Shrugged" was bunk, and dangerous bunk to boot.

The book envisions a commercial utopia founded on free enterprise at its most absolute -- so absolute that in Chambers's view, this new freedom must ultimately be enforced at gunpoint. "From almost any page of 'Atlas Shrugged,' " said Chambers, "a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: 'To a gas chamber -- go!' "

Fifty years on, an erstwhile "Atlas Shrugged" fan named Ken Levine came to much the same conclusion. Rather than pound out a scathing critical essay, he created a beautiful, brutal, and disquieting computer game instead. It's called BioShock, and it's one of the best in years

So, I read the rest of that review and there I see that the comparison to Chambers' review is apt.  There is a profound misunderstanding of Objectivist ethics in the game.  There is even a grotesque misunderstanding of Objectivist metaphysics.

That's the insight that inspired Levine, creative director of Bio- Shock. In an interview, he told me that Rapture is his version of "Galt's Gulch," the capitalist utopia created by the hero of Rand's novel. As a young man, Levine was much taken by the idea. But in time he came to perceive the bitter, world-hating fanaticism at the core of "Atlas Shrugged." He realized, like Chambers, that such fanaticism, even in the service of total freedom, must come to a bad end. BioShock is his vision of how it would all go wrong; it's also a wonderful example of dystopian fantasy done right.

Aside: This review refers to computer games as a "genre."  I don't understand that.

Nonetheless, I was reading about the game because it sounds like it would be very cool.  Too bad it doesn't come on PS3 so I could play it on my roommate's giant LCD teevee.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 12:53 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Category: Importance of Ideas
Post contains 526 words, total size 3 kb.

Robot Rights

Reader Qwertz has written a lengthy and insightful post on robot rights in response to my comments on the topic last week.

It's a really good post and he concludes that if a robot meets certain conditions, then it would be extended rights as well.  He even went and looked up the Ayn Rand quote that mentions a robot and ethics!

If an entity cannot die, then it can have no ethics. Its existence is no longer conditional, so life is of no value to it. Ayn Rand presented this problem with the concept of an immortal, indestructible robot.

That is the very idea I was trying to echo in my initial remarks.

I had intended to write a post on this myself, explaining the origin of rights as it relates to life, but Qwertz's is so good that I really don't have anything to add!

It's a long post, but definitely worth the read.  Go over and check it out.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 07:38 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Category: Importance of Ideas
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

The Value of Peace

I almost included this in my last post, but I thought it was getting too long.

A lot of people talk about how much they desire "world peace." There's even that Nobel Prize dedicated to "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." The hippies used to talk about "giving peace a chance" and all that stuff.

I don't know what they mean exactly.

"Peace" strikes me as being defined by a negative. It's the lack of a war or crime. If every army in the world were disbanded, but crime was rampant, I doubt that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee would consider itself useless. And I really doubt that Miss America would then also stop wishing for world peace.

An individual living without being in a war or a victim of a crime might live his life in near-infinitely varied conditions and situations. He could be rich or poor; healthy or sick; black, white, Asian, Latino, Inuit, or Canadian; pious or rational; virtuous or vicious -- in the general sense of being sinful. He could be lots of different ways. Simply having peace really doesn't say much about his life, really.

Mother Theresa won the Nobel Peace Prize for simply drawing attention to world hunger. Good for her.

Wishing for peace is like wishing to go on not having a fork stuck in your ear. But if someone does stick a fork in your ear, I do strongly recommend having it removed. If someone comes to do violence to you, don't sit about wishing peace were here; stab that fork in their ear before they hurt you! Disbanding your army would be like sending all your doctors to the moon, which is to say that it's a stupid idea.

Naturally, one does want everyone else to be sensible and not go around invading countries or doing crimes in the neighborhood, but crime and war aren't things that just spontaneously erupt. It's not like a seizure; people actually make conscious decisions to go to war.

Instead of disbanding armies, which nice people would need to fend off mean people who make these horrible decisions, it would be a better plan to tell the mean people how to make proper decisions. But even if you've told them and even if they tell you they agree, they might be lying or more bad guys might show up, so you really kind of always need some sort of defense plan that involves delivering a keg of whoop ass when offered a can.

All the same, this constant hoping for peace makes me think that war is the natural state of man and peace is what you have to work for. That's exactly backwards.

