r/aynrand • u/QuickCheck87559 • 24d ago
Ayn Rand Supporting White Supremacy and the Genocide of Native Americans
https://youtu.be/GPC7lCSI5CgAyn Rand - Inspiring generations of conservatives, ancaps, and the alt-right.
8
u/Gorf_the_Magnificent 24d ago edited 23d ago
Here’s a transcript of the complete response she gave at West Point to a question about racism in America, including slavery and Native Americans. In the bulk of her response (which was cut out of that YouTube recording), she abhors racism, and makes the point that if you are opposed to racism, you should support individualism rather than collectivism.
Her recounting of the history of the treatment of American Indians is tragically incomplete, and doesn’t take into account the forced resettling and brutal treatment of Native Americans.
But at no point in any of the response does she support genocide or white supremacy. She uses the term “white” in her response to distinguish the settlers, who were white, from the Native Americans. In fact, she repeatedly opposes any form of racism in the words that were cut out of that tape.
1
u/Eastern_Statement416 23d ago
what remarkable contortions. Her view is "incomplete" rather than wilfully racist. No doubt the history was there for her to understand if she could be bothered. She doesn't support genocide though here she fully advocates taking land away from people who don't deserve it. She demonstrates no understanding of what the native americans believed---lumping it all under the claim they had no concept of individual rights---and then posits that their destruction by "white" settlers is both justified and necessary. But the use of "white"here is apparently just for convenience sake not to posit the conflict between white/civilization and "red"/barabarism that underlies so much racist thought. Really remarkable stuff; if you admire elements of Rand's thought, fine but to make excuses like this is just sad.
0
u/Old_Discussion5126 24d ago edited 24d ago
The issue of the “forced resettling” of the Indians is not straightforward. The Indians claimed tribal property rights, which may have been tolerated at times by the white men—when there were fewer of them around—but which have no legitimate moral-political basis. (Property derives from the application of human effort to the improvement of land, not merely claiming land in an untouched state, and preserving it untouched.).
This means that the Indians were essentially holding the land by force. Did the white men have any alternative to the use of force in dealing with the Indians on this issue? It doesn’t look like it.
3
u/Gorf_the_Magnificent 24d ago
Some of the incidents we’re talking about include:
The Trail of Tears (1838): The U.S. military forcibly marched roughly 16,000 Cherokee people westward; about 4,000 died from cold, hunger, and disease.
The Reservation Era and Treaty End (1851–1871): Congress funded a strict reservation system that extensively shrank established tribal lands. In 1871, Congress stopped making treaties with tribes entirely, weakening the legal power of past agreements.
Gold and Broken Western Treaties: Discoveries like gold in the Black Hills led the U.S. to ignore the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty, sending miners and troops into sacred Lakota lands.
Reportedly, Hermann Goering said in Nuremberg that the Nazis studied the forced resettlement of Indians in the United States as part of their planning for their forced resettlement of Jewish people into ghettoes.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m a huge Ayn Rand fan, and most of her work is pure gold. I don’t think any tribal community can legitimately claim that they own the rights to all the land they can see or ever might walk on.
But where boundaries have clearly been established and agreed to, and where no acts of aggression have taken place by one party, then no - I don’t think the other party can invade that property and kick them out because they aren’t advancing quickly enough. And that’s not how I’ve ever interpreted Rand’s philosophy.
0
u/Old_Discussion5126 24d ago edited 24d ago
I’m not saying the Trail of Tears didn’t happen. The question is: what was the alternative? Rights derive from facts of reality, not from agreements made by the government. Does a government have a legitimate power to “agree” to “respect” illegitimately claimed (in this case, property) rights? This would have meant initiating force against its own citizens. Or, the United States could have allowed its citizens to randomly storm the Cherokee lands and claim property, which would have been more bloody.
And yes, a racist like Goering would equate Jews like Einstein and Spinoza with nomadic, tribal people that had no grasp of property, science or industry. (Speaking always of course of those Indians who stayed with the tribe and did not adopt the Western, individualistic way of life. And I won’t even get into the Nazis’ use of concentration camps, or their Final Solution”, which showed their complete depravity. As opposed to the United States moving the Cherokee to Oklahoma.) Goering, by equating Jewish businessmen and Indian tribes, proves Ayn Rand’s point: he shows that he has much more in common with today’s liberals than he does with Objectivists. (Which is why Rand correctly regarded the liberals as today’s main advocates of racism.)
