RoR: Forum

Lindsay, I don't understand how you can claim to be apologising to Matthew when your 'apology' is posted in a public forum which you have already quite explicitly told him to leave. In case you hadn't noticed, Matthew has not posted here since your disgusting attack on him last night - and who can blame him?

Post 1

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 3:50am

Jonathan - I truly think you haven't taken in the content of the exchanges or my article. I've apologised for those remarks of mine that were unjust, & put them in context; nothing more, nothing less.

One more thing, in response to someone's post from last night that attempted to portray this as scalpel vs sledgehammer: that which is being applauded as "scalpel" is not that at all; it's a quivering blancmange.

Linz

Post 2

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 3:59am

One further point. I do find it quite shocking that, with the notable exception of Barbara Branden, no one here seems to be particularly disturbed by the sheer offensiveness and venom contained in Lindsay's post to Matthew. Already the thread headed 'I have a dream' has returned to discussion of US politics, as if nothing much has happened.

Do others here not find this sort of behaviour abhorrent? (half-hearted 'apologies' notwithstanding)

Post 3

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 4:04am

Lindsay, I truly think you haven't read my post properly - how can you apologise to someone who isn't there, and isn't there for the sole reason that you told them to 'fuck off'?

Post 4

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 5:03am

Amazing post by Linz!

I agree with all of his 5 points in reference to the War against Islamo-Fascism. His arguments are well stated, rational and passionate. Unfortunately, trying to tie this topic to the one on basic civilty is apples and oranges.

There is a vast difference between the outright appeasement crowd (that deserves all the derision that Linz or anyone else heaps on them!) and those that are in favor of defending Western Civilization but do not agree that Iraq was the intelligent or correct course in that defense. Personally I believe it was correct, and Linz's point number 1 and 2 cover the rationale perfectly.

George

Post 5

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 5:39am

I have had a few things on my plate the last couple of days, and I am sorry that I've not been able to post earlier. A few comments in response:

1. I have read the various posts in the previous thread and in this thread and am sorry that it all seems to have begun over me. I also appreciate the SOLO policy enunciated by Joe Rowlands on another thread: "We allow people to say nice things about Sciabarra here. Just try not to make a habit out of it! " Alas, SOLO also allows people to say not-so-nice things about Sciabarra... so that keeps everything in dialectical balance.

2. For the record, one of the reasons I've grown not to take as much personal offense to Lindsay's use of the word "Saddamite" (even though I used that word as an ironic self-description in answering his original charges in my FREE RADICAL article, "A Question of Loyalty: A 'Saddamite' Responds to Perigo") is that I don't recognize any of my positions in the charges that he hurls. The shoe doesn't fit, so I don't wear it. Those charges (which Joe reiterates here) might be valid for some opponents of the Iraq war, but not for me. I am closer to what Duncan Bayne describes, though I'd go a lot further: I do support the war against anti-American terrorists, I did support the military action in Afghanistan, and I too would love to see Iraq become a secular constitutional democracy. But I don't think that last goal can be reached in the manner of a nation-building enterprise within the context of a hostile culture bubbling over with intense ethnic and religious strife. This is not to say that Hussein's regime was morally legitimate---it was not. But that is not the central issue in creating a plan to topple it. The central issue is: Was Hussein's regime a threat to the security of the U.S.? To the extent it was, I believe the situation could have been handled in ways that did not necessitate a full-throttle US invasion and occupation. Containment through show of force, deterrence through the threatened use of massive retaliation and diligent inspections, surgical strikes on known terrorist or weapons camps, blockades, and so forth, could have kept an armed Hussein in check. In fact, when I made this argument initially, I never gave Hussein the benefit of the doubt, and assumed he was armed, and that he had WMDs. The fact that, in retrospect, he didn't have WMDs and that there was no formal operative relationship with the Al Qaeda terrorist network that actually did attack the US is gravy so-to-speak, suggesting that a less invasive strategy with continued diligence could have kept him in check, thus liberating 100,000+ troops and hundreds of billions of dollars to bolster U.S. homeland security and to take care of Bin Laden's network in Afghanistan and in any other problem spots in the Middle East.