To have peace, you don't really have to do anything at all. If someone comes to rob you, just let them. Peace! If some army comes to take over your country, just hand over the keys. Peace!

But if you want prosperity, happiness, security, wealth, you have to work for it and if someone comes to rob or invade you, you have to fight for it.

I'm doubtful that any honest person really spends any time sitting around hoping for peace. They might see a war and think, "I wish they'd cut that out, so I can get on with my business," but I doubt they're thinking either side should just sit back and let the other come and take what they want. No, it seems more likely that bullies are the ones hoping for that. Bullies and parasites are the ones who want peace so that they don't have to go through such bother to take what they want from others.

So, instead of giving out peace prizes, I think we should give out prizes for killing the most terrorists or something.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 04:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Category: Importance of Ideas
Post contains 664 words, total size 4 kb.

Racism Persists in Academia Thanks to Multiculturalism

A friend of mine works at an institution of higher learning.  We had an IM conversation today about the racism in India's caste system.  I was surprised to hear that there are many Indians here in America who actually support the caste system.

I find this to be patently offensive and I have been fortunate to work with people from India who are very clear and direct for their disdain for the caste system.  It is from them that I have the understanding that although racism -- because I don't have another word for it -- is common, there are also a great number of people in and out of India opposed to this foolishness.

For obvious reasons, I've removed my friend's name and other references from our conversation.  I also re-ordered some of the remarks that came out of order in the flow of instant messaging.

Friend: Our intern from India is a strong proponent of the caste system.
Friend: [My boss] and I had lunch with him.
Friend: It was uncomfortable.

Flibbert: Why does he advocate that?
Flibbert: And how does he feel about [your female boss] being his boss?

Friend: Because some classes of people are genetically inferior.
Friend: And the class system keeps the inferior people from mucking things up.

Flibbert: That assertion is plainly false.

Friend: I also realized today how naive liberals are.

Flibbert: How do you mean?

Friend: Because [my boss] didn't know that such a mentality existed.

Flibbert: ha ha!

Friend: She was astounded.

Flibbert: How does she think that the caste system persists?

Friend: I told [the intern] that he is now studying in a country that was founded on - and has proven in practice for 200 years - the assertion of man's equality.
Friend: And that perhaps his experience here would end up changing his opinion.
Friend: And really I didn't want to talk to him after that.

Flibbert: Yeah
Flibbert: Because it's an insult to talk to him.

Friend: Yeah.

Flibbert: That utterance is beneath contempt.
Flibbert: I would be curious to know which caste he thinks I belong in.

Friend: Well, he is descendant of kings.
Friend: So, yeah.

Flibbert: I'm a descendant of people who conquered his kings.

Friend: heh
Friend: Yeah
Friend: I actually wanted to say that.
Friend: But I refrained. Because I don't know where the line is that I would get fired.

Flibbert: heh heh heh...
Flibbert: I would be tempted to file a complaint against him for saying that to me, though.
Flibbert: He's a racist.

Friend: Yeah
Friend: So, it was really uncomfortable.

Flibbert: I don't know that there is a polite way to respond to that sort of thing properly.
Flibbert: Because that comment is at the height of discourtesy.
Flibbert: Once upon a time, an insult of that magnitude would have been greeted with invitations to a duel.

Friend: Well, I could have invited him to kiss my ass.
Friend: Again, there is a line somewhere in there upon crossing which [my boss] would be compelled to fire me.

Flibbert: Yeah.

A little later...

Friend: Apparently many of our Indian students are racist.

Flibbert: Really?

Friend: Yeah.
Friend: Apparently.

Flibbert: What makes you say that?

Friend: [A lady of a certain name] told me.
Friend: She has talked with many of them.

Flibbert: Who dat is?

Friend: She is the director of [a center for multiculturalism].

Flibbert: And she asks them about the caste system?

Friend: Well, no, but it's something that comes up in conversations about cultural differences.

Flibbert: "We're racists and you're not?"

Friend: She says the best way to deal with it is to accept it as a cultural difference and to not call it racism.
Friend: It's just a "different system."

Flibbert: I bet.
Flibbert: I mean, it started a civil war here.
Flibbert: And who wants to deal with that?
Flibbert: No, it's certainly better to just keep quiet about such things.