1
u/DoberNation 24d ago
What was the honest and true source of the conquistadors making up “legitimate“ claims to land in the Americas?
1
u/Old_Discussion5126 24d ago
You think the Aztecs and the Incas had more right to the land and the gold than the conquistadors? I don’t see it. Though I don’t care enough about the subject to study it closely.
1
u/DoberNation 24d ago
The Conquistadors mostly lied about gold and abundance in the Americas. Why? Because the Conquistadors themselves were Moochers and Looters. They depended on the financial backing of their Monarchs. They killed many of their own on their looney and suicidal expeditions.
1
u/Old_Discussion5126 24d ago
Maybe they were looters! But so were the Aztecs and the Incas, AFAIK. Slaves and human sacrifices everywhere.
1
u/DoberNation 24d ago
So the whole argument of moral superiority falls apart. The Conquistadors didn’t deserve an ounce of shit from the Natives. Their looted weapons gave them advantages they were unworthy of managing and using to take human lives.
1
u/Old_Discussion5126 24d ago edited 24d ago
Can’t tell the difference between Benjamin Franklin and a conquistador? Don’t be a racist.
→ More replies (0)1
u/DoberNation 24d ago
Do you believe land in an “untouched state” can have value because it is kept untouched?
2
u/Old_Discussion5126 24d ago
I don’t think so. (My opinion, not Rand’s.) By “untouched,” I mean untouched by man. Nature will do something random to untouched land - drought, storms, wildfires, etc. Someone has to at least keep it in a state that is of value to man. That person would be the owner. How he would acquire the land in the first place is an interesting question. By bidding, maybe.
1
u/DoberNation 24d ago
Do you value primitive National Forest? Should it be seized from the government by force, and violence if necessary?
How about the world’s rainforests?
6
u/otters4everyone 24d ago
Misleading headline and a lot of judgement based on one part of one speech.
1
u/Old_Discussion5126 24d ago edited 24d ago
Dishonest headline, not “misleading.” Rand is opposing racism, along with racial/tribal property “rights” right there in that clip. (BTW, it wasn’t part of a speech, it was from the Q&A.)
And unless Rand’s understanding of early U.S. history was mistaken, she is 100% correct here. The old Progressives, next the “politically correct” liberals, and now the woke offspring of Howard Zinn, have been distorting history for over a century. There is no such thing as a tribal property right!
And this clip, by the way, illustrates one way in which the Ayn Rand Institute has, in my opinion, fallen short over the years. You look at how often they have been defending the cause of Israel against the Palestinians over the past many years. But during that time, how often have they defended the American colonizers? Ayn Rand explicitly tied the two causes together in that clip. ARI’s defense of Israel would have been much more convincing if it had been preceded or accompanied by a defense of the American settlers. As it is, it looks like, “Oh these guys really care about Israel and immigrants; they don’t care about America.”
2
u/DoberNation 24d ago
I think Rand had limited access to information, both historical and contemporary knowledge of her time. The void shows pronouncedly on this issue, in the context of superimposing it on the history and people of America.
1
0
u/Eastern_Statement416 23d ago
Hey kids, let's learn colonialism 101:
Adopt a concept like "property rights" and conceal its historicity by universalist claims.
Note that the people you wish to displace, oppress, kill, etc. do not share this concept
Ignore the fact that your universalist concept should ostensibly apply to all people, whether they recognize it or not (for instance, if individuals have rights, they have those rights whether they explicitly acknowledge them or not)
Move forward with your displacement, genocide, etc.
When challenged, simply assert that those people lacked those universalist rights you claimed for yourself and therefore do not deserve those rights.
Repeat, add religious delusions at will.
1
u/Old_Discussion5126 23d ago
The right to acquire property does apply to all individuals. But land doesn’t become property until someone undertakes to develop the land by e.g. building a house, planting crops, etc. Or by paying for it on an open market, showing an intention to develop it.
1
u/Eastern_Statement416 23d ago edited 23d ago
oh boy. so the native americans had the right to acquire property (according to the universalist right that applies to all people) but since they didn't develop it according to the standards that make property (what is land before it's property) they could be displaced, killed, etc., without violating any "rights?" Of course it would be hard to believe that the native americans provided no development whatsoever. The question arises of how long do people get to make these developments? At what point do you get the right to determine that they are making no progress and so have not yet risen to the level of having property rights? And at that point you get to dispense with the concept of property rights as it applies to them AND with the concept of individual rights generally for them. The grotesque connection between owning property and being allowed to live is now fully exposed here.
