New Objectivism: The Rise of Victimhood to Sublime Status

My, my, I just had a little visit over at SoloPassion...Perhaps it is the ex-pro tennis player in me but I have never had any sympathy for so-called intelligent people playing the victim in personal relationships or voluntary relationships; that even goes for Chris Sciabarra (not that he is playing a victim)–he should know better...and not invest his energy in ranting whiners.

I can’t see Objectivism moving forward by the practitioners that equate passion with victimhood–I am kinda shocked at how infantile they are–hahahah, at least, I don’t have friends that stupid.. Its so simple–instead of playing victim one should focus their energy on creating–oh, but yes, that’s right, creating is 100-times more difficult. Raising the whine over creativity is a hallmark of Postmodernism–perhaps that should be a new title, PO’s Postmodern Objectivists.

Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 4/26, 1:05pm)

Post 1

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 2:50pm

Yes - they have certainly gone a different direction than from here....

Post 2

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 2:55pm

Michael, that was brilliant.

St. George

Post 3

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 8:40pm

As bad as I hear things have gotten over at SO-LOW, they're reputedly even worse in the House of Hsiehame.

Post 4

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 11:24pm

What exactly -was- her hard evidence that Chris lied to her? Did anyone follow that...on first reading of the piece I kept waiting for a smoking gun that was other than hearsay from people she chose to believe and did not chose to believe Chris? It was so super-long that the over and over assertions that her adversary lied or said opposite? slightly different? things to different people seemed to be much more prevalent than objective proof or actual concretization of the same. She kept on saying she later "confirmed" her charges. But how did she do that? Did she say? By taking X's word for something which had been said at some point in the past, as opposed to Y's?

Did others get the same impression? Do I need to do a second reading and -outline- the damn thing?

She's now claiming on her blog that she provided "overwhelming evidence". Did others get the impression she did that?

Post 5

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 1:56am

PC: I evaluate and look for evidence as my job.

1st question: No evidence.
2nd question: Yes, I followed that. Not fooled.
3rd questoin: Saying it over and over.
4th question: With rhetorical twists.
5th question: Didn't get any evidence. I even read the emails. I think she is insane. She has extrapolated meaning well beyond what was in those emails. The fact that the post went for a long, long time, and that it didn't say anything except hateful rhetoric and immence dramatization really is a bad sign. The only people I have met who have done that is a schizophrenic. He was paranoid, and could not let go of the past. And he thought people were after him or betraying him, often.
6th question: I read it twice. Same impression. No hard evidence. Just insinuation and paranoia. I still think she is insane.
7th question: Overwhelming evidence? Different or bigger adjectives don't count as evidence.

I don't get this behavior. I really don't. She is sick in the head. Who goes this far? Who takes something and blows it up this much? That's not healthy. Am I the only one that realizes this?

Post 6

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 7:02am

Overwhelming evidence? Different or bigger adjectives don't count as evidence.
Great line, Jenna! I assume you guys are talking about Diana Hsieh. I don't visit either her blog or SOLOPassion, so I'm not following this. However, I'll put in my two cents anyway. In Diana's circle of friends, in order to be noticed you have to ramp up the rhetoric a little. And (here comes the psychologizing), Diana really, really needs to be noticed.

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 7

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 8:38am

Yep. Last year in my son's school, they 2nd graders studied a couple of very important concepts: fact and opinion. They had a whole sheet of statements and those 8 year-olds were asked to distinguish which statement is fact, and which is opinion. Perhaps I should post those statements here and see who wouldn't pass... I've known a couple of people who already failed.

Post 8

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 8:51am

Diana's post was a public display of pride. Given what she was trying to offer as her conclusion about Chris and his behavior, she provided appropriate evidence ("evidence" in personal relationships do not have to be laboratory tested, peer reviewed and approved). Evidence in this context only has to meet the criteria of one person - herself. If anyone has ever made the decision to enter or leave a relationship, unless they are acting on whim, they do so based on "evidence". One persons idea of what constitutes sufficient evidence, differs from anothers.

Diana also offered more to anyone wishing to email her.

I read in that post sadness and disappointment that she had been deceived and maligned behind her back. If this is what victimhood is comprised of, then Chris is as guilty in his communications on stage and behind the scenes. It is he who is being made out to be the victim by many, and in need of "support" whatever that means. He is not a victim, and is quite capable of handling himself in any online skirmish.

