Rethinking SOLO- An Open Letter to Lindsay and Joe

An open letter to Lindsay and Joe:

Recent events have caused me to wonder whether SOLO will prove to be the place I was hoping it would be.

I've been here seven short weeks, have made 400+ posts, written two articles, have seven others near completion (with plans for over fifty more).

For these efforts, I have received 400+ Atlas points from those who have appreciated my contributions. Despite the fact that my debating style is often tenacious and no-nonsense, some have emailed me to express appreciation for my patience with snotty arrogance or evasion or personal attacks. Others clearly dislike me and my style.

As an example of the latter, Luke Setzer's article Benefactors versus Malefactors has the earmarks of a personally motivated hatchet-job, itself malevolent in tone, neatly packaged in finely-honed Objectivist language. [See #1.]

Less than a week ago SOLOists were upset by how a number of interpersonal events were handled, and this resulted in the public departure of several. [#2] Rather than seek ways to allay concerns and bridge differences, however, Mr. Setzer's article would have SOLOists preoccupy themselves with identifying "malefactors," and he even suggests a SOLO policy of deliberately targeting those so accused for "search and destroy" missions.

This is appalling. It is an invitation to initiate witchhunts and pogroms, with the ominous overtones of other Objectivist groups who have cultivated a culture of denunciation and excommunication, a reprehensible intolerance papered over by equally reprehensible "reason."

It is this very culture which dissuaded me from associating with Objectivist groups in the past. It is this culture which SOLO appeared to have somehow avoided. It is this culture which SOLO, by recent attitudes and the publication of Mr. Setzer's article, now appears to be embracing.

If that's the case, then I will regretfully no longer be participating. If that's the case, I'm forced to wonder if this kind of self-justifying attack hysteria is not endemic to groups of the followers of Ayn Rand.

I can hold my own in discussion with those who employ attacks on my motives and nature when their argument fails them, as Mr. Setzer and Mr. Kelly did so recently. It is simple enough to shine a light on their behavior for all to see and judge for themselves. (Mr. Setzer apparently feels that we need his special instruction on how to identify and deal with "malefactors.")

But if this attack tactic has become an officially-sanctioned policy of SOLO, where those who disagree with certain people are labeled "intellectual masturbators" or "malefactors" or "naggers" or "trying to be right" and become the target of accusatory SOLO hit squads and loud-mouths tasked to question motives, then SOLO has become rotten to its core. If so, then there is no point in shining a light here at all.

So, Lindsay and Joe, is this what SOLO is coming to? If so, then I'll be on my way. If not, then some clarification would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Nathan Hawking

#1. In the recent thread about copyrights on the General Forum, Mr. Setzer and Mr. Kelly both display their tendency to resort to personal attacks when their argument fails them.

The former chose to accuse me of "nagging" and, "wanting to have the last word," both somewhat ironic in light of his next-day instant article mentioning those very subjects. He clearly wanted the last nagging word.

The thread speaks for itself regarding the conduct of Mr. Kelly, though his parting shot is somewhat typical: "Makes you wonder what his real reason for all this is." He echoes this in his gushing enthusiasm for Mr. Setzer's Malefactor Neutralization, " ... we need to expose and trounce hidden agendas."

I predict, having become acquainted with both Mr. Setzer and Mr. Kelly, that "malefactors" with "hidden agendas" will end up being anyone they cannot successfully dominate in an argument.

#2. Dissatisfaction with SOLO goes deeper than the public resignations. I have received emails from those who are simply withdrawing, without public announcement. I fear they're just the tip of the iceberg, as I'm obviously not in personal contact with all that many on SOLO.

NH

Post 1

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 11:32am

Right now I'm pissed.

One week ago a Chinese PhD candidate who lived next door to me in my apartment building in Lawrence took his own life. His reasons for doing so aren't known to me but I can imagine. I imagine that the pressure of living 10,000 miles away from your family and friends, in a strange land where they speaking a foreign tongue, while exploring the untamed universe that exists living organisms - just to obtain a PhD - proved too much.

Now his parents are faced with the horror of out-living their only child. A sentence that is to be carried out in state which uses guns to enforce it's 1-child decree. A life lived in the knowledge that their beloved son died lonely, scared, confused and ultimately alone in a postage-stamp apartment in a butt-fuck-little-town in the middle of Kansas - far beyond their ability to help... Worse they know that the first person to notice their son's absence was his landlord, who came in search of overdue rent.

