RoR: Forum

No question about it.

Post 1

Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 10:48am

I was cheering this up to juuuust about the very end, ready to promote it all over the place, but God-DAMN-it! he had to go hedge things in the very last sentence with the "in at least this current conflict" clause. Pretty much all but ruined the entire impact of the piece.

Fuck this KASSless shit, folks, I'm tired of seeing all the watered-down, passionless, boring discussion going on around here! Just when it looks like there's a good kick-ass piece going, it has to be screwed up by a linguistic concession tossed in right where there should be going out with a bang.

God DAMN it, do you not learn a single fucking thing from Ayn Rand? Can you imagine for a single, solitary moment John Galt ending his speech in this fashion? Can you imagine what a total travesty it would make of his whole message?

Jeezus Fucking Christ, get a clue, people! Wake the fuck up!

You're goddamned right this is Objectivist Rage. Grrrr!!!!

Get a hard, healthy injection of it around here, will ya folks? You're dying out because of a lack of it.

Post 2

Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 11:09am

Chris,

Are you suggesting that Israel will always hold the moral high ground in every possible conflict?

Tibor was simply keeping his comments in context. Kick-assedness is no reason to make coments that are too broad and encompassing. When you fail to properly bracket your comments within a context you tend to make stupid remarks or marks that will soon come to be stupid. Context keeping is what real kick-ass should be about.

Ethan

Post 3

Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 7:57pm

Here I am, trying to light a fire under some complacent asses . . .

[shakes head]

Ethan, please don't tell me you totally missed the point. Don't do that. Don't do that. It disappoints me.

Post 4

Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 9:37pm

Shake your head all you wish. Return to your home and your beloved commander, "private", and report that all here are "fRoRdulent" "KASSless" context keepers. But remember this. Saying it doesn't make it so, no matter how many time you repeat it.

I have little respect for those who couch their arguments in broad generalities, fearful of being specific and accurate. They often find their positions attacked and have only their "kick-ass" attitude to plow on through, shouting loud enough so that they don't have to hear what may be a refutation. Those who behave like this only win converts to the faith. You can be sure that these types exist on all "sides" in the petty little squables that thrill so many and fill up page after page of forums.

Maybe it's all too boring for you here? If so, return wence you came and proclaim it so again and again so that the bobble heads may answer. Or choose to stay. I won't look down on you for getting angry or having a little "Objectivist Rage." I just don't think that it's the be all and end all of every argument. A place and a time for everything, you see?

If your going to post here about ideas, do so, but don't do it just to show off back at base camp: http://www.solopassion.com/node/1508

Ethan

Post 5

Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 11:02pm

Ethan:

[...] and report that all here are "fRoRdulent" "KASSless" context keepers.

That's a straw-man. In the name of any KASS within the people here, I'm trying to light a fire under their asses. I get so frustrated watching good efforts that should be attracting readership go down the toilet with last-minute concessions, qualifying, hedging -- especially when it has no place at all in the article.

I have little respect for those who couch their arguments in broad generalities, fearful of being specific and accurate.

I was specific enough. The concrete in question is the inclusion of "at least in the present conflict" at the very end of the article.

That you want to chalk this up to context-keeping only shows that you're missing the point. Ayn Rand's steadfast commitment to context-keeping didn't result in disastrous linguistic turns like these.

Post 6

Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 11:06pm

Chris got it just right and it is Ethan who missed the point. I am not expert enough to commit fully to the view that one or the other side is pure. When I spoke to my Israeli friend in Germany this summer, even he acknowledge that the Israeli government makes mistakes, sometimes grave ones. As an amateur in much of this, I would be morally irresponsible if I put forth dead sure comments. Let those who have the full enough knowledge of the situation do that. Due process is a good thing! From A is A one cannot deduce, by pure logic, that Israel is completely right in all it does! Besides, that's just too collectivist--"Israel is always right!" Throwing a fit isn't going to take the place of a sound argument, either.

Post 7

Friday, September 1, 2006 - 5:45am

Tibor,
If you didn't mistakenly interchange the names of Chris and Ethan in your last post, then I missed the point.
Glenn

Post 8

Friday, September 1, 2006 - 9:54am

Mr. Cathcart,

Mr. Dawe's point shouldn't be so hard to fathom.