I have tended to view the distinctions between some of the advocates of the Iraq war and some of us who opposed it not as a distinction between Western civilization and barbarism but as a distinction between different strategic visions of how to affect change in the face of a real threat.

I want to state publicly however that I am not going to keep debating this issue on SOLO HQ. It serves no purpose. People here know my position, and continued battling over this issue invariably leads to the kind of unpleasantness that one sees on the previous thread and others. That doesn't mean that I won't be posting on SOLO HQ again; there are many other issues beyond foreign policy that should be addressed. For those who are gluttons for punishment, and who want to continue reading my foreign policy work, check out Not a Blog and Liberty and Power, where I post regularly on the subject. (L&P even has a comments section... so it's not as if I don't wish to deal with dissent.)

3. Let me just offer a little advice. You can take it or leave it. It pains me to see people whom I call my "friends" battling with one another. I do hope that there is a way for these various individuals to work out their differences. Let me at least recommend that some of this be addressed privately precisely for the reasons Joe suggested that "those closest to you are the most capable of upsetting you. Obviously both parties are pissed because it's close and personal."

I have been offended by some things that Lindsay and others on this forum have said. Anytime that has happened in the past, I've tried to take it offlist before erupting online. That's just my way of doing things. I don't think that we become any less passionate by taking care of deeply personal reactions in a deeply personal way. That's my advice if there is to be a productive future for SOLO HQ.

The public discussion becomes an enormous waste of time, in my view, when it focuses on style rather than substance. I'm not saying that one shouldn't use "red flag" words to make a point. I'm not even saying that one shouldn't become visibly upset in one's reactions to those "red flag" words. But I do believe that when "red flag" words are used with any regularity they will have the same effect as monetary inflation.

Let's call it "Verbal Inflation":

A) Overuse of the word creates successively diminished value each time it is used; in other words, like the inflated dollar, it just becomes value-less after a while. And there is a real potential that the cumulative effect will undermine civil and substantive discussion. The discussion will then focus exclusively on the use of the "red flag" words, rather than on the stated reasons for their use.

While we're dealing with colors... let's also address "blue" words: The state of American politics is pretty awful, in my view. But I don't think the Great and Profound Lincoln-Douglas debates or even the far less profound Bush-Kerry debates would have been elevated by having the candidates call each other "assholes," "motherfuckers," and "jerkoffs." I'm sure each candidate thought these things about their opponents. But it rarely if ever enters the formal discussion (Dick Cheney's blue language on the Senate floor notwithstanding). And if it had, it would have diminished the discussion, and the discussants.

Please note: I'm not suggesting that y'all become politicians in search of votes by practicing "diplomatic niceties," as Linz puts it. But I am suggesting that this should be a forum of ideas, and to the extent that you don't practice those niceties, it will be, once again, a forum that focuses far more attention on the style of the exposition of the ideas, rather than on the ideas themselves.

And when that happens, you reach the second effect of Verbal Inflation:

B) Inflation, if not checked, can cause depression... that is, it can create a structural breakdown in the situation.

SOLO was founded on the premise that passion and reason are not antithetical to one another. Metaphorically speaking: Inflation of the first is bloody; inflation of the second is bloodless. Surely there is some dialectical means to transcend this dualism, no?

Speaking of inflation, those are my two cents... I hope some of it makes sense.

Peace,
Chris

(Edited by sciabarra on 11/02, 5:44am)

Post 6

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 7:39am

Jonathan Barrett

People choose their own battles and nobody else should make assumptions about their choices or reasons, about which they know nothing. Why don�t you look after your own corner instead of dragging other people into it.

Post 7

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 7:50am

Either your speech loses all passion and meaning ~OR~ you can and should call names and swear at the people with whom you otherwise mostly agree and allegedly value.

