New Solo Schism?

Recently, I’ve noticed that the level of discourse on the SOLO web forum has been degenerating, and two factions seem to be emerging, divided both over specific issues, and the purpose of the forum (and philosophy) itself.
Now, I realize that Objectivists are no stranger to controversy, and (thankfully) not averse to “taking sides”, but this article is intended primarily to clarify the issues at hand, and examine what – if any – implications they hold for SOLO as an organization.

The ‘issues’ raised so far, can be framed as questions (and provided with a small amount of background, to allow for non-participants in the discussions involved, to have some idea of what the problems are.)

1. “Bollocks” discussions:
A central sticking-point of the current ‘schism’ revolves around what topics “should” be broached in articles presented to the forum, and the discussions OF those articles. Some background:
In one of the threads, Marc Geddes used a ‘hypothetical example’ of “super-advanced aliens with libertarian politics”, which resulted in a rather long – and to my mind, very fruitful – discussion. In another thread (inspired by an article written by Francois Tremblay), the issue of “what constitutes sentience, and how are rights determined” was framed in the context of the (quite plausible) future development of “thinking machines”. Again, there was a fruitful discussion, and some interesting ideas and issues were raised, to the enrichment of all.
However, all is not well in our little electronic version of “Galt’s Gulch”.
Several contributors (most notably Joe Rowlands and Lindsay Perigo) disparaged the two threads as “frivolous coffee-shop philosophy” and “bollocks”, and insinuated that such discussions revolving as they do around other than strictly “real-world” (everyday?) problems, had no place on an Objectivist board. Further, Mr. Perigo stated that several contributors (none of whom were explicitly named) “clutter up the board with this stuff”, insinuating that such discussions occur quite frequently (to the dismay of others than himself.)
This sentiment was echoed in milder terms by Mr. Rowlands, who stated that he could see how somebody looking at the two threads previously mentioned, would come away with the attitude that “philosophy was bullshit” (the clear implication being that some of us make SOLOhq ‘look bad’ by choosing ‘innappropriate’ discussion-matter.)
Neither complainant, however, has (as of the time of this writing) seen fit to provide us with any guidelines as to what discussions WON’T make SOLOHQ “look bad.”

2. “Hijacking” the board?
The other main issue revolves partially around that old Objectivist bugaboo, Homosexuality, and at the same time, dovetails into the FIRST issue (since it involves some of the same type of sentiments.)
Several posters (Sam Erica, Firehammer, and Perigo, to name three) have made the accusation that a “few persons” have “hijacked the board”, and turned into a “private forum for insults and congratulations among themselves every ten minutes.” Sam Erica has further insinuated that some contributors (“all of them admittedly quite young”), post at ‘odd times of day’ – which of course, prompted him to cast wholly undeserved and irrational aspersions at them, asking if they were “independently wealthy” or merely “stealing time from their employers”.
When confronted directly, he suddenly changed his tune, to the accusation that “some of us” are “stopping” others from posting.
Is the implication that board-posts are somehow a “zero-sum game”, and that when one person posts, it means that others CANNOT? Or is this simply another pot-shot at a new “out-group” emerging within the (presumed) ‘tolerance’ of SOLO’S benevolent shadow?

So, to sum up (and in the full realization that this will probably make me very unpopular with the majority on SOLHQ): the two questions confronting us all are:

1. what discussions are to be ‘sanctioned’ by SOLO, and it’s membership?
And:
2. is there an “orthodox” and “unorthodox” divide EVEN here, on our beloved SOLO forum?

I’ll leave the questions open.
Each individual must answer for him- or herself, and the implications run as deep into the (relatively short) history of the Objectivist “Movement”, as the “expulsion” of Nathaniel branden, by Rand herself.

What now?

Post 1

Monday, January 26, 2004 - 7:30am

According to Emrich: Sam Erica has further insinuated that some contributors (“all of them admittedly quite young”), post at ‘odd times of day’ – which of course, prompted him to cast wholly undeserved and irrational aspersions at them, asking if they were “independently wealthy” or merely “stealing time from their employers”. When confronted directly, he suddenly changed his tune, to the accusation that “some of us” are “stopping” others from posting.

This all started when I posted a thread, "How do they do it?" which posed the rhetorical question as to how can some of these young people devote so much of their time to posting so many messages each day? I'm sure we've all asked ourselves this natural question. One expects that young people will be out there trying to carve a life for themselves but their lives seem to be devoted to expressing opinions on absolutely everything, at length. I suggested that there might be many reasons, among them ... being independently wealthy or self-employed (and these are aspersions?). Other possibilities are that they are incarcerated or shut-ins, but more probably they have a pathetic need for attention.

It is untrue that I accused anyone of stopping others from posting. However, I did bemoan the fact that the SOLO board had become a mere chat room.