So excuse me if I think all this umbrage-taking over a few goddamned epithets is pathetic. There are bigger tragedies and injustices being perpetuated on this planet than being called a few rotten names and having your ideas ridiculed.

So find someone else to tell your sad little tale to. I'm fresh out of fucking sympathy - all of mine was spent on the parents of that sad and lonely kid... Parents who probably cannot afford to bring their child home and morn him properly because capitalism and freedom of expression are restricted by the festering regime that dogs their every movement.

And if any of this penetrates the dark cloud that has formed over your anguished brow then seek out the wisdom in one of my mother's favorite admonishments and grow a pair. (PS: This goes for the whole of SOLO)

"Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me."

Post 2

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 12:31pm

In spite of personal attacks, witch hunts, immaturity or fundamental disagreements SOLO is populated by some of the most intelligent people I've ever seen on an internet forum. That's why I'll be sticking around. If they all leave however...

Post 3

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 1:39pm

Robert W wrote:

Right now I'm pissed.

...

There are bigger tragedies and injustices being perpetuated on this planet than being called a few rotten names and having your ideas ridiculed.

Just as there are bigger tragedies than my post. But that didn't stop you from bitching for 200 words, did it?

So find someone else to tell your sad little tale to. I'm fresh out of fucking sympathy - all of mine was spent on the parents of that sad and lonely kid...

Nobody's after your sympathy, dude. Is your little rant a bid for mine?

And if any of this penetrates the dark cloud that has formed over your anguished brow then seek out the wisdom in one of my mother's favorite admonishments and grow a pair. (PS: This goes for the whole of SOLO).

I'll lay mine out on the table next to yours any day of the week.
But much as your world revolves around your balls, this isn't about courage.

It's about whether SOLO is going to officially turn a land of smarmy, weasel-worded whisper-campaign chicken-shits who label everyone that disagrees with them a "pseudo-Objectivist" and a "malefactor."

If you don't think that's important, then be pissed. I really could not care less.

Nathan "Mine-are-bigger-than-yours" Hawking

Post 4

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 1:51pm

If they all leave however...

There certainly is a danger of that. And some posters whom I've become very fond of through several months of interaction have already left. To me, they are irreplaceable. Nathan is not being paranoid.

Post 5

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 1:57pm

Mr. Setzer and Mr. Kelly both display their tendency to resort to personal attacks when their argument fails them.

I didn't read that thread, but I don't perceive those two as indulging in personal attacks.
In person, Luke is definitely not that type of person. I get the impression that he is a very sincere person.

I am not sure where you get the idea that Luke was referring to you specifically as a Malefactor?

I think you're taking this too personally. If Luke wanted to accuse you of something, I am sure he would do it out in the open.

Post 6

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 2:34pm

"It's about whether SOLO is going to officially turn a land of smarmy, weasel-worded whisper-campaign chicken-shits who label everyone that disagrees with them a "pseudo-Objectivist" and a "malefactor."

SOLO will only "turn a land of smarmy, weasel-worded whisper-campaign chicken-shits" when such people get under your skin and you decide to leave without a fight!

To the extent I misunderstood your intentions I apologise. My post was 200 angry words long because I'm sick and tired of reading hand-wringing complaints about the negativity of some posters.

You say you are too but are discouraged by them.

I say: Carry on in spite of them. Ignore their negativity and drown it with positive threads and intelligent articles.

When such people offer something, take on only what is useful and leave the rest. This includes epithets, smarmy comments, threats, ultimatums, temper tantrums etc. The sooner people start doing that the sooner the focus will shift to SOLO's sunlit field, rather than the stinking pile of festering manure that has dominated things in past weeks.

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 6/22, 2:35pm)

Post 7

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 2:38pm

Marcus:

Mr. Setzer and Mr. Kelly both display their tendency to resort to personal attacks when their argument fails them.
I didn't read that thread, but I don't perceive those two as indulging in personal attacks.

If I had not experienced it on more than one occasion, I would not believe it either. But reality is what it is.

In person, Luke is definitely not that type of person. I get the impression that he is a very sincere person.

I am not inclined to disabuse you of that belief, Marcus.

My purpose is NOT to level a personal attack at Luke or Michael - it is to challenge the disgusting notion that we should be hanging "pseudo-Objectivist" and "malefactor" labels on people and gleefully targeting those who disagree with us for "search and destroy."

I am not sure where you get the idea that Luke was referring to you specifically as a Malefactor?

I think you're taking this too personally. If Luke wanted to accuse you of something, I am sure he would do it out in the open.

