RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : The Matter Of Matt

Tuesday
November 2, 2004

The Matter Of Matt by Lindsay Perigo

Most of the time I have kept quiet, in the interests of free & open discussion, which is part of Objectivism as it might be and ought to be. Occasionally I have exploded - & then the issue has become ... not appeasement, not Saddamism, not the filth that is Islam, not the mass torture/murder that Osama/Saddam want to install in place of everything we hold dear ... none of those things ... the issue has become: Linz hurt someone's feelings. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (101 messages)

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 2:04pm

Scott: “It especially irks me how 'the class' slumps down in their chairs and goes silent in the face of hurricane Perigo.”

I had composed a reply, but at the last minute stayed my hand. I hope I did so out of prudence, a desire not to inflame the situation or meddle in matters not my concern, rather than fear of the consequences.

After all, I rationalised, Perigo’s having another fit, it’s pointless remonstrating with him while he’s in that state of mind. But it is to our shame that – Barbara excepted -- we were silent in the face of some nasty bullying.

Lindsay’s rationale for his behaviour is that 1) He feels strongly about the war in Iraq; and 2) He “owns” SOLO.

The first argument is specious --- many people have strong views about Iraq. Lindsay has taken advantage of this to indulge in a particularly nasty form of argument from intimidation: agree with me, or be a fucking arsehole!

The second argument is also specious, unless one believes that ownership confers rights without responsibilities. In any case, what does ownership in this case actually entail? Presumably, it includes the domain name, design features and the introductory content (although probably not the “location” in cyberspace.) But it’s not clear whether ownership to the extensive submitted content, whether articles or individual posts. It would be more true to say that ownership of the site confers “fair use” -- as per the disclaimer – of this material.

Furthermore, ownership is not an absolute. There exist controls external to SOLO, such as prohibitions on child pornography and other illegal activities. So the ownership aspect is neither straightforward nor a green light for any type of behaviour.

Brendan

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 2:36pm

Chris and Rick, thanks for the kind mention. Rick, as always, I enjoyed your posts.

Jonathan Barret talks about venom, and in a particularly venomous way. And Scott DeSalvo complains Lindsay is an "Asshole" because he calls people names? I'm curious what the principle is here. Is it just the owner of the site who's not allowed to be rude? Or is it the owner, because he's in a position of power, the only one acceptable to insult that way? I've asked it before. Are the only people constrained in their actions the ones that own the site?

Or is it okay to be rude in response to someone who's rude? From my reading of the event, MH got upset with Lindsay slandering people (scumbag anarchists) because he thought it applied to him or his friends. Lindsay calmly, politely, explained why that wasn't the case, and bent over backwards to explain, once again, what he meant by the term, as well as who he was referring to in this instance. The perfect kind of response, and considering MH was attacking him publically (and he does it often), it was exceptionally civilized. MH's answer to that was essentially that he didn't believe Lindsay, Lindsay is jerk, Lindsay's full of shit, Lindsay's not rational, Lindsay isn't loyal to his friends, and Lindsay's attitude is sickening. What's the proper response when someone attacks you publically? What about when you try to politely argue with that person, and he continues to attack?

Am I the only one who thought MH was picking a fight? Am I the only one who appreciated Lindsay's civility when he tried to peacefully end it without making it a fight? And am I the only one who thought MH's response to that civility was once again picking a fight? I'm hearing a lot of talk about Lindsay's behavior, but nothing about MH. Is this another example of Rallying to the Underdog? Or do they all think that MH was in the right? No complaints about picking a public fight? No complaints about refusing a peaceful response?

I am amused by the insults in the name of civility though. Barbara I thought did a reasonable job of disagreeing with Lindsay without being venomous herself (one could argue with her conclusion, but at least she practices what she preaches). But these other attacks are so full of venom, it makes their content laughable.

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 5:50am

Truly disgusting.
I used to admire Lindsey. He used to be rational and pleasant. Yes he spoke with passion but never with malice.

I myself have been branded a Saddamite and have answered the questions Lindsey says have not been answered. Lets take them one by one.

1.Yes a free country has the right to free a slave pen. Firstly there is no free country, not by a long shot. And if there were, it would not have the right to kill the slaves, not one.

2. Before unleashing the dogs of war, I think we should expect a little more than a hunch, guess or frankly a complete lie. Far to many are dead and more to come to expect such a miserable pretext for war. Using this argument means the US must invade Iran, N Korea, China, Syria and at least half a dozen more countries.