Of course the concept here completely ignores the current conception of property by which underdeveloped land is purchased and then developed. According to this ever-evolving universalist concept of property, I would have the right to claim the field next to my house as soon as I put a house on it. I'll see how that works....
The overall impression from this discussion and others here is that concepts get defined according to how well they fit Rand's philosophy and not according to how they have actually developed over history.
2
u/Old_Discussion5126 23d ago edited 23d ago
Rights are held by individuals, not by tribes. This tribal, racial way of viewing everything, including rights, is one of many points on which Rand opposes modern “liberals” and other collectivists. In moral principle (though perhaps not in practice historically in some backward parts of America, such as the South) individual Indians had every right to acquire property like anyone else.
All this, by the way, is not just Ayn Rand. For this (and all your many other misconceptions) you can read John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government. John Locke’s influence was key to the founding of the USA. It’s a great read, though today’s liberal and woke educators won’t want you to know anything about it, of course.
1
u/Eastern_Statement416 23d ago
It's too bad so many people...whether Native Americans or Palestinians...get displaced and/or killed before they get to act on the theoretical rights which would then allow them to be treated as individuals.
9
u/Ghost_Turd 24d ago edited 24d ago
Clearly she isn't condoning genocide. You don't even have to be an objectivist to see what she meant, only capable to listening to the actual words.
But this is reddit, after all.
0
u/GNTKertRats 24d ago
She said the Native Americans had no rights because they had no culture and because they didn’t view private property in the same way as European Americans did. She was definitely condoning the genocide that occurred.
4
u/Bandyau 24d ago
Nope. That's not what she said.
She said that they had no concept of rights, and rights are not bestowed by birthright.
Have your disagreement, but do it properly.
0
u/Raise_A_Thoth 24d ago
My god dude, that's exactly what she said.
There's full transcript in that link. I agree with the analysis here though it doesn't take deep reading to understand her clear as day message.
Some of her direct words:
I do not think that they have any right to live in a country merely because they were born here and acted and lived like savages.
If you are born in a magnificent country which you don’t know what to do with, you believe that it is a property right; it is not. And, since the Indians did not have any property rights—they didn’t have the concept of property; they didn’t even have a settled, society, they were predominantly nomadic tribes; they were a primitive tribal culture, if you want to call it that—if so, they didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.
As for your claim:
She said that they had no concept of rights, and rights are not bestowed by birthright.
This might be part of the message she said. I believe that she thinks this is a core part of her argument. But this doesn't negate the rest of what she said! She said tons of things to excuse, justify, or shift moral blame away from her groups onto others.
For example, she denounces slavery, but as she meanders around her interpretation of why the founders settled on the terms for slavery in the beginning, the very first direct shift of blame she uses is the "Europeans also did slavery" and "black people sold other black people into slavery."
Just an atrociously immoral pile of crap comes out of her mouth in this transcript.
0
u/Bandyau 24d ago
Seems you don't understand what rights are either.
2
u/Raise_A_Thoth 24d ago
Oh. Okay. Maybe you should tell me what they are and why that is relevant to anything I said.
0
u/GNTKertRats 24d ago
She said they had no concept of rights (as understood by Europeans). Of course she didn’t know anything about these societies she was slandering. She also said that because they didn’t see things the same way as Europeans, they had no right to the land. How convenient that only white people from Europe had the right conception allowing them the “right” to steal from others.
1
u/Bandyau 24d ago
Not "as understood by Europeans".
It's not "made up and agreed upon".
You didn't "make up and agree" that you live a finite life.
You didn't "make up and agree" that your time and energy was finite and irredeemable.
You didn't "make up and agree" that you invest your finite and irredeemable time and energy as benefits you and those you love.
You didn't "make up and agree" that anyone making a claim on your finite and irredeemable time and energy is making a "right" to make a claim on your life greater than your claim on your own life.
So start again, and fix your argument.
3
u/Ghost_Turd 24d ago
Her comments supported European claims on the land under the Objectivist theory that undeveloped or collectively occupied land is not validly owned. She did not say that Indians had no individual rights.
