About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Post 60

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 10:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz,

I have fond memories of those times too. I am working on getting Lady Caroline to post here.

Even the Affair of the Missing Dinner Guest at Bishop's Restaurant ultimately had a happy ending. For one thing, the lady in question happened to meet Joan Kennedy Taylor in the lobby while waiting for us and had dinner with her. For another, this year in Schenectady the Enrights, Jordan Zimmerman, a bunch of students and I went out for dinner to a Thai place and I was able to pick up Madeleine's check, with apologies for missing her last year. So all was well in the end.

Then a few nights later Madeleine gave a great talk called "Dagny Shoots and Flies" in which she recounted her experiences surviving the Holocaust, learning to fly a plane as a child, and learning to shoot a gun. She pointed out that shooting and flying are both important survival skills that are possessed by all of the heroes of _Atlas Shrugged_. Then that same evening I showed _Veer-Zaara_, perhaps the most beautiful movie ever filmed, and Madeleine found it very moving.


-Bill

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 61

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 6:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz,

Thanks for the welcome aboard.

After a weekend of indulgence I had another thought (not entirely original to me).  This mania for abstaining from drink, smoking, and red meat is the resurgence of an ancient virus in American culture, Puritanism.  I wonder if Objectivists who embrace this self-denial miss the neo-Puritanism in it, because their abstinence is not in service to a god but to the self.

But what kind of self refuses the pleasures of the flesh?  I know there are good medical reasons for some people to do so, but we're not talking about that.  It's the self-deprivation of the masochist, made all the more obnoxious because of its sanctimony.  It's that moralizing sanctimony that gives these neo-Puritans the gall to nose in on the private affairs of others and dictate how they should live their lives.

Andy


Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 62

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 9:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
[ I should have posted this here, not on the 'drooling beast' list, where David's post appears as #118 ]

"invective and counter-invective...There would have to be greater respect not only for civility and substance but also for those who wish for civility and substance...The problem is failure to consult common sense, which dictates that the outer limits of propriety are neither infinitely elastic nor utterly incapable of being perceived...Judgments about unknown private conduct are not necessary to make judgments about the propriety of observable public conduct." [David M. Brown]

David captures well the nature of the problems at SOLO.

It's not about heroically being true to yourself and your vigorous self-expression in fighting the bad guys.

It's about fighting the good guys.

Lindsay and others: You don't seem to get the seriousness of this. What should give you pause is ***who is on the list*** of the people who have left or who are still hanging on but have made similar complaints or who have politely posted on the urgent need for civility.

It almost exactly a list of the best writers or more successful or influential people in the movement and/or the people who were the most thoughtful, interesting, and informed participants on Solo. They are ninety percent of the people I came to the website to read.

In alphabetical order, just from the last few months:

Robert Bidinotto
Barbara Branden
David M. Brown
Julian Dixon
Ed Hudgins
Jennifer Iannolo
James Kilbourne
Kelly Elmore

(I'll add myself.)

Lindsay, Joe, and others:

You are free to allow yourself a freewheeling, personal attack laden, unmoderated site. By all means go ahead if that is the kind of exchange you enjoy or which fits your personal style.

(Or your idea about how Objectivism needs to spread).

But you are -not- free to succeed with it long-term - insofar as its ultimately growing, attracting the right people, and becoming influential are concerned. People in general don't find this sort of barroom brawl thing entertaining or enjoyable for very long, especially after they get "slimed", which will happen sooner or later. They don't like the heat and they don't like to reside in a kitchen.

How many more people need to leave or become inactive for you to grasp (or at least more consistently enact) the civility principle?

You've seen the smoke and people jumping from the building. Isn't it getting close to time to locate the fire extinguishers?

This is pretty close to the end of the discussion as far as I'm concerned. I've posted on this too many times already.


