• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Jonathan

  1. 23 hours ago, caroljane said:

    OK, I'm in... just no groping, please!  You would not believe what liberties some old men think they can take just because a lady is 113 and still breathing. Perverts! 

    Seriously, Republicans have not exactly had a week at Disney World themselves and this must be a godsend and a "thank god" moment too, that when they wanted him to become a Republican, he declined!  Enjoy, everyone.

    Yeah, I had figured that you would have no problem whatsoever with a lefty in blackface or KKK robes, and would instead try to shift to but-what-about-my-intentional-misrepresentation-narrative-about-Trump-and-Republicans.

    And I love seeing the subtlety of your mind in action: When I criticize Democrat hypocrisy, your response is to assume that your attacking Republicans is a powerful counter-argument, and that it'll really sting me badly.

    Yeah, got me there, Carol. Really hurt me. I'm devastated.


  2. The left is pretty quiet about it. Why is that? There's a little bit of noise, but much more silence. Racism is still bad, right? And things done in the past are still unforgivable, no? Mere accusations without evidence or corroboration are enough to condemn, and to end a person's career, instantly, but even with photographic proof, if it's a lefty, we need to ponder it much longer, and consider how we might forgive?


  3. 2 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

    Aww, so now he's flounced! 

    If you've ever wondered what it would have looked like had Peikoff engaged in public debates, here you have it. 

    Why so invested in demonizing Kant?  How about picking on Rousseau for a change?

    You're just saying the above because you crave Newbsie's lovin'. You want to cuddle him because he's a real-life ideal man, and when it doesn’t work out that way you attack even more.


  4. On 1/29/2019 at 11:48 AM, Newberry said:

    Lots of snickering and sneering going on here, and perhaps rightfully so, but how can we know if no one has applied either Rand's or Newbsie's theories and methods of making "objective" judgments and of "detecting metaphysical value judgments"? What do the works contain? What do they mean, based on the evidence contained in the works? Do they contain enough visual information to possibly communicate meaning? Look more closely. Observe for more than a fraction of a second. Set aside your feelings of disliking the medium used. If you think that there is a meaning conveyed but that you dislike it, set that aside as Rand required. Don't invent your own new rules. Now, what are the results when consistently apply the rules that have been preached by Rand and Newbsie?


  5. 3 hours ago, Newberry said:

    That’s it, isn’t it? Funny, I think you want to be loved and respected by me. And when it doesn’t work out that way you attack even more. It is kind of creepy. In real life I don’t associate with anyone like you. 

    No, you missed the point via using your special artist feelings again.

    The point was that you preach a Randroid theory which focuses on establishing a means of condemning other artists, but yet you arbitrarily exempt yourself and your own work when it clearly and specifically requires condemnation according to the rules that you've preached, and then, when someone is critical of this inconsistency, you don't have an answer, but instead resort immediately to personally attacking and attempting to belittle the critic. You're doing it again in the above. You're assigning me psychological needs, asserting that you're above me, calling me names and smearing me, all in order to avoid dealing with how poorly you've thought through the garbage that you preach.


  6. 4 hours ago, Max said:

    ...unless it’s a skull that is quite dead. What does that say about their psychoepistomology?!


    You must have missed Newbsie's recent new arbitrary addendum which magically exempts him and his skull painting from the condemnations that he delights in delivering upon others' souls. There's a secret time limit that he hadn't mentioned, a sort of backdoor or Easter egg that applies only to him and his work, and to a few others whom he has subjectively, arbitrarily decided, using nothing but his willfully ahistorical special artist feelings, to spare from his official rules of art and moral judgment. Newbsie spent not enough time on the skull painting to qualify as having a rotten soul!

    How much time? What's the objectively valid cutoff, and why? The answer is, "Fuck you, I can see by the way that you communicate that you're a lesser entity than I am, perhaps a postmodernist who loves Kant."


  7. 13 minutes ago, Newberry said:

    At least with discussions with me you seem to think romanticism is bad and postmodernism is good. 


    Are those your special artist feelings at work again?


  8. 2 hours ago, Newberry said:

    OMG, did Kant make those? Was it Kant? Did Kant do it? Is that what your special artist feelings tell you? That Kant did it? Fuckin' Kant!