Friend: One more reason to run screaming from academia though.
Friend: I am convinced.

That takes place at all is an outrage, but that it is essentially sanctioned by any institution under the guise of multiculturalism should tell you something about the value of multiculturalism in itself.

It's ridiculous that any civilized person would hold to such idiotic ideas.  I don't have anything more to say about it.  I just wanted to share this dialogue with you.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 03:09 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Category: Importance of Ideas
Post contains 716 words, total size 12 kb.

Celebrating Atlas Shrugged in India

India constantly surprises me.  On one hand it's a cesspool of bizarre mysticism with too many monkeys, cobras, and a horrendously polluted river in which people bathe regularly.  On the other hand, some of the smartest, most friendly people I know are from India.

And now I've learned from Ergo that there is an Atlas Shrugged celebration going on in Mumbai.

I haven't heard of any such celebrations planned for NYC yet.  I hope that his party is a huge success.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 09:59 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Category: Importance of Ideas
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

Ayn Rand Smear Challenge

Diana reposted these remarks on Ayn Rand which originally appeared on CNN:

Ayn RandThe egotist's egotist, author Ayn Rand (born Alissa Zinovievna Rosenbaum) is the patron saint of Thinking You're Better Than Everybody Else.

Her most famous novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, are massive dramatizations of Objectivism, her self-spun Oscar-the-Grouch philosophy for success. Objectivism champions ego and accomplishment, shuns all religion as folly, and condemns any form of charity or altruism as counterproductive to society.

Rand's novels often focus on protagonists (invariably men) who are shunned by others because of their genius, but then persevere over the foolishness of morons to prove said genius and emerge triumphant.

Not surprisingly, she saw humility as a weakness and regarded laughing at yourself as "spitting in your own face."

So, just how much did Rand believe in her own philosophy? Let's just say a lot. With signature modesty, she ranked herself as the philosophical equal of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas.

The tone of the article is written in such a way that we can be sure that the writer isn't intended to be taken seriously, but it's also clear that he has no love for Ayn Rand.I can just imagine Mr. Smith sitting gobsmacked at any strong outcry against his remarks, sitting there thinking, "It's a joke!! Can't you take a joke??"

It reminds me of something:

Kill by laughter. Laughter is an instrument of human joy. Learn to use it as a weapon of destruction. Turn it into a sneer. It's simple. Tell them to laugh at virtue. Don't let anything remain sacred in a man's soul and his soul won't be sacred to him. Kill reverence and you've killed the hero in man.

Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead

But since we've been invited by Diana to make the attempt, let's review this attempt at humor carefully and set a few things straight.

Mr wrote:

The egotist's egotist, author Ayn Rand (born Alissa Zinovievna Rosenbaum) is the patron saint of Thinking You're Better Than Everybody Else.

Ayn Rand did come to America from Russia and she did formulate the strongest arguments for ethical egoism that humanity has ever seen. She wasn't primarily concerned with egoism, but with reason. Egoism was just one of the results. She is so revered because she held human potential out in the light of reason and asked us all to join her, basking in the joy of living and the sheer pleasure of accomplishment.

She didn't think she was better than everyone else in every way. Her accomplishments in themselves stand as clear evidence that she was better than everyone else at certain things and it is proper to respect her for that.

No one refers to Stephen Hawking as the "patron saint of Thinking You're Smarter than Everyone Else" but he wrote a short book entitled "A Brief History of Time." It would easy to leap to the conclusion that Hawking thinks he is smarter than everyone else based on the title alone.

But I feel obliged to point out that Ayn Rand was an egoist not an "egotist."  The difference is... well, hilariously important.

Mr wrote:

Her most famous novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, are massive dramatizations of Objectivism, her self-spun Oscar-the-Grouch philosophy for success. Objectivism champions ego and accomplishment, shuns all religion as folly, and condemns any form of charity or altruism as counterproductive to society.

Oscar the Grouch was my favorite character on Sesame Street, but his idea of success was a quiet garbage can on a street with some really choice refuse. Ayn Rand celebrated things like skyscrapers, "cyclotrons," moon landings and the like.