Philip Coates

[ PS, Lindsay, don't keep making this about you, as you tended in 'the boy's not for turning': It's not. You are far from the worst offender in incivility, and if you like to drink, so what? In fact, sometimes (not always) what you do is clearly occasional, clever, humorous, over the top, or hyperbolic...or retracted. But, as just one problem, you are imitated - clumsily and offensively and disruptively by LWBTIEs - Lindsay WannaBe Trolls, Insulters, and Emotionalists...sort of the Objectivist equivalent of gypsys, tramps, and thieves. ]

Post 63

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 12:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil,

Julian Dixon.

LOL. Can't you get his name right?


Post 64

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 12:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks Marcus, thought I was the only one who caught that... either that or talking about someone before my time here.

---Landon


Post 65

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 12:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil–someone pretending to be you is presenting as a prig & a bore & a cracked record. I think you should track down & expose this imposter before he damages your reputation irreparably. You should also draw his attention to the passage in Turning that begins:

The most tiresomely predictable thing that happens during any of these commotions is that sundry sanctimonious tut-tutters flutter down from their lofty heights, well above any suggestion of a fray, and unctuate about how terrible it is that folk are squabbling, and that there is—horreurs!—acrimony on the board. This, they assure us, spells the end of SOLO and the collapse of the cosmos. These paragons reprise their usual routine of how there must be stricter censorship, more excommunications, etc. ..."

... & to the quotes from Andrew Bissell & Joe Rowlands that follow.

Andy–you ask:

What kind of self refuses the pleasures of the flesh?  I know there are good medical reasons for some people to do so, but we're not talking about that.  It's the self-deprivation of the masochist, made all the more obnoxious because of its sanctimony.  It's that moralizing sanctimony that gives these neo-Puritans the gall to nose in on the private affairs of others and dictate how they should live their lives.

A very good question, which I've raised many times myself. Maybe among Objectivist neo-Puritans there's such an obsession with avoiding the "hedonist" label that they turn themselves into self-mortifiers. Maybe they're absorbing it from the confessional culture that is poisoning contemporary America. Maybe it's a sign of Christianity's lingering grip. Maybe it's entirely their own work. Maybe this should be the subject of your debut article, Andy! :-) Whatever, whenever these sanctimonious twats come after me, they're gonna get fried.

Linz

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 66

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 1:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nice to see you again, Bill! That was indeed a fine time in Vancouver. If it wasn't for that, I would have never been introduced to the grand place that is SOLO. On the flip side, I've hardly heard from you or Caroline since. I do hope to see you possibly at a future SOLOC or TOC conference.

I learned a lot of things from that experience. I had previously imagined New Zealanders to be a rowdy, garrulous, emotional bunch. And then, lo and behold, I meet a kiwi who is peculiarly calm, gentle and reserved. I liked the guy, too, I just wished he could learn to express himself a little more. Cultural, I guess.

Good luck in bringing Caroline here. The idea of participating in any sort of online "group" was anathema to me then, and it is anathema to me now, which makes SOLO all the more exceptional. Sure, it catches a bad flu now and then, but overall it's special enough to be attractive to a person like me, who is allergic to the class. Be sure to point this out to Caroline if she has any similar reservations about joining online groups.

Alec


Post 67

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 5:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Julian Dixon. LOL. Can't you get his name right?" [Marcus]

Damn. I knew it started with a J.

Jonathan Dixon.

Jose?

Post 68

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 5:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason.  Wow guess you were a huge fan.

---Landon


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 69

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 6:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It was a joke, Landon.

Just this sort of snide 'gotcha' or clever one-liner intended as a put down of other Objectivists rather than substantive engagement is what's wrong with Solo.

Post 70

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 6:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Internet sarcasm... dontcha love it?

Understood and withdrawn.

---Landon



Post 71

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 7:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason Dixon? Ah yes, Jennifer's basil sniffer who doesn't get the sniffing of basil.

Post 72

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 7:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What does that even mean Robert?

