Are Objectivists Oppressed?


Recommended Posts

One thing that many on the left like to do is discuss the topic of cultural oppression, typically that directed against females, transgender persons, non-heterosexuals, and non-caucasians.

"Cultural oppression" can be defined as follows; category of people X can be called "culturally oppressed" if the most popularly-adhered-to cultural beliefs either condemn X. In short, if the most popular cultural phenomena detract from the positive liberty to be X, then X's are culturally oppressed.

I have my share of methodological and philosophical disagreements with a lot (although not all) discussions of cultural oppression. However, I never pass up the chance to use an opponent's own logic against the opponent where I can. So, by the previously-stated logic, are Objectivists victims of cultural oppression?

I believe that, in fact, Objectivists are victims of oppression (as defined previously). By the standards of our opponents, we are indeed oppressed.

So let's play a little game of Oppression Olympics (a term used amongst the saner persons that discuss the topic of cultural oppression; it means "to compete over what groups are more oppressed"). Let's beat our enemies at their own game. How are Objectivists oppressed?

Reminder: By "oppressed" I mean "popular culture defames, stigmatizes and distorts what Objectivism means and what Objectivists are like, and tries to push the idea that Objectivists = bad/stupid/wrong/less than human"

"As an Objectivist, I am oppressed because..."

1) My philosophical beliefs are routinely mocked in the majority of academic departments.

2) My philosophical beliefs are frequently blamed for causing the Global Financial Crisis.

3) My philosophical beliefs are frequently misrepresented in academic articles and popular media and political speeches.

4) My philosophical beliefs are treated as a post hoc rationalization for either Narcissistc Personality Disorder or Psychopathy.

5) Literature that I find inspirational spiritual fuel because it illustrates and reinforces my values is condemned as artless trash, typically by critics with a grudge against my philosophical beliefs.

6) Western Civilization's Enlightenment underpinnings, which I support, have consistently been corrupted and undermined by the pre-Enlightenment barbarism of Christianity and the post-Enlightenment dementia of German Idealism and its intellectual derivatives.

7) Most "Western" art comes from either post-Enlightenment or pre-Enlightenment perspectives, thus meaning I have less access to spiritual fuel than people of non-Enlightenment perspectives.

8) The dominant style of heroic fiction glamorizes the Embodiment Of Conventional Morality who typically wins through an act of glorious Altruism, and condemns the rebel-hero and individualist to "heartwarming" lessons about the "power of getting along with the normals."

9) Due to the Leftist-Rightist false dichotomy, I am assumed to be an ally of Conservatives.

 

Feel free to add to the list!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I am a victim."

--Brant

Brant,

I already disclosed that I've got my disagreements with this approach. And yes, "victim mentality" (and a belief one cannot have any effect on one's surrounding cultural environment, combined with feelings of helplessness as well as a tendency to treat being victimized as a mark of status (hence the habit of playing "oppression olympics" to prove one is the biggest victim of all)) is something I have a problem with.

That does not mean one cannot discuss the fact that there are social/cultural factors which inhibit the positive liberty of someone to be an Objectivist.

Nor does it prevent the use of our opponent's logic against our opponents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I am a victim."

--Brant

Brant,

I already disclosed that I've got my disagreements with this approach. And yes, "victim mentality" (and a belief one cannot have any effect on one's surrounding cultural environment, combined with feelings of helplessness as well as a tendency to treat being victimized as a mark of status (hence the habit of playing "oppression olympics" to prove one is the biggest victim of all)) is something I have a problem with.

That does not mean one cannot discuss the fact that there are social/cultural factors which inhibit the positive liberty of someone to be an Objectivist.

Nor does it prevent the use of our opponent's logic against our opponents.

I think this is much too sophisticated for prime time. What is needed is simplicity, clarity and courage.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that many on the left like to do is discuss the topic of cultural oppression, typically that directed against females, transgender persons, non-heterosexuals, and non-caucasians.