3. This idea that Islam is all about destroying western 'civilisation' is complete propaganda. Firstly their miserable culture could not develop the economy to perform such a feat. Secondly we should remember who is attacking who and who has been meddling in who's affairs for the past 100 yrs. I think they could be forgiven for thinking that we are wanting to destroy their way of life.

4. Clearly the US is not paralysed by its miserable past history of 'mistakes'. I wish it were.

5. The comparison with WW2/ Hitler is common amongst the war lobby. It is false comparison for a number of reasons I won't go into here. Remember also that Britain declared war on Germany when it was in no shape to conduct a war. Many were lost in this haste for war. Poland and the rest of eastern Europe were handed over to tyrany anyway at wars end. Britains entry into WW2 was all about politics and political careers as usual.

It seems to me that when it comes to war Lindsey is rather turned on. He is able to see that the state is evil on most matters. But the biggest evil of all. The mass murder of statist war seems to excite him and other armchair generals who otherwise describe themselves as libertarians. That is what pisses me off.

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 3:39pm

If Perigo occasionally went off the handle and spewed forth insult posts, with most of his posts being civilized and well reasonsed, I would ignore it. But, as it stands, it seems that his forum contributions consist far more of insulting and bullying than of any actual argument. I can't remember the last time I heard perigo debate someone in a civilized matter instead of throwing obscenities at them. I can't remember the last time Perigo told someone he disagreed with them without resorting to name calling, personal insults, ad hominem statements, and worse.

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 3:50pm

Joe Rowlands said:

>> Jonathan Barret talks about venom, and in a particularly venomous way.

Huh?? Read the post, Joe! (#2 of this thread). There was nothing at all venomous about it. Did I call Lindsay a creep? No. Did I tell him to fuck off? No.

Joe, I find your rationalisation of Lindsay's clearly indefensible behaviour towards Matthew bizarre. Even Lindsay himself has admitted he was in the wrong, notwithstanding that he has not bothered to personally apologise to Matthew.

I have to say I've enjoyed my time visiting and posting to this site, but don't see myself sticking around much longer. The lack of any general recognition by people here that what happened the other day was just plain wrong tells me I'm in the wrong place. I really value the opinions and arguments of people such as yourself, Barbara Branden and (yes!) Lindsay Perigo, but I just can't feel comfortable in the presence of such animalistic behaviour in what should be a rational debate.

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 3:51pm

Joe Rowlands said:

>> Jonathan Barret talks about venom, and in a particularly venomous way.

Huh?? Read the post, Joe! (#2 of this thread). There was nothing at all venomous about it. Did I call Lindsay a creep? No. Did I tell him to fuck off? No.

Joe, I find your rationalisation of Lindsay's clearly indefensible behaviour towards Matthew bizarre. Even Lindsay himself has admitted he was in the wrong, notwithstanding that he has not bothered to personally apologise to Matthew.

I have to say I've enjoyed my time visiting and posting to this site, but don't see myself sticking around much longer. The lack of any general recognition by people here that what happened the other day was just plain wrong tells me I'm in the wrong place. I really value the opinions and arguments of people such as yourself, Barbara Branden and (yes!) Lindsay Perigo, but I just can't feel comfortable in the presence of such animalistic behaviour in what should be a rational debate.

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 3:57pm

Apologies for inadvertent double post. Tried to delete but got an 'Internal Server Error'. Admin, please feel free to delete second post.

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 4:06pm

For mine, I can't remember the last time I found one of Robert Bisno's contributions valuable.

Number Six etc: Anyway regarding the many comments regarding war, might I ask people to reflect on a point made by George Reisman. Discussing Rothbard's anarchism - which Reisman accurately held was essentially an anti-government position rather than a pro-liberty one (a distinction that has most recently driven a wedge through the libertarian movement) - Reisman observed that Rothbard backed himself into a corner as to how an anarchist society might supply a credible defence force to counter external threats.

Recognising that an anarchist society could not provide such a credible force, Reisman pointed out that Rothbard's own rationalism that then led him to claim, first, that there were no external threats to the US and, second, that what looked like a clear threat - ie., the Soviet Union - was in fact "devoted to peace."

I'd suggest a strong smack of Rothbard's rationalism is still extant not just at Rockwell.com and with their fellow travellors, but in most (note I say most) anti-war arguments (I should say rants) that have appeared here at SOLO. And so it continues.

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 4:15pm

This thread reminds me of a Byelorussian farce that gave the languages of the neighboring countries the phrase, "Y draka budyet." A peasant invites his best friends to a party: "Come, I will break open a barrel of strong moonshine. We will get drunk, take off our shirts and have a knife fight ("... y draka budyet") Everyone will have a chance at an honest stab wound...."