Talk about a classic false dichotomy. How can any honest man of reason and benevolence not see this?

True, SOLO is yours, Linz, and you can do and say whatever you want. Just because you CAN doesn't mean you OUGHT to do so. Because you can do a thing, does not imply that you ought to do a thing.

Another failure in reason.

Since harsh language doesn't bother you, let me say that you can really be a fucking bully. And its a shame. Because you are charming and relevant and exciting in what you bring to the world. But you can also be a real AHS-hole. It especially irks me how 'the class' slumps down in their chairs and goes silent in the face of hurricane Perigo. (but kudos to Barbara Branden for standing up and calling this what it is). Do you know what they are afraid of? They are afraid of being asked to leave for stating the obvious--that you are taking exception to someone deserving of some measure of respect like you would your worst enemy. It's fear-based evasion. Is that what you want to foster? Read some of the horseshit being posted on SOLOHQ (not the articles so much, but the forum posts). You want to keep people like that, but tell a solid guy like Matt H to leave?

You also have to match your message to your audience. Call me an asshole and tell me to fuck off, I'd probably chuckle. To someone else, that shit can be plain mean. Do you really believe that if communication is your goal, you should DISREGARD your audience and the context of the communication? How you communicate determines how well your message is clearly conveyed in a particular context. In fact, MEANS of communication conveys a message all its own. What message are you sending by erupting all over your fans and supporters (I count myself as one)?

Either benvolence enters into the picture as to how you comport yourself or it doesn't. If it does, your tone and content was a fucking mistake, one of many, I'm afraid. If benevolence doesn't enter into the picture, then SOLO is a sham. ~MY~ benevolence keeps me from judging you too harshly, though, because I ken your value.

Post 8

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 8:05am

Joe, hits it on the head:

"I take it [Saddam's Succours] to mean those who oppose the invasion of Iraq, not because they have a better alternative, but because they don't think it's morally right."

That�s what I always thought Liz meant and it's what I believe. There is a difference between a practical disagreement about the implementation of a respectable policy and a moral disagreement that implies we are sinful and evil. Perhaps many people are not cognizant of it and slip across the line from one to another. Those of us influenced by Rand try to be conscious of our premises and what we sanction. This makes it very hard to raise a practical disagreement about the administration while the vast majority on the Left raise �moral� objections.

However, when I go on Leftist-infested websites (I like to argue) and complain about Bush � that he is holding back and that he holds Ariel Sharon back � I can tell you no one confuses me for a Saddamite, anti-American, soft-on-Islamism, appeasement freak. Just goes to show that you can be critical of the administration in a manner that leaves no confusion about what you feel about America and our core greatness. Try it!

After writing that I noted, Tim Sturm gets it on another thread:

So any blunders he [Bush] has made are of a strategic/military/political nature, not a moral nature.

I have one disagreement with Chris when he writes:

But I don't think the Great and Profound Lincoln-Douglas debates or even the far less profound Bush-Kerry debates would have been elevated by having the candidates call each other "assholes," "motherfuckers," and "jerkoffs." I'm sure each candidate thought these things about their opponents.

Kerry has been using proxies � Michael Moore, a guest of honor at the Democratic convention � to say those things. He�s relied on MoveOn.org and others to disparage our great country and the core values of Western Civlization. And, as Jason Pappas has pointed out, Kerry uses insinuation: that we are morally wrong to be at war, are at fault for the anti-American bigotry around the world, and that it is sinful to do such mundane things as ignore France and thus "go it alone".

Bush has failed to extract those implicit statements and express his outrage as Linz and Zell Miller do. Bush has allowed Kerry to be the one who seems entitled to express moral outrage. This is why he is not doing as well as he should.

(Edited by Rick Zuma on 11/02, 8:08am)

Post 9

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 8:19am

Either your speech loses all passion and meaning ~OR~ you can and should call names and swear at the people with whom you otherwise mostly agree and allegedly value.

Talk about a classic false dichotomy. How can any honest man of reason and benevolence not see this?