My sympathies were definitely with Israel in the recent conflict, as Hezbollah had committed an act of war against Israel, on top of flouting a UN mandate to disarm.

But suppose that, in 10 years' time, 10 Israelis are killed by some Al Qa'eda auxiliary operating out of Malaysia, the Malaysian regime won't crack down hard enough on said Al Qa'eda auxiliary, the Israeli Prime Minister has an itchy finger on the nuclear button, and the Israeli military responds by sending the bombers and the missiles to irradiate and incinerate Kuala Lumpur.

Would the Israeli government be right if it behaved that way in that conflict?

Who, this side of the funny farm, would give a moral blank check to all future actions of the government of any country, anywhere?

Robert Campbell

PS. If you really think that most editorial comments, even about major crises or highly charged issues, should emulate Galt's Speech, you need to reread that speech with a careful eye to its rhetoric.

(Edited by Robert Campbell
on 9/01, 9:57am)

(Edited by Robert Campbell
on 9/01, 9:58am)

Post 9

Friday, September 1, 2006 - 10:46am

Ayn Rand's writings, including on then-current events, stated all essentials and kept necessary context. That meant having every word, phrase and clause in there for a purpose. Inclusions or omissions would reflect the appropriate keeping of context. And anyone who knows Ayn Rand's writing style would immediately recognize that, in an article on a subject like this, she wouldn't even consider putting in such a clause. One need only ask what purpose it serves.

So, what does it serve? Who does it benefit? Who does it embolden?

Get a clue, folks.

Post 10

Friday, September 1, 2006 - 12:54pm

Chris, granted Dr. Machan's last paragraph is "not KASS". You ask "what does it serve?"

It's a wimpy ending, but I think it is more persuasive than a KASS "Israel is always right" wrap-up. Let's say someone who is anti-Israel reads the article. Won't he be more inclined to say, "You know, I think he has a point. Maybe Israel is in the right in this instance." Nobody who is anti-Israel is going to react that way if you wrap up your article with "Israel can do no wrong" because they will instantly see the author as biased, and will discount what he's saying.

Post 11

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 7:31am

The following is a copy of a post I made on SOLO regarding this thread:

I assume most of the Atlas points garnered for my post to Chris reflect the fact that his post on RoR and other post here seemed directed less on what he saw wrong with Tibor's article and more on inter-site bickering. Perhaps that's just my interpretation.

As far as context and essentials go, I recall many discussion revolving around the fact that Ayn Rand had a lightning quick ability to reduce any situation to it's essentials. If I'm not mistaken, Peikoff commented on this somewhere, perhaps in the back of ITOE. Not everyone has that ability. Keeping that in mind, and keeping in mind that the audience for an article isn't always going to be Objectivists, I think Tibor's comment is careful and appropriate.

You can call it KASSless and weasel-worded or whatever you like. If you only view a paper or situation through KASS-colored glasses, your hope of getting more people to listen to your ideas will likely be limited. Understanding the essentials of a situation and getting another to understand them are two entirely different situations. Think of it like a golf game. You have a different club for different situations. If you insist on only using a driver and swinging full-force at each ball, you'll only succeed in some of your shots, and in the end will lose the game.

One of the first things my father taught me in wood-working was always use the proper tool for the job.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/1508

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 9/02, 7:36am)

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 9/02, 7:37am)

Post 12

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 9:15am

I've made a few more posts on SOLO regarding this, but I'm not going to transcribe them all over here. Interested parties can see them there.

Ethan

Post 13

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 9:28am

Ethan,

I "got it" months ago about "KASS". KASS means "total, instantaneous agreement with the "in" group. "KASSLESS" means stupid, spineless and immoral. Anything you write will be carefully examined, not for correspondence with reality and logical completeness, but for the slightest point of deviation from the "master". I can't think of any frame of mind more suited to ending discussions before they can even get started. What's the point of even talking to these acolytes?