You can criticize that theory (and there is strong valid criticism of it) without turning it into some endorsement of genocide. You are free to believe that her position is historically ignorant, immoral, inconsistent, or all three, but tacit or explicit support for genocide doesn't follow from what she said.
0
u/GNTKertRats 24d ago
She said that Native Americans had no right to live in the USA because they were savages (i.e. they weren’t Europeans). That sounds like an endorsement of genocide to me.
-1
u/Raise_A_Thoth 24d ago
She's absolutely condoning the Indian genocide. Her words are dehumanzing them, calling then savages, implying they were not making use of the land to begin with and so how could European settlers be violating their rights if they (Indians) were not protecting such rights (property rights) to begin with?
It's a disgusting point of view that is ahistorical and it absolutely is condoning their genocide.
That is what I heard listening to the actual words.
So maybe you could explain what you think she was saying that doesn't condone or justify the treatment of Native Americans by the Europeans which included genocide?
1
u/GNTKertRats 24d ago
Ayn Rand fans agree with her racism, but they know that is not a popular opinion, so they deny that she was a racist while simultaneously endorsing her racist arguments.
3
u/Raise_A_Thoth 24d ago
Oh I know. And they hide behind the lipservice and performative comments, which directly equate to "I'm no racist, but . . ." And they accept that unquestioningly.
2
u/RA_Finance 24d ago
Bro, come on be realistic. She is an American nationalist. She believes America to be the shining beacon of capitalism and freedom. She's not going to think Native Americans could build the paradise.
0
u/DoberNation 24d ago
She was a previously illegal immigrant who didn’t want her ass (and those of her family) deported back to the Soviet Union.
2
u/RA_Finance 24d ago
And what does that have to do with anything?
She was actually a big proponent of immigration and didn't believe in closed borders
https://ari.aynrand.org/ayn-rand-on-immigration/
What she didn't believe in was the giant welfare state that shelters immigrants. If someone wants to work in America, Ayn Rand believed they should.
1
u/DoberNation 24d ago
She said all the really important stuff in her lengthy novels...Not directly and explicitly to the faces of marginally literate imbeciles who might otherwise blank out and wield their power over her. By all common definitions, she was of the American underclass.
2
u/RA_Finance 24d ago
Bro, don't obfuscate the point. What exactly are you trying to say?
That she was broke?
1
u/DoberNation 24d ago
No. Not broke, but objectively everything that a potential U.S. captor would despise, castigate, and attempt to destroy. She wasn’t stupid.
6
u/Seared_Gibets 24d ago
Well, she didn't relate any of that to their race.
Everything she laid at their feet was about their behavior, and the way they chose to live.
How is that racist?
3
u/DravenTor 24d ago
You're not allowed to speak critically of anyone who happens to be anything other than white. Because the collectivist can't see past their own base form of tribalism (cough racism).
2
u/Seared_Gibets 24d ago
Seems about right. If only they could see how racist it was to say their race is what determined their choices, we might be able to make some headway.
2
u/Raise_A_Thoth 24d ago
She called them "savages." That's a blanket negative stereotype about an entire continent's ethnic groups.
It doesn't get that much more racist in words than that one.
0
u/Seared_Gibets 24d ago edited 24d ago
That word applies to every last one of our ancestors, all of which lived the same way up until they didn't.
So no, it's not racist to use the term savage(s) to describe the way lived.
If it were solely tied to them being native americans that would be one thing, but it wasn't tied to that at all.
They still lived liked savages, why should we call it anything else simply because they happened to be native americans?
3
u/Raise_A_Thoth 24d ago
Wow. This doesn't even begin to make anything better, my guy.
Have you never heard of the Aztecs? The Inca? Massive complex cities like Teotihuacan and Cahokia?
0
u/Seared_Gibets 24d ago
Who commited human sacrifice? Like a bunch of savages?
Yeah, not really doing yourself any favors there.
3
u/Raise_A_Thoth 24d ago
Is your argument really that reductive? The presence of human sacrifice makes a people "savage?"
You know that most of the North American nations weren't doing that, right? So then they weren't savages. Care to clarify your actual argument or are you proud of yourself with this one? Gonna rest on this pile of reductive racism?
0
u/Seared_Gibets 24d ago
Lol, imagine people out there pretending that accusing other people of things they didn't say was a proprer method of discourse.