    Anyway, the point of the linked post seems to be that so much art has been created that it is all but impossible for an artist to create a work of art that doesn't pretty closely resemble one that has already been created by someone else. Sort of a South Park "Simpsons already did it" thing. And the Objectivish art world is evidence of that idea. It's quite common in O-land online galleries to see many different artists creating the same figures physically exploding and leaping and bounding about in back-bending contortions so as to overtly signal their Ideal Sense of Life®, that the art is officially Objectively™ pure, and that the artist is compliant with and O-bedient© to the tenets of Romantic Realism®.


  9. 10 minutes ago, Newberry said:

    I think you, particularly, are wise to discount everything I write. 



    Be safe out there, Newbsie! Remain ever diligent in watching out for the evil Kantian postmodernists. They're out to get you with their Sublimity.

    And I wish you the best of luck in fighting Kant via your invention of the "Neo-Sublime" -- making the word "sublime" mean what it should mean, without the icky stuff!



  10. 10 hours ago, caroljane said:

    You have  forgotten any common sense you ever had about humour, for one thing, clean, blue, black or white or red all over humour or any discussion of same, in your zealous pursuit of Potemkin proofs of imaginary thoughtcrimes.



    Still not recognizing the method of condemnation that I'm borrowing?

    Carol, dear, think! Reread what you just wrote above. Apply it to self.


  11. 13 hours ago, Newberry said:

    I only shared what I believe. 

    Yes, I know that you share what you believe. Actually, you preach what you believe. And you believe it regardless of whether or not it's true, and you have no interest in allowing any amount of reality to change your mind. Believing falsehoods, especially about Kant, is of utmost importance to you. It's your religion.


  12. Here's the post where you made your racist comment:


    "And I thought, though perhaps I amalone in this , that the subtext of her Jarrett joke was quite racist, even if aimed at a white person, implying that whoever it was would look as described - i.e. were black or black sympathizers."

    You equated black people with apes. You clearly, explicitly wrote that when a white person calls another white personal an ape, he is actually calling him a black person. That is your view of black people. You wrote it. My referring to it is not a lie. It's not a CNN fake news tactic. You wrote what you wrote.


  13. 2 hours ago, Newberry said:

    I didn't like your multiple choice options. Quote from above: " I tend to think about the relationship between the amount of time involved in creating work and if the subject matter is worth that time.

    Ah, I see. You're making stuff up as you go along.

    When you've declared, in your essays, what you can "detect" about other artists' souls, their senses of life, metaphysical value-judgments, psychology, etc., you've never mentioned before any relevance of the amount of time involved in creating the work in question. It's a new, special criterion that you've just invented to exempt yourself from your own rules.


  14. 2 hours ago, Newberry said:

    “...admit your errors!” Lol you write like you have a hammer.

    And you whine like a zealot who can't handle criticism.


    2 hours ago, Newberry said:

    Thanks for your compliment that Hicks hangs on my ever word, I am sure that would be news to him.

    I didn't say that he hangs on your every word. I nothing of the sort. Are you not capable of the truth? What I said was that Hicks stupidly trusted your opinions on Kant. In doing so, he revealed how little he knows on the subject of Kant's aesthetics, the history of the philosophy of aesthetics, and of art history.


    2 hours ago, Newberry said:

    Now he is a scholar, philosopher, and philosophical historian.

    Not in the realm of art and aesthetics. In that realm, he's a neophyte, and a blundering Rand zealot.


    2 hours ago, Newberry said:

    He is also active in recorded debates...

    He didn't do too well in discussing or debating with me at his blog. He couldn't handle the substance. He quickly resorted to ad hominem.


    2 hours ago, Newberry said:

    It’s kinda of cool he is gaining traction in social media as well.

    Be careful what you wish for. Social traction means attention, and attention eventually attracts informed criticism. That's something that you and Hicks need to avoid.


  15. 2 hours ago, Newberry said:

    One of the reasons I have gotten talks and articles, such as about Kant, accepted was because I approached them from my artist perspective...

    Your talks and articles are not about Kant. They're about a fictional villain that you created and named "Kant" in order to try to vindicate your hero Rand. And, no, you don't approach the subject from an artist's perspective. There's nothing about being an artist which leads to needing to willfully misinterpret philosophy and history, to deny factual reality, and to lie. You approach the subject from the perspective of an acolyte and zealot, not an artist.


