Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Monday, September 28, 2015
Friday, September 25, 2015
Thursday, September 24, 2015
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Friday, September 18, 2015
SJW, WSJ and Objectivism: an exchange
The ‘SJW’s talk a lot about racial and gender privilege; economic privilege, not so much. I wondered why. Then I noticed that SJW, for ‘Social Justice Worrier’, is an anagram of WSJ, for ‘Wall Street Journal’. Is this a sign of divide-and-conquer, or am I reading too much into this?
I’d have to say that the SJWs talk an awful lot about economic privilege also. WSJs these days are so deluded that they don’t believe ANY privilege exists. Dinesh D’Souza talks about “The End of Racism” and so forth. So maybe WSJs and SJWs really are opposites of each other, at least in terms of what they CLAIM they believe.
You’re right about the WSJ. The SJWs do mention class privilege, but long after gender and race privilege; a matter of emphasis. Also lots of SJWs are trust-fund babies.
I worry about SJW, but mostly as the latest folly of the youth. I think that SJW is like Objectivism; a mental flu mostly infecting undergraduates, curable by critical thinking. They are both closed systems of moral judgement, structurally favoring fellow cultists. Both preach stultifying dogma in raucous shibboleths. Both claim a rational maturity that neither possesses.
Other than that, Objectivists and SJWs are completely different.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
My Name Mutations
A long time ago, when I still subscribed to science-fiction magazines, I got one from Analog addressed to Nathaniel Helbertian; and one from F&SF addressed to Nathaniel Helleretti.
I figure that a Helbertian is a quantum wave operator, and the Helleretti are a mischievious band of sprites.
On June 8, 2015, I got a letter from Mr. Rooter Plumber, addressed to Nat Hellasderm. I figure that hellasderm is Greek skin.
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
“Grand Old Party” for the Republicans is a misnomer, for theirs is the younger of the two parties. The Democrats don’t mention this because neither Democratic nor Republican parties like to dwell upon their pasts. The Democratic party doesn’t like to remind its base that it used to support slavery; and the Republican party doesn’t like to remind its base that it used to oppose slavery.
The $20 bill has a picture of Andrew Jackson, who is now an embarrassment for the Democratic party. The $5 bill has a picture of Abraham Lincoln, who is now an embarrassment for the Republican party. Perhaps the two parties should arrange an exchange.
Why not? They’ve exchanged bases and territories. The Republicans used to represent pragmatic business-friendly race-rights Northeastern and Western urbanites; and the Democrats represented populist racist Southern farmers. After about a century and a half, these roles have reversed.
And how are we to know that in another century and a half, they won’t reverse again?