John

Post 9

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 8:56am

I read about half of it and at that point I decided it was not worth wading through the rest of the rhetoric to try to glean some bits(if any) of facts out of it. I finally asked myself what the hell it really mattered to me what she thinks or fantasizes about this issue anyway.

L W

Post 10

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 9:10am

John N.,

I have another question for you. In responding to Barbara Branden's SOLO article "Holding Court July 5 2005", you said:

"Holding Court is one of the feautures on SOLO I always anticipate reading. Thanks Barbara."

Can you explain why were you always anticipating Barbara's column? And for what were you thanking Barbara?

Thanks.

Hong

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 4/27, 9:26am)

Post 11

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 9:34am

This will be my last post here for a while (I will soon be off on a trip).

Newnham: Diana's post was a public display of pride.

Pride?

Ha! You have to be fucking kidding.

By Objectivist definition, pride, is the virtue of "moral ambitiousness".

John, there are a lot of ways one could describe that vile post of hers, but "morally ambitious" isn't one of them. If you’re looking for some better words to describe what that post was a display of, try these: frustration and envy.

St. George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 4/27, 10:06am)

Post 12

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 9:55am

I'm not going to get into the whole Chris Vs Diana thing. It's not where my focus is, but I did want to comment on Hong's question to John.

I think it's reasonable that one could look forward to and value the opinions of someone, and then have a chnage of opinion when evidence comes to light. In fact, if you have new evidence and you refuse to change your opinion based on evidence that suggests you should, that's would be irrational.

Post 13

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 10:20am

George, I am not kidding. Performing the task of assessing ones life, and the people in it is part of the search for moral perfection. Not the whole, and not even a major part, but a part nontheless. And as in many things one can miss the mark completely. One can act hastily, one can act out of anger, hurt, yes even envy. But that post was about Diana and Chris. The consequences of her missing the mark will be known only to them. If she did miss the mark she will lose out on a potentially valuable relationship. If she didn't, then she has, to her satisfaction (which is in this respect the only thing that matters), rid herself of a promise to refrain from criticising Chris or his work. This is selfish and I applaud her for it.

Chris assessed Diana as "dogmatic", and called her names, among other things. This is ok because, well, its Chris.

Diana called Chris on his *behavior*. This is not ok, because, well its loveable Chris, and Chris is above reproach?

No one has to take anyones word about anothers character. I don't rely on Diana or anyone else for my compass.

John

Post 14

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 10:22am

I just think private affairs between two people should be handled privately. If I had beef with a friend, or ex-friend--- which I did this past week, I don't nail him to the cross on my public website. I don't even nail my ex-boyfriends in public. Drawing in other people in your personal business while using Objectivism smacks of immaturity to me. Chris never went this far in public. What he does in his private life is his own business.

For her to drag it all out in public and making a display of it is disgusting. I've never seen Chris do a personal attack like this in public, and I have read this stuff as well as Diana's. He has never indirectly called me as many names as she has. She takes things to a disgustingly personal level.

'Nuff said.

Post 15

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 10:59am

Hi Ethan,
I completely agree with you. My own opinions about people are also changing constantly.

However, I didn't want to assume anything for John. That's why I asked those questions that are seemingly obvious to you. It was not that obviously to me. When I first asked John about him and Barbara on RoR, John said that "he was never tight with Barbara"? There are still contradictions that I'd like to resolve.

Post 16

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 11:16am

Hong,

Understood!

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 11:57am

Hong,

There is no contradiction. Barbara is a writer whose technical skill with words I admire. It is possible to admire someones prowess in one respect while not liking their actions in another respect. Maybe we are not using "tight" in the same way.

regards

John

Post 18

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 2:50pm

John wrote: "...provided appropriate evidence ("evidence" in personal relationships do not have to be laboratory tested, peer reviewed and approved). Evidence in this context only has to meet the criteria of one person..."

John,

Would you go over that again for me? My reasoning is not following yours.

I see two important points here one about interpersonal relationships the other about objectivity. Private emails as I understand them are not for public consumption without the consent of the relevant parties. Do you agree with that or do you think there are overriding considerations? If so what are those considerations? It would be nice to know in case I were to send you a provocative and fun private message.

The second point are you saying that public disclosures about private issues are subjectively valid?

Michael

Post 19

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 3:38pm