Msr. DeSalvo, I want to publically apologize for words that I said to you earlier on the previous poll thread. I assumed you could be lumped in with a certain blustering and dogmatic strain in Objectivism, of which I accused you with extreme sarcasm. I was wrong.

I much appreciate your words quoted above, as well as the needful honesty you displayed in your earlier post on extroversion.

my apologies,

Jeanine Ring

Post 10

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 8:42am

Rick takes issue with my comment that the candidates in this election wouldn't use the language we find here at SOLO. He points to "proxies" that use it. I have no doubt. But the candidates usually don't.

But there are proxies on both sides of this election. I've seen it among the lefties for sure, but I've also seen it among the pro-Bush, pro-war bloggers and talk show hosts who call people positively un-American for even thinking of voting for Kerry. Karl Rove himself has a long tradition of gay baiting and of priming the pump of Christian zealotry, getting out the fundamentalist base, which believes that a vote for Bush is a vote for Jesus.

A pox on both their houses. I voted today ... for none of the above.

Post 11

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 9:04am

But you know Chris (he knows I love to argue with him), while both sides may have stepped over the line of civility (when civility is warranted), there is a hatefest on the Left that started in the Democratic Primaries and reached a crescendo with the release of the Michael Moore agitprop film. It�s just an order of magnitude greater than the level found on conservative talk-radio (from what I�m told).

In addition, the Left has tried to claim that all criticism (which should obviously be legal) is respectable criticism. Some of it is anti-American, plane and simple. That�s my point in the previous post. It doesn�t take that much philosophical detention to expose some of the blatant hate that some have for that which you and I hold in great esteem.

On an amusing note, the other day, on the Upper West Side, I saw a man wearing a tee-shirt which expressed his view in three words: Hitler, Stalin, Bush. I don�t think he was referring to the fact that they were all of the same gender. Let me get out my handy ole philosophical detector here ... :)

Post 12

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 9:10am

I agree with Linz's points in his article here. I found no evidence to refute them. I also feel that the handling of this apocalyptically important war has been piss-poor. I find both Bush and Kerry to be arrogant power hungry fools and liars for the most part. America must not be crippled by its past mistakes, and yet it must also not forget them. America does have the right and not responsibility to crush any potential threat it sees fit. How it goes about this is important, but our defense should not be dictated by the concerns of countries who could not be bothered to care about us, themselves, or the victim's of any totalitiarian or terrorist regime.

All that said, Lindsay could be a less vitriolic in his attacks on people. Some of us would be called Saddammites for our view that this is not a one issue election, or for even questioning the manner in which this war has been carried out. This war is important. Important enough to be done properly. It is just. It is the right thing to do. It needn't involve a single other nation's support because it is the right thing to do. It is still being executed poorly.

Post 13

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 9:15am

Rick writes: "But you know Chris (he knows I love to argue with him)..."

You just love it! You FEAST on it. hehe

Again, Rick, I have no doubt about the hatefest, I've seen it in spades. But the religious right is engaged in as much incivility---except they target different groups. And when they identify their candidate with Western Civilization, which is synonymous with Jesus, who is Good incarnate, they imply (and sometimes explicitly state) that Kerry is the Great Satan. He may very well be. But not for the reasons they suggest.

Maybe we don't see much of this living in New York City (thank God). :)

But believe me, it's out there. It's all over the country, especially in religious right-heavy states in the midwest and south. And if you look at former contests in which Bush was involved, going all the way back to his Texas campaigns for governor, the filthy gay baiting has been part of their schtick for years. Only in the waning days of the campaign, his religious base fully secure, did Bush attempt to appeal to a few more moderate voters in "swing states" with his suggestion that such states might gaze positively upon gay civil unions.

Tonight is going to be very interesting. A few of those swing states have anti-gay ballot questions being decided, which is sure to attract a larger proportion of God-fearing conservatives. It remains to be seen if they will have a decisive effect on the national vote.