I have no interest in arguing who was the unspecified target, since denial is all too easy.

Besides, I am not really the issue. My feelings are not hurt. I'd like to think that I would have begun this thread regardless of WHO was the target of personal attacks and this "search and destroy" mentality.

This is an issue which goes to the appropriate behavior for rational people of good will. The idea of an Objectivist orthodoxy where we must pass a litmus test or be labeled "pseudo" is revolting. This has the stench of those days when Objectivists were declared "evil" for a sin like speaking to Libertarians and denounced or excommunicated.

Nathan Hawking

Post 8

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 3:04pm

Robert W. wrote:

"It's about whether SOLO is going to officially turn a land of smarmy, weasel-worded whisper-campaign chicken-shits who label everyone that disagrees with them a "pseudo-Objectivist" and a "malefactor."
SOLO will only "turn a land of smarmy, weasel-worded whisper-campaign chicken-shits" when such people get under your skin and you decide to leave without a fight!

And what the hell do you think this thread is? Doilies and needlepoint?

To the extent I misunderstood your intentions I apologise. My post was 200 angry words long because I'm sick and tired of reading hand-wringing complaints about the negativity of some posters.

Calling attention to negative stupidity is not in itself negative. It is a call to get and stay positive. Focus on issues and dialogue and argument, not our paranoid suspicions about the motives of others.

You say you are too but are discouraged by them.

I say: Carry on in spite of them. Ignore their negativity and drown it with positive threads and intelligent articles.

But I'm not discouraged. I'm disgusted. I have no problem dealing with individuals who resort to slippery personal attacks on an individual basis. But I will not be a part of a group where label-mongering and "search and destroy" missions are part of the fabric of the venue.

Why? Because if SOLO is just another orthodoxy where new ideas are pissed on and their creators attacked as "pseudo" and "malefactors" or "masturbators" by those RUNNING THE ASYLUM, it's just a matter of time before those ideas never see print.

When such people offer something, take on only what is useful and leave the rest. This includes epithets, smarmy comments, threats, ultimatums, temper tantrums etc. The sooner people start doing that the sooner the focus will shift to SOLO's sunlit field, rather than the stinking pile of festering manure that has dominated things in past weeks.

I agree, more or less.

I don't need Mr. Setzer to instruct me on how to select who I listen to or engage in dialogue, or encourage me to brand people as malefactors or pseudo. I can and do make those choices myself, to myself.

This is neither a tantrum nor an ultimatum. It is calling a manure pile shit, and stating that unless we put down our shovels, the shit will only get deeper.

There's a point, though, where sane people realize there's no pony in the manure pile.

Nathan Hawking

Post 9

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 3:31pm

Nathan,

I share your sadness at some of the recent departures, however I honestly don't believe Luke Setzer's article was directed at you. We've had a number of total assholes come post here at various points, where persistently unreasonable behaviour eventually resulted in moderator action. I'm happy to stand corrected, but I suspect Luke's article referred to the above category of posters - and I doubt anyone who've read your posts or essays would argue that you fit into that category.

MH

Post 10

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 4:13pm

Nathan,

Only Luke can say for sure whether you were someone he had in mind when he wrote his article, but you certainly don't strike me as the type of individual Luke was describing.

(Edited by Pete on 6/22, 7:38pm)

(Edited by Pete on 6/22, 7:38pm)

Post 11

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 4:20pm

Matthew:

I share your sadness at some of the recent departures, however I honestly don't believe Luke Setzer's article was directed at you. We've had a number of total assholes come post here at various points, where persistently unreasonable behaviour eventually resulted in moderator action.

I understand the need for occasional moderation and fully support that when appropriate.

I'm happy to stand corrected, but I suspect Luke's article referred to the above category of posters -

I really don't wish to correct you or go on the offensive here to justify my conclusions. But the facts are that Mr. Setzer either had the article prepared and leveled some of the exact phrases at me in discussion, or accused me in discussion then repeated those phrases as characteristic of a "malefactor" or "pseudo-Objectivist."

and I doubt anyone who've read your posts or essays would argue that you fit into that category.

Thank you for saying that.

But my feelings are not hurt and I'm seeking no apology or denial that this was personally directed.

What I'm looking for is a simple clarification of whether or not SOLO is going to be a place where one can explore ideas which may be unorthodox without being officially branded a heretic and lynched, the target of a "search and destroy" mission, to use Setzer's phrase.

