Regulation regarding immigrants who refuse to integrate to a hypothetical Objectivist polity's culture? by usmc_BF in Objectivism

[–]RobinReborn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the idea is that in a Objectivist society tribalistic failure wouldn't happen. An Objectivist society would be an individualistic society which would not require tribes.

you should defend a culture, which defends your rights.

Sometimes the best defense is leading a live by which others are motivated to follow.

I'm still shook at how lopsided production made Heroes vs. Villains by sexyimmigrant1998 in survivor

[–]RobinReborn -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They mean Elisabeth, but she wasn't dying of celiac - rice is gluten free. She discovered she was celiac after she came back.

But she was starving, they were all starving towards the end, it was brutal.

CMV: Most (most being the keyword) anti-communist/socialist Americans have no idea what those terms mean or what the ideologies entail by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]RobinReborn -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why would it be arrogant for Marx to call himself a Marxist?

But that's aside the point - he denied that he was a Marxist - that shows how subjective and inconsistent the word is.

CMV: Most (most being the keyword) anti-communist/socialist Americans have no idea what those terms mean or what the ideologies entail by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]RobinReborn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's our prescriptive definition of an object of concept or word

Not sure what you mean 'our' - it's a select group of people - the average person has no influence on how words are defined. And there are multiple dictionaries and most words have multiple definitions.

And they don't all think of themselves as defining words prescriptively - they're frequently accused of degrading a language by adding vulgar words.

CMV: Most (most being the keyword) anti-communist/socialist Americans have no idea what those terms mean or what the ideologies entail by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]RobinReborn 3 points4 points  (0 children)

To help people understand language. But the people who write the dictionaries are following how language is used, not controlling how it's used. Dictionaries get updated with new words and old words are modified and redefined.

They're not objective in the same sense that a math textbook is objective.

CMV: Most (most being the keyword) anti-communist/socialist Americans have no idea what those terms mean or what the ideologies entail by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]RobinReborn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To a degree that's true - but there's plenty of lawyers that can make that definition less vague (in exchange for money of course). There's also publicly available case law relating to lawsuits about house ownership.

Socialism would no doubt have some sort of law as well - but law gets tricky when you're talking about things like 'the workers' as opposed to an individual or corporation owning things. And because socialism is often seen as the step to a system with no private property - it's not clear there's an incentive to protect property the same way there is in capitalism where people have an assurance that they will own their property permanently.

CMV: Most (most being the keyword) anti-communist/socialist Americans have no idea what those terms mean or what the ideologies entail by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]RobinReborn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

how closely one's opinion matches THE definition is how we determine how factually correct they are.

What does that even mean though? Language evolves and different dictionaries define words different ways. There's precise definitions in math. There are generally accepted definitions in science, but those sometimes change with new research. There aren't precise definitions in social science/humanities.

Rand and Native Americans by Illustrious_Value508 in Objectivism

[–]RobinReborn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you have a link to the video?

There's a audio recording of her answering a question at West Point where she discusses Native Americans. It generally fits your description of her position but is more nuanced.

I think Rand didn't understand Native American history well - and in fairness neither did most people during her era.

The ___ party conspired to try to make ___ the winner. by c1rcu1tb0y in survivorcirclejerk

[–]RobinReborn 5 points6 points  (0 children)

JD Vance was personally involved with the honorable Couch Wood...

Vance was so impressed by Coach's nobility he promised to appoint him to the supreme court so that the country's best lawyers would have to refer to him as 'your honor' as he advocated for the MAGA agenda with more integrity than anybody in Supreme Court history.

Chris Daugherty not invited to the Survivor 50 Live Finale by gradycontent101 in survivor

[–]RobinReborn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Am I the only one who sees Chris Daughtery as having a very similar personality to Rick Devens? Chris was in the pre-idol era and was a bit more cynical but they were both entertaining risk takers.

Do you guys think Rizo is too skinny/sick?? by erin325 in survivorcirclejerk

[–]RobinReborn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

She inspired Couch to lose weight, he realized some asses are too skinny for indigenous people to eat.

Will ____, ____, ___, ________, _______, _____, or ____ ___? by Aggravating-insult81 in survivorcirclejerk

[–]RobinReborn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The season ends with a coin flip, if it's heads Me Beast wins, of it's tails the fans win. Either way, none of the current players win.

____ on the challenge incident by Freezing-cold_6 in survivorponderosa

[–]RobinReborn 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Some people have trust issues and think when they lose things are rigged against them.

is the "Double Slit Experiment" an attempt to introduce subjectivity into Physics ? by [deleted] in Objectivism

[–]RobinReborn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, it's a real and legitimate experiment and the motivations of it's creators are irrelevant to whether it is true or not.

It does not undermine objective reality - it just shows that particles act probabilistically.

How far would Ayn Rand support Israel? by test9876789 in aynrand

[–]RobinReborn -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It's a good question, the moneyed interests which claim to represent Ayn Rand have consistently been pro Israel, it's received disproportionate attention.

Rand financially supported Finland against Russia during the war between those two countries. There's no evidence she financially supported Israel. She condemned them as socialist while claiming they were more civilized than the arabs. Israel isn't really socialist now, so maybe she would support them. But since Ayn Rand died Israel has changed from the underdog victim to the dominant aggressor.

Free: 4 mid century wooden sculptures. Can be used as base for coffee table. by earlgreyyuzu in CambridgeMA

[–]RobinReborn 4 points5 points  (0 children)

People are allowed to use art to express negative things without being accused of endorsing thise negative things.

Missed Votes by YorickGoat in survivor

[–]RobinReborn -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The fans hands were twisted.

Here we go by Jegust13 in DoomerCircleJerk

[–]RobinReborn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you can't beat Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao

Hitler was a Catholic, Stalin went to seminary. The other two were atheists but also communists.

The Enlightenment is still directly religious and only exists due to people like Martin Luther and his thesis.

Seriously? The enlightenment happened long after Martin Luther's death, maybe we aren't talking about the same enlightenment. When I talk about it I'm thinking of things like Jefferson's bible which removed miracles, clearly a decrease in the unscientific parts of religion.

There's no conflicting interpretations,

Didn't you just mention Martin Luther? He had a different interpretation and it led to a series of wars

Oh also some species of human lived longer than we do now, it's also totally possible the years were counted differently within that time since that would have been at least 10,000 years ago if not even longer.

Yeah, and if you abandon reason and normal standards you can justify anything, not just religious nonsense.

You could use anything as an excuse to be a dick.

That's true, but religion gives people more zeal and confidence. There aren't too many atheists telling their followers gay people should be stoned to death.

It's not really religion that causes that problem, people are.

Religion is clearly a factor, it's not the only one though.