    2 hours ago, Newberry said:

    ...rather than as a philosopher, scholar, or historian, which I am obviously not.

    Yes, obviously. Very obviously.


    2 hours ago, Newberry said:

    Undoubtedly a falsehood but I get the sense you’re a disgruntled Rand fanboy. 

    Well, that's another example of your "sense" not being reliable, just as it isn't when you "sense" Kant to be saying the exact opposite of what he was saying. You're rather dense and easily misled by your zealot "sense."


  16. 6 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

    Go ahead and keep thinking that.  If you were to make a project of piecing together the biographical info I’ve posted here over the years you could almost certainly identify me in real life.  It might take a PI to do the work.  Profession, rough age and coordinates, first name.  You’ll notice that a few posters (evidently) know me personally.  No one who’s active now, however (I think in each case the reason they stopped posting here was TDS).  I don’t use this site (or Rand-land generally) to promote myself.  There’s no upside for me, as I imagine there is for you (ever sold a painting to someone who discovered you online?).  Downsides?  There are too many to name.  Here’s a recent story that comes to mind:

    Would I put that kind of thing past certain deranged people I’ve encountered online, even on this site?  


    It's just a typical Newbsie tactic. If you point out his falsehoods, and he doesn't have the integrity to admit to them, he squirms, dodges and evades, and one of his common methods is to go after someone for posting anonymously or semi-anonymously. He pretends that it's relevant, as if you can't be trusted, and the quotes from Kant that you cite are automatically invalidated, and therefore he wins! You can even copy and paste from Newbsie's own quotations of Kant, and he'll act as if your anonymity has somehow magically tainted them.

    It's totally childish.


  17. 19 hours ago, Newberry said:

    I don't disagree with you about the above. Like Rand going ballistic about Rembrandt's side a beef, but she was truly disgusted by it. I tend to think about the relationship between the amount of time involved in creating work and if the subject matter is worth that time. I doubt I would spend more than a few hours on symbols of death. I did spend about 3 weeks on a portrait of a tattooed guy. But just the painting of the skull it seems kind of creepy to me. Though I have done a lot of anatomy studies for paintings, especially if a run into a problem; always good to build from the bones out. 


    Huh? You say you don't disagree with me? Do you mean that I've accurately identified your soul, your sense of life, and your metaphysical value judgments? You're a death-worshipper?

    Or do you mean that you don't disagree with my point that it is nonsense to assign those views/beliefs to an artist just because he painted a skull and Rand irrationally believed that she could come to such conclusions based on her angry, subjective interpretation of his work?


  18. 19 hours ago, Newberry said:

    Regardless it is good question: what are aesthetic concepts that support postmodern art?

    It is indeed a good question, but one that you're not bright enough or intellectually honest enough to research and answer. You're not a serious student of art history or philosophy of aesthetics. You're a Randroid. Which means that you don't practice rationality or objectivity, but you obey and repeat Rand's errors. When challenged and presented with facts and overwhelming evidence of your falsehoods, your method is to switch to the mindset of a middle-schooler, not admit to your errors, and announce that you're just giving your own personal views as an artist. And then you go right back to posing as a scholar and advocating your falsehoods that we just destroyed.

    "What are aesthetic concepts that support postmodern art?"

    The answer is not the Kantian Sublime. Kant's Sublime is the concept that supports Rand's art. It is opposite of what you stupidly believe.

    Here's an idea: Go try to sell your stupidity to people who don't know anything about the subject. Your pal Stephen Hicks went for it, completely uncritically, hook, line and sinker. There are more out there just like him. Maybe try the kids over at ObjectivismOnline. Most of them are ripe for the picking, You'll dazzle them! They'll guzzle your Kool Aid. They'll give you what you crave: Adoration! You'll be there guru, and they'll be your inner circle, just like the one that Rand had!


  19. 19 hours ago, Newberry said:

    We'll see how it all pans out.

    We've already seen. It didn't pan out for you. Heh. Something isn't going to come along and magically rescue your falsehoods from being falsehoods. Your intellectual slop isn't going to magically become scholarly brilliance, no matter how much you wish.