Mr wrote:

Rand's novels often focus on protagonists (invariably men) who are shunned by others because of their genius, but then persevere over the foolishness of morons to prove said genius and emerge triumphant.Not surprisingly, she saw humility as a weakness and regarded laughing at yourself as "spitting in your own face."

Invariably?  What about Dominique Francon? Kira? Dagny? Kay? Jinx?  "Invariably men," eh?  But I think this remark was made not out of malice but out of basic stupidity.  It's like how people use "literally" to refer to figurative statements.

And also, the bad guys in her books really are morons.  They're among the most vile of human beings ever portrayed. 

A lot of people mistake "humility" for "modesty." 

Humility is a lie.  It is when you deny your accomplishment or virtue.  If Bill Gates were to refer to his fortune as "no big deal" he would be making a very silly joke because the lie is obvious.  If he were seriously saying that, he would be both humble and a terrible liar.

Modesty is not a virtue, but sometimes it is courteous.  Modesty merely means showing polite restraint about one's accomplishments.  Being proud of what you've done does not require constant crowing about it.  Modesty means finding the right time and place for the bragging.  If Bill Gates showed up at a dinner party in a solid gold carriage drawn by horses covered in gold leaf, wearing a gold suit, and had footmen (also clad in gold) roll out a gold carpet in front of him everywhere he went... that would be immodest. 

So, again, I'm inclined to think that Mr. Smith isn't being mean.  He's just kind of dim and that's OK.

Mr wrote:

So, just how much did Rand believe in her own philosophy? Let's just say a lot. With signature modesty, she ranked herself as the philosophical equal of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas.

This is sarcasm.  See, he doesn't mean to say that Ayn Rand was really being modest when she said that.  For the sake of discussion, we have two possibilities to consider: either the statement is false or the statement is true.

If the statement is false, then Ayn Rand would be displaying irritating hubris.  If the statement is true, then the question of modesty comes down to the context in which the statement was made. 

Mr. Smith does not tell us whether or not he thinks her statement is true, but since she made the list of famous people, we can say that she has surely accomplished something significant.  Since we don't have anything to consider here (you know my thoughts on Rand's value as a philosopher), if we're to be polite, charitable people we should just concede her point for the time being and assume that it is a true statement.

But we have a problem: Mr. Smith also doesn't tell us anything about the context in which she made the comment.  What if someone had asked her, "How would you rank yourself among other philosophers?"  or what if she were writing an article in which she had to compare her philosophy to that of other philosophers?  What if the question were asked of her in a job interview?  A job interview is no place for modesty; you should be giving a frank account of your successes.

There are numerous contexts in which modesty dives into the realm of humility and is actually wholly inappropriate.

The rest of the article contains similar remarks about other famous people.  Many of them are indisputably great.  It leaves me wondering why they should be blind to their own success. 

Since Mr. Smith isn't famous, I'm left thinking there's a whiff of sour grapes about this.

Oh, but don't let's be of bad humor. Mr. Smith's article is entitled "Full-of-themselves famous people."  I recognize that Mr. Smith was trying to be funny with his article. 

I guess we could get angry with him about it, but it's really not that funny and most of his remarks aren't true, so this can't possibly be a serious criticism.  Again, it's humor. 

We could also laugh along with him, but the problem there is that this isn't very good humor.  If the people he talks about weren't accomplished, but thought they were, then it would be funny, like if Jessica Simpson were snotty about being a great fashion designer or if Paris Hilton were bragging about her business acumen or like John "Do you know who I am" Kerry's attempts to portray himself as a common man.

But Hitchcock was an incredible filmmaker.  Frank Lloyd Wright was an excellent architect.  And Ayn Rand was a fantastic writer and philosopher.

It's not without a sense of some irony that I've spent this long going on about this really unremarkable article.  My reaction in reading the article was just to say to myself, "Ho-hum.  This is boring and stupid."  So, with that, I'm done commenting on this article.  I'm going to go read something really funny.  Like i can has cheesburger!

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 09:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Category: Importance of Ideas
Post contains 1439 words, total size 10 kb.

An Eye on the Brights

Stephen Pinker has written a new book The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature.

Has anyone heard anything about it?

I'm suspicious of it just because of the circles that Pinker travels in; he's one of the Brights. I would be interested to know what someone who is better versed in epistemology has to say about the book.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 04:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Category: Importance of Ideas
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.