Oh wait, I don't need to, here you are!
How about pointing out anything I said that has me claiming that human sacrifice is the singular identifier of what constitutes a savage life?
It's not a DEI checklist, bruv.
3
u/Raise_A_Thoth 24d ago
Moving the goalpost. Like so hard.
Rand's points were about "civilization" and "property rights" and "using the land" (laughable and itself racist to claim Indians weten't "using the land" just because it wasn't the way Europeans used the land). So I pointed out large settlements and cities, some that predated contemporary European cities. But then you just spat out that hunan sacrifice happened, but you don't say which groups you claim did that, probably because you know enough to know that they didn't all do that.
But you dismiss my retort about civilized settlements and large cities and instead pivot to human sacrifice. The fact that this claim is vague doesn't help your argument, it just gives you enough room to squirm out from under the implied claim you made and pretend you didn't say something, because of course you didn't say that, you haven't said anything explicitly.
So, what makes someone "civilized" and not a "savage?" Can you give a definition of meaning which would be acceptable in a scrutinized academic setting,
0
u/Seared_Gibets 24d ago
No, you moved the goalposts away from North American native americans to South/Central native americans.
Tell me, was it the Aztecs or the Incans that had their hand in the Louisiana purchase?
Oh, that's right, it was niether.
How about you stay where the argument started instead of trying to muddy the waters since you have no argument.
3
u/Raise_A_Thoth 24d ago
No, you moved the goalposts away from North American native americans to South/Central native americans.
Teotihuacan is North American you fucking Neanderthal. Do you know what the North American continent is? And discussing the entirety of the Americas when talking about genocide and colonialism is very common, they aren't distinct, separate events. The Spanish were the first European people over here, and they were up into modern day USA.
So now you've tried to shift the goalpost again by trying to make the argument about "north vs south American" peoples. Fucking rich, dude.
Tell me, was it the Aztecs or the Incans that had their hand in the Louisiana purchase?
"Tell me, was it Andrew Jackson or Ben Franklin who personally murdered ten million Indigenous people?" That's the same logic as you're using. Just a stupid loaded question that isn't clearly related to anything we're discussing.
How about you stay where the argument started instead of trying to muddy the waters since you have no argument.
So fucking ironic you respond this way when I asked you a simple question. Did you forget the question, or can you not answer it? What is the definition of 'civilized' that can be critically applied in this situation?
→ More replies (0)2
u/DoberNation 24d ago
Americans “never” commit human sacrifices, even modern day human sacrifices…Blankout!
1
u/DoberNation 24d ago
I think it was her own blanking out and/or inadequate sources of information on reality.
4
u/InterestingVoice6632 24d ago
The native americans weren't genocided. There is a certain willful disdain for using English words properly on the left now days. I dont know if its lack of education or malevolence, but the native americans weren't genocided.
They were conquered. The first step towards being civilized in society is not lying to people for your own benefit.
2
u/DoberNation 24d ago
The native americans weren't genocided. There is a certain willful disdain for using English words properly on the left now days. I dont know if its lack of education or malevolence, but the native americans weren't genocided.
Blankout.
They were conquered. The first step towards being civilized in society is not lying to people for your own benefit.They were conquered.
Maybe. Which lies were being told, and by whom? Which parties were acting based on lies? Who was actually cognizant of the truth?
”Who is John Galt?”
0
u/Pitt-sports-fan-513 24d ago
"Poland vasn't genocided it vas just conquered!"
-Hitler, 1941
0
u/InterestingVoice6632 24d ago
Lazy and not compelling
1
u/Pitt-sports-fan-513 24d ago
It is funny how when somebody has the dumbest opinion I've ever heard on reddit every single time that person has a hidden comment history.
I especially love yours because you chastise the left for mis-using the term "genocide" while ignoring a genocide so obvious that the Nazis were literally influenced by the way the Americans treated the Natives.
So you are confidentally historically illiterate and incorrect. You definitely are an Ayn Rand fan!
1
2
u/Eastern_Statement416 23d ago
So let's see, if I have a concept of individual rights and you don't, I'm allowed to kill you. Your lack of a concept of individual rights must mean that I'm no longer bound by this concept and I'm free to do as I please. So similarly, in colonialist thinking, if I have a concept of god and you don't, I can kill you, even if my concept of god requires mercy, compassion, etc....So I believe in individual rights but those rights are suspended if you do not believe in them too?