Either way, quite honestly, I do not believe it will make much of a difference in terms of policy. The policies that I've criticized are now institutionalized.

Post 14

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 9:52am

"I take it [Saddam's Succours] to mean those who oppose the invasion of Iraq, not because they have a better alternative, but because they don't think it's morally right."

What about those of us who believe that removing Saddam Hussein's regime to was morally right in itself, but that our president manipulated the public and the record in regard to the context and rationale, and that the subsequent occupation has been conducted with little respect for liberty, with corruption, with irresponsibly vague war aims that lead easily to cooptation by genuine imperialists, and with a disastrous political clumsiness?

What about those who do not think past American errors demand American inaction, but that precisely because America's past evils in foreign policy, such as worldwide support for dictators including Sadaam Hussein and the precursors of the Taliban, are very serious, that such policies should be openly acknowledged, before the world, as in error and abandoned on principle, and subsequent intervention in other nations must to be clearly dissociated from a very unpretty historical record?

What about those of us who do not hate America in terms of its Enlightenment, individualistic, classical liberal, or industrial heritage, but do not love America in its Christian zealotry, anti-intellectualism, suspicion of pleasure and the body, anti-aestheticism, or manifest destiny. What about those of us who fear an America dominated by the latter cultural forces enough to distrust rousing up cultural nationalism support of war? What about those who see the hopes of the second America to capture the mantle and mandate of the nation as riding on the Bush candidacy, and who do not dare cede a culture war to- I speak as a bisexual transgender escort, among other things- a cultural right consisting of people who are simply lethal enemies?

What about those of us who do not doubt Islamists would hate America under any context, but America, by giving additional, quite plausible reasons for hatred of itself in its interventionist foreign policy, and gained those who hate American modernity the support of an immense number of Muslims who primarily hate American mercantilism?

What about those of us who fear a country united behind the 'us' of America will find it violence upon any 'them'... and who know that they will be one of those 'thems' and that supporting a united American nationalism is supporting their own destruction?

What about those of us for whom taxation and social security are lesser and nonimmediate threats... but for whom a regime of increased censorship, violations of privacy-rights, police discretionary powers, pornography prosecutions, anti-abortion, state-supported religion, and vigorous anti-drug enforcement is an immediate and personal one?... for it would not take much shift in the attitudes of this world to legally destroy the culture of personal freedom that has given me back a love of life.

I refuse to treat those rights which matter to my life as secondary to the economic freedoms and of more immediate value to others. For that reason, having heard that California is not as solidly anti-Bush as I had thought, I will be holding my nose and voting for John Kerry, in defense of the Free Republic of San Francisco which, and not the United States, is my America.

I simply cannot afford to do otherwise.

regards,

Jeanine Ring ))(*)((
stand forth!

Post 15

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 10:34am

First, I want to apologize to Chris Sciabarra for bringing all this muck up in his name. I am deeply influenced by his work, and his passion, and knowing the amount of vitriol hurled at him in the past for that work, felt obliged to defend him against what I considered an over-the-top dehumanization. But my defense of him, and anyone else wrongly lumped in with with claims of "Saddamism", still stands. He has done so much, and is one of the few reasons why I hold out hope for proof that Objectivism is not the authoritarian apocalyptic religious cult that it is portrayed to be, which is pretty ironic, since he is not an Objectivist.
Second,
I am not aware of the full context of the relationship between Chris and Linz. I was not also aware that there were levels of 'Saddamism" in Lindsey Perigo's viewpoint. But I have seen his other viewpoints, and I fail to find the subtlety in his opinions. I did see Linz call Chris a "saddamite," however, on several occasions. So when I see the term Saddamite equated with "maggot," I may have reified a bit. But then again, when the weapon of choice is a sledgehammer... I was defending a human being, as well as anyone else who may be lumped in unfairly. I was attacking not opinions or policy but lack of civility. These are not terrorists we're calling maggots, they are friends and family.