Post 14

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 11:47am

Tibor,

I only follow the news of current affairs loosely during this phase of my life, so your kind of commentary is especially welcome on media bias.

What a poignant story about your mother! Bless her!

I was particularly pleased with your ending:

So, for the time being, this amateur will hold to the belief that there is indeed some kind of irrational anti-Israeli sentiment afoot around the globe and that it is Israel that holds the moral high ground in at least this current conflict.

With that, you state clearly and eloquently that:

1. Nobody and no manipulation of information will take the place of your independent judgment;
2. You refuse to scapegoat anybody ever;
3. You always prefer to look at the facts instead and subject them to you reason; and
4. You understand that all governments without exception are prone to providing biased information to the mainstream press, especially during armed conflicts.

This is particularly valuable for those like me who use Objectivism as a philosophical tool in their lives. During my busy stage right now, I know I can trust your evaluations. I hold this in high value.

Now, one must wonder what is behind this "irrational anti-Israeli sentiment afoot around the globe." I suspect it is a wee bit more than philosophy and fear of suicide bombers. It looks like there are some serious issues here that need thought. I am tempted to bring the Occam's razor that detectives use into this and say "follow the money trail."

Thanks for a fine piece of writing.

Michael

Post 15

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 2:31pm

Michael, Robert, and others I don't want to beat to death one loosely or poorly written sentence in an otherwise excellent op ed defending Israel, but the way to deal with the issue of not implying that Israel holds the moral high ground on -every issue- is to *be specific and concrete*.

instead of: "It is Israel that holds the moral high ground in at least this current conflict" -- which is so vague as to leave open the possibility that the writer has some other specific case in which the Islamists or Syria or the Palestinians are morally superior)

Say this: ""It is Israel that holds the moral high ground in its attempt to defend itself from those who would drive it into the sea" -- or some very specific equivalent which defines precisely *in what way* or *in what context* Israel holds the moral high ground.

....

It's an issue of writing precisely rather than vaguely or "open-endedly". Not one of appeasement vs. not wanting to make too unscholarly a claim, as some posters seem to think.

Post 16

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 8:05pm

Phil,

You are normally perceptive. The way you talk about Tibor's article, though, you make it sound like he was a political expert writing policy. I read his article as an informed opinion of less than an expert, but one suspicious of the media. For example, the last sentence:

... this amateur will hold to the belief that...

I didn't see his article as a history of the conflict, but instead his own limited inquiry and impressions of it.

He wrote one thing. People seem to have read another. It's simple. Look at the signs:

- I was traveling in Europe...,
- I also had a chance to talk with several people from the region itself...
- I continued to check into my highly suspect news sources�suspect because even an amateur...
- I was beginning to get a sense of at least...
- By my own fragmented information, too, I came to this conclusion...

I find it curious that people read his essay and missed all this. As a matter of fact, if he had ended with something like the following, it would have rung false as all get out to me:

So, this amateur has no other conclusion to offer that there is indeed an irrational anti-Israeli sentiment afoot around the globe despite the fact that Israel has always held the moral high ground.

Just on a stylistic basis, it would have been wrong. He was pondered from the very beginning. He even introduced the theme of reasoned opinion based on his own mother, a traditional antisemitic old-school person, fer krissakes.

I stand by my comments.

Er... I'm trying to resist, but I can't... It's too irresistible. Maybe Tibor should have ended up on a more forceful tone?

So, this amateur... this amateur hell, this motherfucking KASSER... knows that the Islamic scumbags are walking sacks of shit and there is a cocksucking irrational anti-Israeli sentiment by the toady ass-sucking media around the globe. Israel would be perfectly on the moral high ground to KASS KASS KASS and blast the living hell out of every piece of Islamic filth in proximity in this current conflict. There would be that many less scumbag sacks of shit walking the earth.

//;-)

(See how easy that was? I'll take the honest thinker, myself. I trust him.)

Michael

Post 17

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 9:21pm

Mike, that sounds more like someone else's style I recall from the old SOLOHQ days, not me. I am very committed to being epistemologically correct.

Post 18

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 9:59pm

Ah yes - the 'drunk' perchance? ;-)

Post 19

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 9:34pm