Linz's "Open" Forum

JML wrote in Post 15:

My point exactly. Merely speaking words is oftentimes to place onesself in danger enough. Why you then say that you agree completely with Mr. Small in his call for everyone to "take action" rather than put forth provocative ideas under a state of anonymity is utterly beyond me.

I mean to distinguish moral sanctions from political sanctions. In other words, I support the legal right of others to judge one as good or evil and embrace or ostracize accordingly in a society that only legally forbids force or fraud. By contrast, I do not support the legal right of others to use retaliatory force against those who do not initiate it.

So, for example, laws once existed in the American South that not only forbade the marriage of whites and blacks, but also criminalized any speech that advocated the repeal of such laws. In that instance, one absolutely needs anonymity to advance a moral cause without going to jail in the process. By contrast, if the restrictive speech laws had not been on the books, then one would do well to stand by his convictions and say aloud his opposition to the racist marriage laws.

Today, as I understand it, we have laws that forbid the advocacy of breaking laws. I recall Leonard Peikoff saying something to this effect years ago on a television interview show called "McQuistion." So while one has the right to free speech to advocate policy changes, one does not have the right to offer instructions on, say, how to circumvent drug laws to acquire medicinal marijuana, for instance. So while one can campaign in his own name to advocate the repeal of marijuana laws and face the derision of his moral opponents, he must use anonymity if he wants to help suffering people to get relief now while awaiting policy changes.

Does that make sense?

One can point to many instances throughout history such as the "Underground Railroad" that freed many slaves to get a better idea.

The bottom line:

Use your own name when legally advocating ideas and a pseudonym when illegally advocating them. The only exception of which I can think would involve a carefully planned legal challenge to the laws that requires one to endure some legal hardships such as jail time with the long range goal of effectively repealing a bad law.

Post 21

Sunday, May 6, 2007 - 1:51pm

So, for example, laws once existed in the American South that not only forbade the marriage of whites and blacks, but also criminalized any speech that advocated the repeal of such laws. In that instance, one absolutely needs anonymity to advance a moral cause without going to jail in the process. By contrast, if the restrictive speech laws had not been on the books, then one would do well to stand by his convictions and say aloud his opposition to the racist marriage laws.

Use your own name when legally advocating ideas and a pseudonym when illegally advocating them.

You seem to be saying that one is only under real danger of harsh reprisal from the violation of laws, as if it was only the violation of law that we ever really need to fear.

If that's where you are mentally, then I think you're pretty naive about things, I hate to have to say. There is much, much more to fear in this world than just what happens when we break formal laws. I hate to break it to you, but you are not nearly as safe as you seem to convey thinking you are. We do not, if this is your belief, live in a neat and tidy little world where everybody plays by the rule of the law. Has the predictable tidiness of engineering and NASA rendered you so mentally thusly?

We live, instead, in a world with countless dangers around every turn. We have egomaniac snipers shooting random men, women, and children from the trunks of their cars. We have rogue college students going on murder rampages at, seemingly, the best and brightest of colleges and, what's more, "law enforcement" officers who are, at their best, incompetent in their ability to protect the other students from random, systematic execution, or, at their worst, perhaps even egotistically, depravedly indifferent and, God forbid, perhaps even complicit in the process... a possibility which many devout conspiracists are already discussing in large numbers, but which I am loathe to want to consider as even remotely being true. It's just too horrible an idea to live under.

So, my bottom line is this, Luke: You and I have very, very different ideas about how safe we really are, and the full scope of what we need to live in fear of. I oftentimes wish I could believe as you do, if only so I could go gaily and obliviously skipping and dancing across the corpse-strewn minefield that is life.

(Edited by Jeremy M. LeRay on 5/06, 1:54pm)

Post 22

Sunday, May 6, 2007 - 2:03pm

Jeremy "Chicken Little" LeRay,

Your examples might be persuasive if they were other than random events that had nothing to with the views of the victims. They were targeted simply at random. Quell your paranoia and get a backbone.

"Corpse-strewn minefield that is life"....

Sheese. Wear a seatbelt.