My advice to all and sundry is just to ignore these attention-getters and let them get on with their incessant chatter. They'll get bored ... and it DRIVES THEM NUTS.

p.s. I think Emrich intentionally misstated my comments in order to get a response from me. I won't bother to defend myself again.

Post 2

Monday, January 26, 2004 - 1:04pm

"Other possibilities are that they are incarcerated or shut-ins, but more probably they have a pathetic need for attention."

What the FUCK is your problem, Sam Erica ? Just because we post more on this board and talk about a variety of interesting issues, makes us shut-ins ? Your attitude is exactly what's wrong with this board. Are we only supposed to talk about "relevant" issues ?

Are you going to shut the hell up and let other people discuss actual issues, or are you gonna keep sniping at us because we post too much and don't let the board stagnate ? I agree with Henry, we have to get rid of this attitude now before we start having a schism because of you and your intolerent friends.

Post 3

Monday, January 26, 2004 - 3:24pm

What a soap opera! Look here...

I've been hanging around for a year or so, and haven't contributed much. Never written an article, don't talk much about what I do or where I'm going, don't even add much to the forums beyond "Great article!" or "You're just insane!"

But I've never been prevented from freeloading off of three--as far as I can tell--great men: Perigo, Landauer, and Rowlands. I can't imagine--perhaps because I'm so young and immature--putting forth as much effort as these three do towards SOLO.

Because of their dedication to ~ideas~, I don't have to contribute articles and reassurances that I'm not a pyscopath. And they still deal with me! (yes, over the ether, but my words DO reflect on THEIR site's and organization's image)

If my freeloading ass--the most despicable kind of "man" to crawl facedown through filth upon the surface of this earth:)--is ~tolerated~ by the founders, owners, and administrators of this board, then fear not. Just expect that every once in a while, those who hold all the chips in SOLO will express their own opinions on whatever the hell they please. I've never seen them arbitrarily--if ever--use those chips to "buy out" certain posters and boot 'em out of the game. They are the owners, yeah--but owners have onions...err, opinions, too.

If the reports are true, Dr. Sciabarra and Perigo get along famously despite HUGE disagreements over a situation in which ~people have fought and died~. Billions of ACTUAL tax dollars, and thousands of ACTUAL lives lie within that particular issue, and the "schism" that formed was really nonexistant--the dialogue never TRULY ceased. And people complain of ~intolerance~ within, or even in the general vicinity of, SOLO?

All this hullabaloo is nothing. It's a blip. It's a fucking t-shirt, not EVEN a movie of the week.

I suggest we all take a deep breath, step back, and allow the words of the Supreme Chairman to wash away the angst...

Nevermind. He don't come 'round no more. I don't think he was shut out because of intolerance. He just faded away...

Post 4

Monday, January 26, 2004 - 8:16pm

"My advice to all and sundry is just to ignore these attention-getters and let them get on with their incessant chatter. They'll get bored ... and it DRIVES THEM NUTS."

Mr. Hibbert:
While YOU may have spent your time asking yourself 'natural questions' which are utterly and completely meaningless, I can only hope that others are actually smarter than to do so.
What? I don't see how participating in a discussion forum (which you yourself have characterized as a 'mere chat room") constitutes the sort of cardinal sin you want it to be. Your premise was that we post "too much" or at the "wrong times", and therefore you can somehow 'intuitively' grasp huge amounts of information about our lives (and the presumed fact that we are all slackers.)
Sorry some of us type fast, Mr. Hibbert. We can't all be "hunt-and-peck" afficianados such as yourself. Moreover, sorry if our lifestyles (about which you know absolutely NOTHING, by the way), fail to conform to your presumptuous expectations. What? We're supposed to live up to your "expectations" -- when you have no information to BASE those expectations upon?

Sorry, Hibbert OLD pal (pun intended), but you'd THINK that someone such as yourself would understand that not everybody in the world has an "orthodox" lifestyle, not even the "young". (Remember, Mr. Hibbert, that RAND HERSELF was never a "typical employee", and SHE STILL MANAGED to do quite well, financially and PERSONALLY.

So in future, until you can actually manage to form a coherent opinion BASED ON SOME EVIDENCE (and present it in a slightly less "gossipy" form which doesn't involve INUENDOS, and "guessing games), you should just probably keep such unreasonably idiotic opinions as you DO seem to have -- to yourself.

You're not going to "bother" to defend yourself? Quite right, because there's nothing DEFENSIBLE about what you did, or how you did it. You made a completely unsupportable supposition (indicting the only people who seem to actually PARTICIPATE in this board), and then you expect to be taken seriously?
(Pardon me while I go vomit.)

Fine. Tell us again, when is 'appropriate" times to post, and HOW OFTEN we are to be "permitted" to do so. We're waiting, Paul.

Post 5

Monday, January 26, 2004 - 8:30pm

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 11:30am

Whoa there Henry...