Nathan Hawking

Post 12

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 4:22pm

"If that's the case, then I will regretfully no longer be participating."

Then quit the paranoid grandstanding and the big song and dance and just go. Please.

Post 13

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 4:36pm

Creswell spat:
"If that's the case, then I will regretfully no longer be participating."
Then quit the paranoid grandstanding and the big song and dance and just go. Please.

Maybe Luke would like to come over here and define the word "if" for you, as he so helpfully defined "nag" for me a day ago.

You really need to get some new schtick, dude. The badass punk bit you do is getting far too predictable.

NH

Post 14

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 5:40pm

Nathan: Peter is right - you are grandstanding. Your Open Letter starts out by reminding us all of the number of posts and articles you've written here (as if quantity and quality were somehow synonymous), and then haughtily declares that we may be deprived of the fifty or more articles you have in the works if the "culture" around here doesn't change to your satisfaction. Harrumph! This is akin to a child showing all his toys and then saying, "I'm not going to let you play with any of them unless I get to make up all the rules." And the reason for this tantrum? You suspect that Luke had you in mind when he wrote his essay on Benefactors and Malefactors.

Come on, this is either pure self-aggrandisement or a paranoid indulgence. Would you really have us believe that Luke would devote so much time and energy to arguing for your removal - and then somehow forget to mention your name? That's some hatchet job if its supposed target's identity is not even obvious to leading SOLO practitioners such as Matt Humphreys.

Enough of this nonsense. I'm off with Robert Winefield and other stalwarts here to the sunlit field that epitomises SOLO.

Post 15

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 5:57pm

I swear, are ya'll trying to make people leave?

Mr. Hawking clearly has a problem with the direction SOLO is heading and instead of acting like an ass about it, he starts a new post and politly lays out his problem for everyone to see.

He isn't 'grandstanding' or anything like that, all he's saying is "hey, I haven't been here long but I've given it 110%." Hell if I get more then a post or two a day thats something and I'm sure its the same for most of you.

As for his problem, well there's no reason for me to be quoting Rodney Dangerfield as ya'll know what it is. I've been accussed of some of the same things even though I was TOLD this isn't ARI. Why can't you all just read whats written, state your opinion, and be respectful?

Post 16

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 6:20pm

While I got caught up in the heat of the manner thread, I've been on SOLO for about 6 months and Joe and Lindsay have generally been fair and evenhanded in their moderation policies. I disagree with their handling of the David Elmore thing and I disagree with Luke's article. It's a focus on the negative. That said, neither of us has anything to fear from the moderators.

Jim

Post 17

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 6:25pm

Derek wrote:

Nathan: Peter is right - you are grandstanding.

"Grandstanding" is an act, a pretense. You join the motive-bashers club with that little accusation. You don't have a clue what my motivations are, so I can only wonder why you'd think I'm not serious.

Your Open Letter starts out by reminding us all of the number of posts and articles you've written here (as if quantity and quality were somehow synonymous), and then haughtily declares that we may be deprived of the fifty or more articles you have in the works ...

You're damned right. That was EXACTLY the implication. Since you are clueless about what's between my ears, you can only guess at the potential value or lack of it, and the level of potential loss. Causes have effects.

Why, do you think YOU have nothing of value to contribute to SOLO and that if you left it would be no great loss? If so, too bad. I think more highly of myself than that.

... if the "culture" around here doesn't change to your satisfaction.

By whose satisfaction should I judge my willingness to stay here?

Harrumph! This is akin to a child showing all his toys and then saying, "I'm not going to let you play with any of them unless I get to make up all the rules."

You may think of your own value as toys and setting standards for where you actualize those values as tantrums, but I think of myself in quite different terms.

And the reason for this tantrum?

You suspect that Luke had you in mind when he wrote his essay on Benefactors and Malefactors.

How ironic. I am acting on the evidence of my own senses and declaring Mr. Setzer's behavior as malefactory, especially his advocacy of labeling others as "pseudo" and "malefactors" worthy of "search and destroy," in essence following his advice, and you're complaining about it.

Who he specifically had in mind is of far less importance to me.

Nathan Hawking

Post 18

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 6:34pm

Clarence: Thank you for taking my intentions at face value. The motive-bashers in this thread only underscore the nature of too much of the negative climate at SOLO.

James: I appreciate your feedback. I'd like to believe that the negativity and ominous implications of Mr. Setzer's article are strictual contextual and not systemic. Time will tell.

NH

Post 19

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 7:25pm