"Cultural oppression" can be defined as follows; category of people X can be called "culturally oppressed" if the most popularly-adhered-to cultural beliefs either condemn X. In short, if the most popular cultural phenomena detract from the positive liberty to be X, then X's are culturally oppressed.

I have my share of methodological and philosophical disagreements with a lot (although not all) discussions of cultural oppression. However, I never pass up the chance to use an opponent's own logic against the opponent where I can. So, by the previously-stated logic, are Objectivists victims of cultural oppression?

I believe that, in fact, Objectivists are victims of oppression (as defined previously). By the standards of our opponents, we are indeed oppressed.

So let's play a little game of Oppression Olympics (a term used amongst the saner persons that discuss the topic of cultural oppression; it means "to compete over what groups are more oppressed"). Let's beat our enemies at their own game. How are Objectivists oppressed?

Reminder: By "oppressed" I mean "popular culture defames, stigmatizes and distorts what Objectivism means and what Objectivists are like, and tries to push the idea that Objectivists = bad/stupid/wrong/less than human"

"As an Objectivist, I am oppressed because..."

1) My philosophical beliefs are routinely mocked in the majority of academic departments.

2) My philosophical beliefs are frequently blamed for causing the Global Financial Crisis.

3) My philosophical beliefs are frequently misrepresented in academic articles and popular media and political speeches.

4) My philosophical beliefs are treated as a post hoc rationalization for either Narcissistc Personality Disorder or Psychopathy.

5) Literature that I find inspirational spiritual fuel because it illustrates and reinforces my values is condemned as artless trash, typically by critics with a grudge against my philosophical beliefs.

6) Western Civilization's Enlightenment underpinnings, which I support, have consistently been corrupted and undermined by the pre-Enlightenment barbarism of Christianity and the post-Enlightenment dementia of German Idealism and its intellectual derivatives.

7) Most "Western" art comes from either post-Enlightenment or pre-Enlightenment perspectives, thus meaning I have less access to spiritual fuel than people of non-Enlightenment perspectives.

8) The dominant style of heroic fiction glamorizes the Embodiment Of Conventional Morality who typically wins through an act of glorious Altruism, and condemns the rebel-hero and individualist to "heartwarming" lessons about the "power of getting along with the normals."

9) Due to the Leftist-Rightist false dichotomy, I am assumed to be an ally of Conservatives.

 

Feel free to add to the list!

You have elevated disagreement to a crime against humanity.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheists are about twenty percent of any population, though many do not say they are atheists. Within theocracies like Islam they are totally oppressed. In Western society atheists are simply loathed. However the acceptance of Ayn Rand's novels and philosophy is changing things. A Randian politician like Rand Paul or Paul Ryan for example might say they are for Rand except for her atheism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have elevated disagreement to a crime against humanity.

No. I have stated that many elements in our culture lessen the positive liberty of Objectivists.

This is not a crime against humanity. But that doesn't mean it is okay.

And that said, I have never stated that it is mere disagreement which lessens the positive liberty of Objectivists.

Disagreement is perfectly acceptable. But "you're an Objectivist?!? You're a scumbag that eats puppies and wants poor children to starve! I'm going to tell everyone you're an awful person from now on!!!" is far beyond "disagreement" and clearly detracts from the positive liberty of Objectivists.

Civil disagreement, such as "I happen to disagree with Objectivism because I don't agree with X, Y and Z" (with X, Y and Z being actual principles of Objectivism) is not something which detracts from the positive liberty of Objectivists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is much too sophisticated for prime time. What is needed is simplicity, clarity and courage. --Brant

But I'm not concerned about prime time. This isn't about outreach strategies.

And for the record, I agree that this isn't an effective outreach strategy. But the point here is to discuss whether or not, by the nominal standards used by our opposition, we are in fact culturally oppressed. And I propose that we, by their standards, are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who took this as tongue in cheek?

Clever too, for all that.

Am I the only one who took this as tongue in cheek?

Clever too, for all that.