It seems like you are coming apart at the seams here. I think maybe you need to simmer down a bit. This is a place of intelligent conversation and it seems your temper may be getting the best of you. Yes, you and Francois tend to offer your two sents on everything. Yes, Paul's question is a natural one. Why are you so upset?

If you need to attack Paul could you do it in privacy via email, because the rest of us here ENJOY life and would like to have a web community that reflects that. So maybe a public forum is not an appropriate place to enact your vengeance.

Thank you
Dave

Post 7

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 11:46am

The dynamics of online communities are complicated. We can’t hear the tone of each others voice or read each others faces, so we make assumptions and get burned at times. If a community is unmoderated, there are usually clashes sooner or later. There usually needs to be an informal moderator who encourages a tone and direction.

I see nothing wrong with expressing one’s disappointment over the posts on this and any other board. I’ve done it on TOC’s wetheliving. People get bent out of shape, but that’s life. On this board, I tend to sense what the proprietor’s purpose is and I try to stay in the ballpark.

I see “Sense of Life” as a more general all-purpose Objectivist board for people living their lives with zest and style. I try to avoid academic issues even though I find that hard. Sometimes I just can’t resist. There was one guy who, being religious, wasn’t sympathetic to “live is the standard” basis of ethics. After a few weeks, we ended with mutual respect. He said something like: “damn good for a secular ethics.” Hey, that’s a high point for me. However, I try to avoid micro-debates on such foundational issues.

I like many of the articles by some of the gals. They are focused on the issues of living and reaffirming our values. Joe does this too. Obviously, Linz has the spirit. And that’s just to name a few. Thus, I try to catch some of that spirit and drop the over-analysis and academic tone. (I haven’t once used the “K” word (Kant)). Just my view of what I look for on one of my favorite communities.

Rick

Post 8

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 11:47am

Dave:
What is "natural' about assuming things about others, with no evidence to back them up (other than some vagueness about the time of day someone posts?)
First, if he had wanted to DISPUTE anything that I or Francois (or anybody else, for that matter), had said, as you yourself state, "this is a place of 'intelligent' discussion." He could have (oh, let's see here) CONTRIBUTED to the discussion in a meaningful fashion.
But no. Paul's well-reasoned approach consisted of starting a NEW discussion-thread which neglected to name any names, and indicted whole groups of people instead. Sweeping generalizations, and ill-informed stereotypes may be YOUR cup of tea, but not mine.

A MORE appropriate question than "why did some of us contribute so often", would be "why do so FEW of us contribute AT ALL? There are a hell of a lot more people listed as "solo contributors" than ever speak up in the discussion-threads. Why is that? Why do the other persons on this 'intelligent discussion board' NEVER seem to post, and leave it all (as Mr. Hibbert so 'rationally' stated), turn into a 'mere chat room', for the ACTIVE few?

This isn't about "vengeance", Dave (unless by that you mean 'defending yourselves against undeserved, unprovoked, ill-informed, and pointless attacks'. Hibbert began by casting undeserved slurs at "some members" (without ever naming names explicitly, or bothering to be up-front enough to confront the persons in question DIRECTLY. When called on it, he directly implied that we are all either 'incarcerated' or 'shut-ins', who "hijack' the board for their own 'mere chat room'.

Unless you can see a rational reason WHY such conduct should be allowed to go on, unquestioned, then I would suggest you rethink your entire point in jumping in.

One of the many features I've noticed lately, is that articles "preaching to the choir" (IE, endlessly rehashing 'acceptable' Objectivist topics which have, by this point, become REDICULOUSLY CLICHED), are just fine, and will tend to elicit a three-day round of "great article, my friend!" But GOD FORBID somebody actually put in an INTERESTING article, which causes us all to THINK (and maybe sparks some actual discussion). THAT gets met with accusations that the participants "post too much", or "hijack" the board.

Tell me, Dave: without us evil, hijacking, loathsome, shut-in/incarcerated/mental patient bastards over on the "robot's rights" forum, just how much activity WOULD actually happen?
Not a hell of a lot, I'd venture to say.

Post 9

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 12:13pm

Henry

Wow. Are you okay? Seriously, inhale deeply and try to relax... I don't want to go point by point here, I have to go to work. I think this forum is a good place for discussion, I would like to keep it that way. Post what you want, ignore what doesn't interest you, and most importantly...enjoy yourself.

Dave

Post 10

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 12:16pm

"Post what you want, ignore what doesn't interest you, and most importantly...enjoy yourself."

Dave:
Good advice. (Now if only SOME OTHERS would actually follow it.)

Must head off to work, myself.

Post 11

Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 8:09am

seems one of the first things mentioned here got lost right away... there is a difference between sentiency and sapiency - hence the flaw of Singer's so-called animal rights fiasco... properly, you're all dealing with the issue of sapiency - mindfulness, not the issue of feeling pain.

Post 12

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 11:19am