Now, I don't mind an honest knife fight. I agreed with deposing Saddam, and only disagreed with supporting those of Bush's decisions that favor the interests of the Saudi theocrats, and with Bush's betrayal of Americanism and of America to the interests of the Royal Saudi Cesspool. But even an honest knife fight has a rule: you can stab back if you want to. Mostly, I've been too lazy - or not drunk enough - to respond in kind to Linz' taunts. But I understood that if I decided on repartee, I'd be free to give as good as I got.

So here is a question for Linz: If I were to follow Matt's example, and really give as good as I got, would I, too, get told to "fuck off" and "go?" It's your party, Linz, and you can cry if you want to.

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 4:18pm

Joe: “Am I the only one who appreciated Lindsay's civility when he tried to peacefully end it without making it a fight?”

From my reading of the exchange, a couple of posters challenged Lindsay on the use of certain terms, including “Saddamite”, to describe those opposed to the invasion of Iraq. If disagreement – even forceful disagreement – is provocation, then I guess the posts were provocative.

But this is to miss the central point, which is the use of a general term to smear one’s opponents. The targets are left deliberately unidentified, because the aim is to cower all opposition.

Sadly, as history has shown, the tactic works – Lindsay has everyone dancing to his tune as they scramble to escape the smear, swearing their undying love for America and their hatred for those dirty slimy Islamo-fascist scumsucking arseholes and the maggots who succour them.

Then Lindsay tells Matthew he is exempt from the label. Whew! Holy fucking benevolence! He’s OK, he’s one of US!

Trying to deal with the Saddamite smear on its own terms is doomed to failure because the smear is not a form of reasoned argument. It’s a form of bullying, and the only way to deal with bullying is to see it for what it is and reject it.

Brendan.

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 4:49pm

" I can't remember the last time I found one of Robert Bisno's contributions valuable."

Thanks, Peter. I love you too.

"I'd suggest a strong smack of Rothbard's rationalism is still extant not just at Rockwell.com and with their fellow travellors, but in most (note I say most) anti-war arguments (I should say rants) that have appeared here at SOLO. And so it continues."

I'm skeptical. I would say it's a combination of unrejected leftist anti american arguments that residually remain within many objectivists on one hand, and on the other the fact that saddam's threat value was laughable and that there are several more pertinent targets to pick.

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 6:19pm

Oh, what's the point? If Joe R. ~really~ cannot see the point I was trying to make, no amount of rebuttal is going to make any difference. Why piss into the wind? Frankly, I think it borders on evasion. Let me just add that I assume that if Linz uses the word asshole towards me or vice versa, we take it with a grain of salt, because of context--and anyone who does not believe that he occasionally acts like an asshole has proven himself to be one.

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 7:14pm

Peter - you *are* a gruff bloke aren't you? :-)

We may disagree on the matter of Iraq, but it's a bloody good thing the Libertarianz have people of your calibre & wisdom.

One of the things that bothers me about public perception of the Libertarian movement in general is that it's often equated with anarchism, and many of those calling themselves Libertarians are in fact anarchists, & have no claim to the title - because in fact, anarchism is anathema to individual liberty.

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 8:00pm

Joe, you asked: "Or is it okay to be rude in response to someone who's rude?"

I think so. One might not choose it, but it is a legitimate choice.

You asked: "Am I the only one who thought MH was picking a
fight?"

I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't think he was picking a fight. I thought he'd been pushed to his limit by the insults he had been subject to.

Barbara

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 6:36am

L.Perigo "ownes" this site. If you dont like his vituperitive, foul mouthed slandering of anyone who dares to disagree with him him, the answer is obvious - dont post here. If you - like myself - find his viscious disgusting manner offensive, if you are sickened by this so called "sense of life" (to paraphrase another poster - it sure as hell aint mine) - then leave the site and go elsewhere, as I have. If you are beyond the first year uni student level of so called debate on this forum, and yearn for adult Objectivism, it's there, you can find it. Its called, www.theautonomist. give it a go.It sure suits MY sense of life.
CASS

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 9:49am

Lindsay owns this site; it's his baby... He can -- and will -- do as he pleases with it.

If he so chooses, he can call it one thing and then decide to make it about something else entirely. He can be a saint or a tyrant; he can expand it as a haven of rational exchange, or drive it straight into the ground like a kamikaze pilot.

The man can choose at any given moment to be Mister Spock or Caligula. It's his choice, and the universe will always select for the best practice to continue onward; this will happen whether or not Lindsay Perigo chooses to -- or even can -- surf that process wave.