Post 73

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 7:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You don't read the Gastronomic Meditations?  The latest issue deals with sniffing basil, in regards with using with tomatoes.

Post 74

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 8:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Not being a fan of tomatoe sauce, I skipped that installment. But I do admire Jason's exploration of the culinary arts. I hear he's doing fine with it, as well. :)

Post 75

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 6:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I think the entire SOLO Forum deserve a sincere and fulsome apology. I have seen Italian television and can confirm that no Italian should be considered a comedian."

Well, not ~intentionally~...

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 76

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 10:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
--response to the principals about solo and civility--

Lindsay Perigo, Joe Rowlands, and Andrew Bissell, I am going to try one more time to explain this to the three of you (and to many other Soloists who seem to agree with you).

I'm going to pick apart your mistakes:

" to have an appointed vanguard comb threads for posts that violate some necessarily-vague definition of acrimony would be to treat posters like children " [Andrew - on the idea of moderating for civility]

"prissy prattlings demanding stricter censorship." [Linz]

These quotes use emotionally slanted language instead of argument. This is a bad habit that many Soloists get into, imitating other posters and adopting their style and that of many internet discussion lists. These lists are not the place to learn to think and write. You can't argue for something just by using adjectives with negative connotations: you have to present an argument, evidence, a syllogism. Linz and Andrew, both of you are committing a logically fallacy. You learn about it in critical thinking books or in logic classes. "Whenever a person attempts to make a point, get a view accepted, not by presenting cogent reasons, but by arousing the gut emotions of the audience, we havea grandstand appeal or the fallacy of grandstanding." [Thinking Logically, Freeman, p. 69]. In the quotes above, it is done by using slanted or loaded language or colorful rhetoric instead of making a detailed, serious argument.

The second quote, translated into simple fact, would be as follows: "multiple posts suggesting stricter moderation". The word "censorship" applies to cases of violating someone's freedom, not to rules set for the use of one's property.

The first quote, translated into fair lanaguage? The elitist-sounding "appointed vanguard" becomes "an editor or moderator". "Comb threads" might become "occasionally warn or reject". "necessarily-vague definition of acrimony" is unfair on two counts. First, you use a vague term like 'acrimony' which is a straw man. The complaint of people turned off by the food fights on Solo (and in Objectivism going back to the Branden split, the Peikoff-Kelley schism, and numerous fallings out) is not that there is anger or bad feelings, but in how it is expressed, how the angriest and loudest people are allowed to take over, how it becomes a constant theme and hijacks discussion and threads, how it involves psychologizing or character assassination rather than simple factual disagreement. Finally, "treat posters like children" translated into what is actually being requested would be "insist that participants on our forum behave in an overall civil manner".

If you do "slanted" writing for a non-Objectivist audience on a serious topic it will make you seem like you're not very smart or careful or fair. You will come across like a redneck or a used car salesman. It will close many doors to you intellectually. It may prevent you from getting published in the most influential magazines, journals, newsletters, or getting a book publisher. So this kind of "cleverness" is not a habit to automatize on Solo or on internet boards in general.

"How terrible it is that folk are squabbling, and that there is-horreurs!-acrimony on the board." [Linz]

Linz, again, this is slanted and unfair language. The basic problem that Robert Bidinotto, David M. Brown, myself and others are complaining about is not "squabbling" but how it is expressed and the extremes to which it is allowed to progress.

"Not everyone is going to be happy...There will be people who don't like someone's writing style. There will always be complaints." [Joe]

Joe, writing "style" is not the issue in general but something more specific. The fact that people make many complaints and you may be tired of hearing them doesn't mean that -sometimes- they are well-founded and you should learn from them and take them seriously.

