MisterSwig

I sensed the BS from the opening line: "In the end, it wasn’t CNN, the New York Times or The Washington Post that exposed Ye’s explicit antisemitism." Huh? Back in October WaPo published a piece calling Kanye antisemitic for his "death con" tweet. And this new article even links to that old article. Clearly the MSM had much involvement in the exposure of Kanye's alleged antisemitism. It appears that now they don't want the credit. Which is the real story. Why doesn't WaPo want credit for helping to expose Kanye? At the end of the article the author states a so-called "irony" in amplifying a problem by acknowledging it. Another confused, BS line. You amplify *awareness* of the problem, which is a good thing. Not ironic, unless your goal was to conceal the problem by exposing it.

Sure, but I don't try to swat digital flies. That's what the block button is for, when necessary. And I've only had to block a few people. I do, however, engage serious opposition if there's any to be found. BTW - That article was garbage, as I'm sure you detected. I tend to avoid MSM reports on such things. I watch alt-media or alt-commentary, and if there's anything interesting, I dig up the original sources. In this case, I watched Kanye's interviews themselves, instead of relying on reports. I frankly don't trust any news source these days, if I can help it

I don't know why you censor yourself, and I wasn't insinuating. I accept that you don't want to spend your time swatting flies. But did you expect to have to swat flies for spelling out that word on this thread? Here you are swatting because you *didn't* spell it out. It works both ways. For the same reason I say "pseudowoman" instead of "transwoman," I say "nigger" instead of "n-word." I don't want to spend time swatting that voice in my head asking why I'm censoring myself among friends.

The only way to change this is for good people to stop censoring themselves. Just say "nigger" if you want to refer to the word. Instead you say "n-word" which makes us all think the word anyway. As for Kanye, I never liked him. I still don't like him. He's some kind of Christian nationalist, playing at being Christ-like by declaring his "love" for everyone, including Nazis. Except he seems to have more distasteful things to say about Jews than Hitler. I think he feels like a gimp, that's why he wears the mask. I don't think he's a genius. If he were, he wouldn't have signed the contracts about which he's currently bitching. He's a simple hedonist, and hedonism is what sells in today's culture, whether you're lusting after whores or Jesus.

Apparently the running boards on old cars were important because back then cars were built with high clearance to negotiate dirt roads, and the running boards made it safer to enter and exit the vehicle. The boards also kept road dirt and debris from hitting the doors. As more roads were paved, high clearance became less important, and so running boards could be left off regular cars. They are still used however on trucks and some SUVs

It was a real pleasure to interview our very own Michael Stuart Kelly on the latest episode of Ayn Rand Fan Club. We discussed his history in the Objectivist movement, running this forum, his friendship with Barbara Branden, the anti-Trumpers with TDS, his theory on cognition, identification and evaluation, plus much more. Check it out! PS - I beat you to linking the interview!

Can't say I've noticed this. But if true it might be related to how traditions are passed down through parent to child. If you don't have children (or care about children in your family like nephews or nieces) then you probably don't care much about passing along traditional ideas and practices. So you don't pass along your ideology in any meaningful, consistent manner. Unfortunately there are leftists who make children and who become teachers, and so they do spread their ideology in a semi-consistent manner, infecting the culture with collectivist ideas and practices.

I watched some of the trial but simply lost interest. Depp needs to stop doing drugs. His brain is fried enough as it is; he can barely talk. Or was that supposed to be a symptom of his crippling shyness? Heard is difficult to believe, reminds me of deceptive, lying women I've known. And for such a pretty girl, what's with the weird makeup that looks like two big bruises on her cheeks? Was that supposed to remind the jury of a battered woman? I watch The Behavioral Arts YT channel and he does a decent job indicating the subtler signs of deception in Heard's testimony. I'm glad the jury wasn't fooled, and hopefully her career as an abuse survivor is over. I'm sure she gave worse than she got.

We got to talk with Robert Tracinski about his journey from being a young Kantian to developing into an independent Objectivist intellectual. We also ask him about his involvement in the movement and his latest article about schisms. Check it out!

I can certainly agree with you here. The term "free trade" is being abused to include trade with dictatorships that don't respect free trade, and so it's inherently a corrupt practice. But some Objectivists try to spin it as good for us because we get cheap products from countries like China.

Don't you think the free books to teachers, the essay contests, and campus clubs are important programs that help spread Objectivism? Part of developing a community is getting people interested in discussing the principles defining the community. As an intellectual movement, it's the ideas that form the backbone of any Objectivist community. This doesn't require that we all move to Austin and raise babies together. But we do need forums like this one to exchange ideas and support each other in our missionary activities wherever we might live.

We have a new episode where we interview Michael Niren, a longtime Objectivist from Canada. One of his college professors was John Ridpath. We talk a bit about Ridpath, but the focus is on Objectivist rhetoric, how Rand used words like "selfish" and "sacrifice" in unconventional ways. We also talk about strategies for outreach to non-Objectivists. Check it out!

Thank you for your robust response. I was unplugged in the mountains for three days, so I have some catching up to do. I'll begin with a quick note. There are different ways to consider something important. The article might or might not change anyone's behavior. But it's still important to study the arguments of your opposition when they are addressing an issue of primary concern to you. As I said in the podcast, I think there is value in attempting to form some general view of these schisms, but I don't agree with how they went about doing that. It's not only money but also power that can destroy a movement. If all the ARI intellectuals including Peikoff pulled out and started condemning ARI, the institute wouldn't last very long after that. As an intellectual movement, the intellectuals have great power over the institutions, seemingly more power than the millionaires, considering how Peikoff had McCaskey removed, and Yaron had Barney removed. I think we've demonstrated that we have a wide range of interests. I'm fairly confident that human nature rules both minor and major schisms. But at the top level of any intellectual movement, human nature will involve major donors and popular intellectuals. I'll respond to more points in the next few days.

We took our time analyzing ARI's new article on schisms. Check it out!

We talked with Alexandra York who has written many fiction and nonfiction books. Our focus was on her latest book Soul Celebrations and Spiritual Snacks, which presents her idea of secular spirituality and ways to practice it and reach heightened states of being. We then discussed her articles at Newsmax, working with conservatives and engaging in the battle of ideas, especially against the woke left. Check it out!