In the meantime, I am aware of all this, and after an informal evaluation, I still conclude that the benefits I get from this site significantly outweigh the costs of occasional discomfort.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 11/03, 9:58am)

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 9:55am

To paraphrase Tolkien, this servant of the Enemy looks fairer and feels fouler.

I have my own reservations about the customs here, but I do not feel it is now my station to criticize. But Reginald Firehammer, whatever his claims to injustice, has crossed the line of any moral equivalence by taking one of the few intellectual stances I cannot tolerate; the abuse of philosophy to justify the moral intuitions of a dogmatic patriarch coupled with a disingenious bad faith claim to neutral reason for the purpose of gaining the intellectual sanction of those whose existence irrationally discomforts him. I can pardon quite a bit, but not, unatoned, dragging others down in their beautiful passions solely by their desire to live a philosophic life. Msr. Firehammer is rationalizing together arguments with a minimum level of engagement but the maximum degree of the sewing of intellectual self-doubt by claiming directly upon the name of the best within his enemies. He uses arguments that no one in pursuit of happiness could believe, but an Objectivist uncertain of her or his life under Objectivism's historically poor hospitality would feel duty-bound to fulfill or collapse in a death of self-esteem.

These are old tricks, employed by patriarchal religions and their imitators for ten thousand years, and all ride on the same illusion; the raising of the means of one's defense and structure in life to a monster devouring life itself, forgetting that intellectual order rightly accompanies of life's happiness and does not master it. He makes moral scales and intoning wraths of virtues to draw eyes away from their own happiness for the purposes of ruling them. Or rather, this is what he would do if he had the confidence; as it is, he merely seeks his selfhood's surety in a retreat to an insular throne where a hall of emotional self sufficiency can approve that all who enter his doors do so in respect of his moral universal order. He desires not to convert the world (he has not the power), but to have the philosophic basis for his intolerance respected so that he can respect his own fears and hatreds.

A minor evil? But such retreats are where the reign of evil begins.

Reginald Firehammer, divest his name, is a priest seeking to the moral sanction of others while calling for their inferiority; which means, he will allow immorality to exist, but as sewers and behind closed doors. Or at least he wishes to retain his private property universe to mimic those conditions.

This is the morality of a master seeking a 'house negro'.

That is a rape of philosophy and a violence upon the unbroken young.

I have read your postings on his forum; let passing time express whether you are guilty of the same. Tell Firehammer for me his tricks do not fool everyone and he will eat himself alive keeping his pretension of a philosophic honour.

nominally,

Shiris
Jeanine )(*)( Ring
"...I look at the fires of hatred/burning on the bounty of this beautiful land..."
- Indigo Girls, from "Shaming of the Sun"

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 10:26am

Cass, I do not begin to understand how you can take Regi Firehammer seriously. This is a man who insists that there is no such thing as the subconscious, no such thing as repression, that they are "mystical nonsense" -- this is a man who insists that he figured out what heterosexual sex is deductively, after which he felt desire -- this is a man who is sufficiently paranoid to say that he was deliberately lured by Lindsay and by me into making himself objectionable -- this is a man who fills up his web site by infringing the copyrights of a great many writers, whom he calls "his" writers -- and so on and so on.

Is this what you call "Adult Objectivism?"

Barbara

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 11:16am

Though I happen to disagree with Mr. Firehammer on the issue of homosexuality, I take what he has to say seriously. He not only argues his positions eloquently, he actually argues his positions, as opposed to spouting unqualified assertions. That is more than some who post on this site can say. Furthermore, he argues his positions from Objectivist principles, even if sometimes some may disagree with his conclusions. When arguing against someone, he goes to the heart of the other person's premises, as opposed to ad hominem attacks.

He could be wrong about homosexuality. He could be wrong about the unconscious, subconscious, and repression (how very Freudian). But it is wrong to reject his arguments by claiming that it is self-evident that it is wrong. None of the above are axioms, or self-evident truths. It is even more wrong to argue along the lines of "Regi is a (insert ad hominem here) . . . or believed (insert unsound idea here) . . . or believed something that only a (insert ad hominem here) can believe . . . and therefore he has to be wrong about (insert any idea of Regi')." That is an invalid argument. Objectivism should be a philosophy of objectivity, and should be held to higher standards of reasoning than that.

One thing I can say about posting at "The Autonomist" is that what I have to say will be treated with respect and dignity, even if I disagree with the majority.

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 1:02pm

Byron, you wrote: "But it is wrong to reject his [Regi's} arguments by claiming that it is self-evident that it is wrong."

That's not what I did. When we discussed the issues of the
subconscious, etc., on Solo, I gave my reasons for disagreeing with him. Here, I was simply reminding Cass of material she had read.

Barbara