"We should promote self-governance by the participants. It's preferable for the people actually participating to work out any issues themselves...You can see this in action all the time. When someone is unjust in attacking another person, other participants come to the defense." [Joe]

Funny, I hadn't noticed things being worked out and resolved a lot. What I see most frequently is that the disagreements simply continue, spread, and escalate. And this is fueled by personal attacks, name calling, questioning of intelligence and impugning of character. Which spreads onto other threads. And drowns out or drives most of the more intelligent posters away.

[continued in next post]

Philip Coates
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 8/23, 10:48am)


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 77

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 10:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"When someone is boring and long-winded, people mention it to them or just stop responding to them. If a thread is going off-course, participants take it to a new and dedicated thread, or ask that others do." [Joe]

Again, I don't see that very much lately. What seems more and more the case to me, Joe, is that people always seem to respond to the lowest common denominator posts and comments instead of everyone ignoring them. And the bitter feelings and side issues linger. Heat replaces light. Your posting and writing style, Joe, is actually a good example to follow. You make an argument based on facts and reason and evidence, so I bother to read you carefully, even when I don't always agree.

Four quotes in a row [from "the Boy is not for Turning"] on the need for anger and against being mealy-mouthed:

" idealists are prone to anger when their ideals are affronted...Theses days, it is very "uncool" indeed to get angry, just as it is to hold the strong convictions that might lead to anger...Show me the man without anger & I’ll show you a man without conviction. Show me the man without anger & I’ll show you a jellyfish." [Linz]

" They had heard, over & over again, mealy-mouthed speakers afraid to take a position-or suggesting that there were always two sides to a question-or that nothing is black & white. To have been subjected to these attitudes from childhood on up, & then to hear Ayn Rand take a firm position & defend it with conviction-this was cause for cheering. The audience response was not only to the content of her ideas, but to the manner of expressing them. " [Charles Sures]

"people didn’t do us any favours by urging us to suppress, to live like glazed, non-reacting creatures." [Mary Ann Sures]

"Civility in the face of evil is no virtue; rage in the face of nihilism is no vice....wilful, filthy irrationalities will continue to incur [my] wrath...I will not let my fire go out " [Linz]

What is bad about with these four quotes is not that they are wrong. I agree with all of them. But I seldom find that Objectivists have a problem with not saying what is on their mind or expressing anger or being silent in the face of injustice. Moreover, they are a straw man. They are off the subject here. The criticism of Rand is not her expressing her emotion, not her passionate valuing but that -sometimes- when Rand got angry she was unfair. She got angry at struggling, honest students, at innocent people. I'm glad "willful, filthy irrationalities will continue to incur" the wrath of you and other Objectivists. You don't have polite discussions with or about terrorists. You exterminate them.

But the problem is the people you [and those who imitate you] have been demonizing within Objectivist circles and making fun of or sneering at on this list are not evil or vicious people [even if wrong or unjust in a particular situation] and do not deserve that treatment.

"sundry sanctimonious tut-tutters flutter down"..."a prig & a bore..." "someone pretending to be you...damages your reputation"... [Linz]

I've already discussed the logical fallacy of loaded or slanted language and personal name-calling in lieu of argument.

"...folk are squabbling...there is...acrimony... This, they assure us, spells the end of SOLO"..." there must be stricter censorship, more excommunications, etc." [Linz]

Linz, you are overstating the position of those who disagree with you on this. Lack of civility, food fights every day, top thinkers and writers leaving doesn't mean the end. Solo can limp along. And "censorship" or "excommunications" are not what is being proposed: A [small] degree of moderation and self-control is. And warning people or temporarily suspending their posts till they cool off.

Not much to ask for among civilized men and as the gold standard in a civilized intellectual movement which hopes to someday be influential and respected.

Philip Coates
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 8/23, 10:53am)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 78

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 11:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Enough is enough, Phil.  If you don't like it here, just leave and stop being a drama queen.

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 79

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 11:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz, Joe, and Andrew:

If I didn't make it clear in the preceeding, I'm not an adversary of Solo (or of any of you).

I want to see it - and you - succeed.

Phil

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.