Serapis Bey

Kacy -- Something else that occurred to me: Your portrayal of what went down with Rand and her fans focuses solely on the fan and the rebuke he or she recieved from Rand. But you drop the context of Rand's motivations. In the case of Machan, she was put off by Machan's expectation of cooperation without renumeration. Machan might have given some thought to the fact that Rand was not an altruist and didn't simply devote her time and energy free of charge. Then there was the questionner who insulted her by not realizing Rand was involved in the screenplay for The Fountainhead, which he characterized as "horrible". The same goes for the sundry students who asked, what were to Rand, stupid or insulting questions, particularly from someone who claimed to be a student of Objectivism. Now, we could spend the day splitting hairs over whether Rand's assessment of her interlocuters was reasonable or not, but the fact is, she was (from her perspective) practicing the principle of guarding her self-regard -- her personal boundaries -- a principle which your posts seem to advocate for. How do you reconcile this?

Selene asks: "You do have a source for this statement...correct?" Mark may have overstated his case. He didn't specify what area of the country or what time period he was referring to. A quick google search turned this up -- stats for NY in 2011: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=57c_1336487670 The thing to remember with these sorts of stats is the relative percentages of the population demographics. For example, white victims at 8% means vastly different things depending on whether the proportion of whites in the total area is 80% vs. 20%.

Brant says: "The thread is not about crime, which is not funny, but about race-mongering statements on a purported Objectivist site." Race-mongering? OK. "Blacks suffer terribly from black on black crime of all sorts." Are you implying blacks are more prone to crime? Are you race-mongering? "If whites hadn't given blacks the welfare state, starting with the 1960s' Great Society, and draconian drug laws, black crime wouldn't be much worse than white crime today." My understanding is that the aim of the Great Society was to assist ALL people mired in poverty, regardless of race. Why would Great Society programs disproportionately affect blacks? Refreshing my memory at Wiki, it does seem the Great Society had specific policies aimed at blacks: "Four civil rights acts were passed, including three laws in the first two years of Johnson's presidency. The Civil Rights Act of 1964[10] forbade job discrimination and the segregation of public accommodations. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 assured minority registration and voting. It suspended use of literacy or other voter-qualification tests that had sometimes served to keep African-Americans off voting lists and provided for federal court lawsuits to stop discriminatory poll taxes. It also reinforced the Civil Rights Act of 1964[10] by authorizing the appointment of federal voting examiners in areas that did not meet voter-participation requirements. The Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965 abolished the national-origin quotas in immigration law. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 banned housing discrimination and extended constitutional protections to Native Americans on reservations." Forbidding job discrimination. Assuring minority voting registration. Revision of immigration law. Banning housing discrimination. I don't quite see how any of this would account for the vastly disproportionate black crime rate. Portland seems like a pretty nice place to live. I don't recall how well their policies abide by Objectivist principles of limited government, however.

"Not at all. In fact, I havne't once referred to respect from others. Instead, I've been referring to seeking the approval of others". Well, yes. You've been referring to "seeking the approval of others"...in the face of perceived disrespect from those selfsame others. (Is your issue, then, with "seeking approval" -- as such -- , or is it "putting up with bad behavior"? I thought it was the latter ) For instance, upthread Kyle said, "Self-respect can't be taken or given by anyone. It is gained only by one's assessment of one's self and actions." You replied, "Exactly. And would someone who assesses the degree of respect they deserve to be healthy subject themselves to disrespect just to gain someone elses favor?" You usage of "deserve" here suggests you are referring to the actions of OTHERS in relation to YOU, not your own self-respect. To repeat what Kyle said, "Self-respect can't be given or taken by anyone." Regardless of one's own self-concept, the unpredictability of life and people ensures we will always have curveballs thrown at as. To get bent out of shape everytime someone or something doesn't go as we decree it "should", is a recipe for a pinched and constrained existence. That said, I think you are stacking the deck here when you characterize the issue as one of seeking "social pittance", "social alms", "currying favor","approval from others", etc. The example given seems to show Machan originally requested Rand's participation in a project of his. Later, he called her up simply to express his gratitude, out of a sense of magnanimity I suppose. In the case of questionners at Ford Hall forums, the individuals were seeking knowledge. These are all objective values being sought, values which benefit the seeker concretely. None of this should be characterized as some social-metaphysical "oooooh, like me! please please like me!" as you have done here. I understand the overall point is not about Rand or Machan, so lets imagine a neutral situation where the same dynamic occurs. Take a man who has to work to support himself, but is supervised by some asshole middle manager. Let's say the middle manager is a power-tripping Tiny Tyrant who ameliorates his unhappiness by being a prick to his underlings. A common situation. Is it "altruism" as you put it, for the employee to bite his toungue and be a good boy, in order to keep his job, in order to be self-sufficient? That answer depends on who you ask. It's obvious that many many people continue to endure such disrespect for the sake of whatever values they deem worthwhile. On the other hand, I am sure there are individuals who would say, "take this job and shove it" and strike out on their own. That's because people are different and have different value heirarchies (not to mention, different circumstancial contexts). There is no "right" answer here. To attempt to derive a one-size-fits-all principle out of the chaos is not objectivity, it's intrincism.

"Eric posts here too, though pretty rarely and under a weird name that I can't think of right now. Usually critical material with some kind of depressing inflection to it, like you'd expect." The name's Peregrine777, Dennis. Peregrine....very noble bird, IMO. Like the falcon, I too prefer to fancy myself an inhabitant of great heights, perched far above the cacophany of the rabble below, gazing outward with steely eyes, my...er...*its* luxurious hair gently held aloft by the mountain air, for what seems like days at a time. Once in a while, when his appetite demands it, his superlative vision tracks a juicy target below the clouds, and he dive bombs at 200mph to attack swiftly...precisely...DECISIVELY...only to return from whence he came.... I suppose this could be viewed alternatively as the actions of a troll, but... whatevs. You say "tomato"... But apparently my nom de guerre has achieved no purchase here. Very well. the time has come at last to throw away this mask now everyone can see my true identity...

Kacy, I think you are conflating the concepts "respect from others" vs. "self-respect". They're related of course, but it is still useful to keep the distinction in mind.