Old racism, meet the new racism.

OK, seriously, go find some videos of puppies or something on youtube, whatever calms you the hell down, you’re going to need it after this. If you ever wanted to know why I’m a leftist commie liberal pinko, this would be why, right here. Yes, I know it’s long, but don’t forget to check out the comments as well, and I make some after the link.


First of all, what the fuck is up with turning everything “to glass”? Second, OK, let’s assume for the moment that we were justified in using nuclear weapons. Why the hell are we using them, just because some countries didn’t confess to their supposed roles in the attack? That’s like saying, “buddy, I know you heard a rumor that somebody might try to break my legs, admit it or I’ll kill your entire family”. That’s fucking insane.

On to the comments, what the hell is up with the Aussie dipshit who had to go check and see if this was really true? I think my favorite comment of all though was the one about how the essay describes a vision of peace. What the fuck ever.

Yes, I know there’s so so so much more to say about this, but I’m just completely numbed, every time I read it. There are apparently people out there who think this is exactly what we should have done, and I just have difficulty comprehending that. I think I’ll go pray to every god I can think of that somebody like that never ever gets any kind of power.

Yes, don’t worry, I’m done with the super depressing racist bullshit. It’s just that the other piece reminded me of this one, and I felt like posting it and commenting on it. I often say that people need to know the crazies in this country, and this is precisely why. I’m sorry, this should just be wrong, period, full stop, end of fucking story. And I’m generally a relativist. But you tell people about this, or crazy Christians like Fred Phelps, and it’s “I know, I know, yeah, they’re there”. But none of those people really know what any of these people actually say. I think they need to. So I share things like this every once in a while.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Old racism, meet the new racism.

  1. Henry Emrich says:

    A few things: 1. Given the "is-ought" gap we discussed recently, it is, by definition, to point to (as you put it) any "fact, or set of facts" in order to demonstrate that this guy’s "turn everything to glass" genocide-fantasy is *really* somehow "bad". The most that a dedicated adherent of Hume’s "Is-ought" thing can plausibly say is that his or her "sentiments" are either favorable or unfavorable to such a scenario. So — barring any way to actually "bridge" that supposed "gap", I’ve simply got to ask: what the hell could *possibly* cause you to believe that anybody else "should" be interested in the fact that you *happen* to disapprove of this guy’s revenge-fantasy? (Of course, the point is broader than this one post: *everything* you blog about presupposes that your various "sentiments" in regard to the stuff about which you blog do *in fact* have some sort of relation to the "fact, or set of facts" which we call the "world". So riddle me this: why *should* anybody be interested in your "sentimental" reaction to his genocide-fantasy? According to Hume, there’s no way to substantively link "is" and "Ought", so both his genocide fantasy and your screed against it are *equally arbitrary and groundless*.

  2. khomus says:

    <blockquote> <br/>1. Given the "is-ought" gap we discussed recently, it is, by definition, to point to (as you put it) any "fact, or set of facts" in order to demonstrate <br/>that this guy’s "turn everything to glass" genocide-fantasy is *really* somehow "bad". <br/></blockquote> <br/> <br/>I’m going to assume here that you meant it is impossible to point to any fact, Etc. To sum up for any other readers, we were discussing Hume’s is-ought gap, which I will now summarize, as I understand it, so people can get my actual understanding of Hume’s position. <br/> <br/>Hume says that reason alone cannot give us morality, i.e. you can’t get an ought from an is. So in this case, the "is" would be something like, "if I shoot nuclear missiles at another country, millions of people will die". That is, it is a fact about the universe. It is so that B follows A. What Hume argues, at least as I understand it, is that there is nothing about this fact that tells us whether or not that is something we should actually do. Yes, we know millions will die, but we have no impetus to choose, one way or the other, based on this fact. <br/> <br/>Now Hume says, to use an analogy, pile up facts, as many as you like, you’re still no closer to discovering which moral choice you ought to make via reason. Just as we can pile up beads, facts, and we can have a string, reason, no matter how many beads we have, or how much string, we will never get a necklace. But to extend the analogy, clearly we can make a necklace, and clearly we can have moral judgments. How do we do that? Hume says, sentiments. <br/> <br/>Sentiments allow us to make moral judgments and choices. In short, sentiments tell us whether or not we should shoot nuclear missiles at another country. But those sentiments are from us, they are human, there is nothing "out there", in the universe, to guide us to a moral choice, one way or the other. Just as I can use my beads and string to make a necklace or a bracelet, I can use reason and facts to achieve my goals, I want people to live, I want people to die. If I want them to live, I don’t fire the nuclear missiles. <br/> <br/>But I can ONLY use reason and facts, once I have actually MADE the choice that they should live. But reason and facts can’t lead me to choose, one way or the other, there is nothing in them or their combination to give me guidance that people living is any better, or worse, than people dying. hence Hume’s saying, it’s equally preferable to reason whether the world is destroyed, or I scratch my finger. Reason and facts tell us, this act will scratch your finger, this act will destroy the world, both are the end result of particular physical processes, and there is no way, via reason and those facts, to determine which physical process and its end results are preferable. <br/> <br/>So to make this personal for a moment, something I don’t think is at all necessary to discuss ideas, yes, the facts that I have a blog, and the contents of its posts, in no way gives you any guidance as to whether you should be interested in reading it. Perhaps you feel my discussion is unreasonable, or that my choice of topics and opinions is distasteful. Perhaps you give all your love to surrealist visual art, and, finding none on this blog, conclude that it isn’t worth your time to read it. But notice, all of these positions are based on sentiments, your emotions, your feelings about this blog and your relationship to it. <br/> <br/>There is no way, given nothing but the facts, i.e. the blog exists, it has posts, and the posts have their particular content, and reason, for any person to determine whether or not they should read said blog. that is Hume’s point, as soon as you go "well I really wanted surrealist art and there’s none here, it doesn’t have what I want, therefore, I shouldn’t read it", you’ve invoked sentiment. He is NOT saying that you can’t use reason to accomplish your goal, i.e. your goal is to find surrealist art, there is none here, you stop reading and go find another blog with surrealist art. His point is, you only get to those steps in the first place because of sentiments. You use facts about the blog and your goal, and reason, to achieve that goal, but reason and the facts can’t give you that goal to begin with. <br/> <br/>In other words, as Rand would say, (since this discussion started with Rand), you cannot use "the facts of reality" to tell you what you ought to do. Oh here, just in case I’m accused of misrepresenting Rand’s position: <br/> <br/>http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/is-ought_dichotomy.html <br/> <br/>Oddly, in case anybody wants further explication, they talked about Hume on <a href="http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com">Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature</a> today, post linked below. If anybody feels my understanding of Hume’s position is flawed, I welcome corrections. Please note, I am NOT interested in debating the correctness of Hume’s position on this blog. I posted it, as I said above, to explain my understanding, since it was brought up, not to further any debate. <br/> <br/>http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2012/01/ayn-rand-human-nature-18.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s