When Rand talked about not associating with those of fundamental opposing viewpoints, I originally took it to heart, and broke off many friendships and relationships. (I was a 'teenage' Randian.) This is not unique to Objectivism, Jesus is said to ask his followers to leave behind family and friends, and Cassius Clay left his wife when he became Mohammed Ali and she wouldn't. When Barbara wrote in her bio that Rand didn't understand Barbara's appreciation of a colleague or professor of hers, I thought that Rand was right to do so. Years later, after meeting many people of different persuasion, many of whom I do not agree with,(but still found much value in) I understand what Barbara meant. So I can understand that you, Lindsey, really can appreciate Chris while disagreeing with his foreign policy beliefs. And I applaud you for at least trying to break down another "false dichotomy" of friend and opponent. But at some point, I think every friendship with roots in opposition will be tried to its breaking point, and like North and South, blue and grey, brother will be pitted against brother. The trickster will see to that.

I do think that Rand has a legitimate point, say, if a Christian falls in love with an atheist, yet believes that said atheist is going to hell. Not a healthy relationship. You call someone a Saddamite continually, and why should that person feel anything but suspicious and distrustful of your motives? And why should anyone observing this feel anything otherwise? You claim that this is a "sense of life" objectivist site, devoted to what might and could be (or should that be "ought to be, according to Mr. Perigo?). And I have seen and heard some great art, music, debate, and passion for life. But I have also seen such expression shot down by your snide comments and sadistic manner of disapproval. It seems you can't even express your approval of your own passions without throwing out some vitriol towards things you don't like when you know that those who do like those things are reading. Which is a shame, because you do have a lot of good to say, yet you insist on turning your passions into a platform to express your hate. Which makes me wonder about your true sense of life.

Malcolm X wrote that his mentor taught him, in his activism, that you can yell at people for drinking from a dirty glass, or live by example and drink from a clean glass. Malcolm understood, yet claimed it was too much against his nature to do the latter. Saint Patrick, instead of initiating a crusade to rid Ireland of paganism, took a different approach and offered Christianity to Ireland, to great effect. Lindsey, I appeal to the best within you. You have a lot to offer, I've read your work on Lanza, and feel much more inclined to listen when you are celebrating life instead of attacking people. You have a passion for life that is inspiring, don't let it go.
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 11/02, 11:44am)

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 11/02, 11:45am)

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 11/02, 9:11pm)

Post 16

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 11:20am

2 things.

Linz makes a crucial point in taking a stand against what he sees as Matthew's appeasement. Appeasement will get us killed. Placing the tantrum to the side for a second, isn't that an essential point? If Linz is right, think of the favor, yes favor, he is trying to do for Matthew. He's trying to save his life.

Your mistake Linz was in saying "Fuck off" and throwing a tantrum. The effect was that of a very small child laying claim to his sandbox. That attitude creates an impossible dynamic because the next time Matthew considers posting he will be bogged down with worry. He'll have to think, "Now how might Linz explode about this?" This, in addition to the already considerable weight of trying to work through philosophical problems, is an unnecessary burden that makes Matthew's life harder.

There is a better way. My way is to express disappointment and harsh, scorch-the-earth language (short of "Fuck off" almost always) while always maintaining respect for and trust in the mind of the other person. I learned this technique through teaching. If a 13 year old boy looks up to you and you tell him to "Fuck off!" without demonstrating respect for his mind you will likely do serious damage to the kid. Matthew isn't 13 but he is entitled to the same respect.

Post 17

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 11:38am

Jeanine wrote: For that reason, having heard that California is not as solidly anti-Bush as I had thought, I will be holding my nose and voting for John Kerry, in defense of the Free Republic of San Francisco which, and not the United States, is my America.

Free Republic of San Francisco? Is that a joke? I cannot call any city in the People's Republic of California a Free Republic! What about Nevada or New Hampshire?

Post 18

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 11:39am

Note: I deleted this post because I accidentally posted the prior post twice.

(Edited by Byron Garcia on 11/02, 11:40am)

Post 19

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 12:31pm