No, you're not the only one. #6 is the tipoff for me - to be oppressed by all of human intellectual history is to be oppressed indeed!

Sdk navigates the fine line between fact and satire with great flair. A pleasure to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is much too sophisticated for prime time. What is needed is simplicity, clarity and courage. --Brant

But I'm not concerned about prime time. This isn't about outreach strategies.

And for the record, I agree that this isn't an effective outreach strategy. But the point here is to discuss whether or not, by the nominal standards used by our opposition, we are in fact culturally oppressed. And I propose that we, by their standards, are.

De Oppresso Liber.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yes, "victim mentality" (and a belief one cannot have any effect on one's surrounding cultural environment, combined with feelings of helplessness as well as a tendency to treat being victimized as a mark of status (hence the habit of playing "oppression olympics" to prove one is the biggest victim of all)) is something I have a problem with.

That does not mean one cannot discuss the fact that there are social/cultural factors which inhibit the positive liberty of someone to be an Objectivist.

Nor does it prevent the use of our opponent's logic against our opponents.

It can be quite an effective move (especially in debates) to use the oppenents' logic or premises against their own position (George H. Smith has provided here on OL many excellent examples of proceeding like that), but the opponent can counter using the same tactic.

A non-Objectivist might therefore counter: "I'm surprised to hear from Objectivists that they're feeling oppressed. I always thought that the last thing Objectivists would want to be associated with is being victims, "sacrificial animals" so to speak." :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yes, "victim mentality" (and a belief one cannot have any effect on one's surrounding cultural environment, combined with feelings of helplessness as well as a tendency to treat being victimized as a mark of status (hence the habit of playing "oppression olympics" to prove one is the biggest victim of all)) is something I have a problem with.

That does not mean one cannot discuss the fact that there are social/cultural factors which inhibit the positive liberty of someone to be an Objectivist.

Nor does it prevent the use of our opponent's logic against our opponents.

It can be quite an effective move (especially in debates) to use the oppenents' logic or premises against their own position (George H. Smith has provided here on OL many excellent examples of proceeding like that), but the opponent can counter using the same tactic.

A non-Objectivist might therefore counter: "I'm surprised to hear from Objectivists that they're feeling oppressed. I always thought that the last thing Objectivists would want to be associated with is being victims, "sacrificial animals" so to speak." :wink:

Objectivists not wanting to be "sacrificial animals" means that Objectivists don't want to be objects of sacrifice, i.e. we don't want to be torn apart for the sake of others.

That isn't the same as living in a culture which (for the most part) stigmatizes one's beliefs as the source of all evil.

"Being oppressed" (as defined by the cultural-oppression-theorists) isn't the same as being an object of sacrifice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only people I see oppressing Objectivists are other Objectivists.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First I read this embarrassing thread on OO.net then came over to this fun thread with this timely observation.

The only people I see oppressing Objectivists are other Objectivists.

Can't... Resist...

**Sung to the tune of the Dr. Pepper jingle**

I criticized Dr. Peikoff and I'm proud

I used to be alone in a crowd

but now you look around these days

there seems to be a Dr. Peikoff Craze!

I'm oppressed, he's oppressed, she's oppressed

We’re oppressed, wouldn't you like to be oppressed too?

I'm oppressed, he's oppressed, she's oppressed,

If you don’t agree with Dr. Peikoff you're irrational too!

Us oppressed are an interesting breed

We say Independence is a virtue we need

ask Checking Premises and they'll say

Only a subjectivist thinks that way!

I'm oppressed, he's oppressed, she's oppressed

We’re oppressed, wouldn't you like to be oppressed too?

I'm oppressed, he's oppressed, she's oppressed,

You live on a lower rung in hell if you disagree too!

Be intrinsic, criticize Dr. Peikoff,

Be subjective, criticize Dr. Peikoff. (Come on!)

Be a mystic, criticize Dr. Peikoff,

Be a Kantian, criticize Dr. Peikoff (Alright!)

*repeat and fade out*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now