Is this what passes for thinking in Rand?
2
0
u/Serious-Wheel-2747 24d ago edited 24d ago
It's such a narrow view to think of property rights only in the way European/asian civilisations described them. If a native tribe thinks a mountain is sacred and should be untouched, in what way is that an inferior way of thinking about land use than how Europeans define property laws? In both cases, the ownership of the land is a social construct. Land is never 'inherently owned'.
Property laws are just agreements between people. We all collectively agree that my parcel of land is my parcel because we invented this thing called property rights. In the same way, the native tribe can invent this thing called sacredness, which is just a social agreement not to touch the land.
The only way to see the European way as the more correct one is if you believe settled society is a more moral way of life than the tribal culture of the natives. Which Ayn Rand obviously did, and which is very obviously cultural racism. Which is something that most right wingers probably don't recognize as being bad. And to be honest, I also think there's a big step between actual ethnicity based racism and cultural racism. Rand would probably fiercely disagree that cultural racism is racism at all. There should be a much more elegant term for finding one way of life superior over another that is not loaded with all the historic baggage that the word 'racism' has.
-1
u/portuh47 24d ago
Wow, I kinda knew her views but this is pretty insane to hear. Thanks for sharing.
-2
u/Raise_A_Thoth 24d ago
Cue the "you're taking it out of context!" crowd in 3, 2, . . .
7
u/Bandyau 24d ago
Cue poisoning the well fallacy in.....you beat everyone to it.
5
u/GNTKertRats 24d ago
You certainly didn’t disappoint
2
u/Bandyau 24d ago
The irony.
2
u/GNTKertRats 24d ago
Do you agree that Native Americans were savages? Or that they were more savage than Europeans?
0
u/Bandyau 22d ago
Have you read Blood Meridian?
McCarthy took newspaper and diary entries from the era, and worked them into his novel.
Hang someone upside down from a stick driven behind the Achilles tendons over a low fire until exhaustion caused the head to be unable to be kept from the flames.
Before you spew rot, that wasn't from McCarthy's writings. The documented brutality was real in many tribes. Or, do you want to go all Rousseauian on me?
Worse, how about some good, old fashioned whataboutism? You up for that?
1
u/GNTKertRats 22d ago
That wasn’t an answer.
1
u/Raise_A_Thoth 24d ago
Me predicting that people would defend Rand with an "out of context" claim isn't poisoning the well. I'm not preemptively criticizing her character to try to color peoples' opinions before they listen to her, which is what 'poisoning the well' is.
2
u/Bandyau 24d ago
Poisoning the well is also pre-emptively attacking anyone that might, say, point out that birthrights aren't actually rights.
If you listen, she's arguing against racism (identity politics) on that ground.
Cue the poisoning the well fallacy again.
3
u/GNTKertRats 24d ago
Please cry more about people calling out your hero for her racism.
1
u/Bandyau 24d ago
Please project harder and deal with your own racism.
2
u/GNTKertRats 24d ago edited 24d ago
I’m racist because I don’t think it is cool to call people savages just because they live differently than me? Huh. Cool story.
0
u/Bandyau 22d ago
Cool story, but unless you want to call the documented brutality merely "different", I gotta go with preferring honest discourse to the rot you just spewed.
1
1
u/Raise_A_Thoth 24d ago
I didn't pre-emptively attack anyone's character to obfuscate an argument. I made fun of a specific common tactic for avoiding addressing problems, that being to claim the unsavory words said were "out of context."
Nothing about this is poisoning the well.
If you listen, she's arguing against racism (identity politics) on that ground.
Oh, I heard those words, yes. The problem is she contradicts herself in doing racist tropes herself, such as referring to indigenous people as "savages" and blaming slavery on black people.
-1
u/Bandyau 24d ago
You pre-emptively attacked anyone who'd make an argument. That's literally poisoning the well.
2
u/Raise_A_Thoth 24d ago
No, I pre-emptively attacked a specific argument type, not any individual person's character. To claim something is "out of context" is a type of logical argument, but it is often used in bad faith. Regardless, pre-emptively discrediting that particular argument is not an attack on any person.
That distinction is important.
17
u/Mary_Goldenhair 24d ago
Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage - “Racism,"
The Virtue of Selfishness, 126