Post 23

Sunday, May 6, 2007 - 2:16pm

Your examples might be persuasive if they were other than random events that had nothing to with the views of the victims. They were targeted simply at random.

Well, while those victims themselves may have been randomly-selected, I think you're bordering on brain damage if you don't think the event itself is part of a larger societal trend that is constantly happening all around us nowadays.

Quell your paranoia and get a backbone.

Backbones aren't bullet-proof, and paranoia may more likely keep you alive.

Or, as the adage says, "Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet intakes".

(Edited by Jeremy M. LeRay on 5/06, 2:17pm)

Post 24

Sunday, May 6, 2007 - 2:22pm

Good grief, Jeremy. You suffer from paranoid delusions of self-importance and a malevolent sense of life. I have posted for years and years under my own name with some rather heated discussions taking place and I have never, ever felt physically threatened. The closest I ever came to feeling at risk of being stalked came not from a forum but from very unusual circumstances having little or nothing to do with an online forum. Read my article "Hazards of Benevolence" for details.

I do participate in other forums where pseudonyms are the norm and thus have my own unique ones in those forums. But they are not "activist" forums but mere hobby or recreational ones. Occasionally, I will exchange private e-mails with other members if we decide to meet for lunch or something and thus reveal my true identity at that time. So far, nothing negative has happened and I really do not expect it to happen. Meeting in a public place and taking other precautions generally precludes this.

The world really is a nice place to live, Jeremy. Just exercise due caution and get yourself educated and apply good reasoning and you will do well.

Live!

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 5/06, 2:27pm)

Post 25

Sunday, May 6, 2007 - 2:42pm

Good grief, Jeremy. You suffer from paranoid delusions of self-importance and a malevolent sense of life.

Not true. Not one bit... at least not the "self-importance" part. And here's why:

If anything, since you have so pressed the issue further, I believe (and, again, like yourself, these are only our beliefs here, or whatever else you would semantically like to call them) it is you who suffer from the "delusion of self-importance". The only difference is that your delusion is of a false-positive nature, whereas mine -- if it is, indeed, only delusion and not reality -- is of a false negative nature.

In direct contrast to myself, you apparently think that the entire world is somehow just eagerly anticipating your marching confidently across its terrain, and that it will, of course, fawningly lay down some sort of red carpet for you to "conquer" it or something. You apparently suffer from optimistic delusions of self-importance and an overconfident, ten-foot-tall-and-bulletproof sense of life. And you say that I have delusions of self-importance? If anything, I think everybody else does. I'm merely trying to survive their overconfident and ravaging presence all around me.

Well... I have no such delusions. I know I'm only flesh and bone, albeit with a fiercely relentless mind. And I think it is far better to err on the side of caution, as I do, than to err on the side of overconfidence, as you apparently do. The bottom line is that I simply prefer the risk of a false negative to a false positive.

Beware!

(Edited by Jeremy M. LeRay on 5/06, 2:48pm)

Post 26

Sunday, May 6, 2007 - 2:56pm

"Methinks he doeth protest too much...." ;-)

Post 27

Sunday, May 6, 2007 - 3:04pm

"Methinks he doeth protest too much...." ;-)

Who do you mean, me or Luke?

After all, we were both protesting pretty equally.

Post 28

Sunday, May 6, 2007 - 3:05pm

If posting on SOLO-P is such a vital privilege, how difficult could it possibly be to find a jpeg on google images to serve as a headshot, to start a yahoo account, and to portray yourself as whomever, or whatever you like?

Does Linz have an inside connection to the Department of Homeland Security? Does he require three forms of notarized i.d., a blood sample, and the recommendation of at least two standing members?

And even if one went to such lengths to get posted there, would one do so in order to post one's own actual opinions? Or just to subvert the site?

Is there any good reason this topic needs to be continued here? Whoever cares so much about scrawling on Linz's fence should either do so openly, or make the effort to do so under an alias - and entertain us with his exploits - if entertaining they be. Otherwise, enough.

Ted

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 5/06, 3:27pm)

Post 29

Sunday, May 6, 2007 - 3:23pm

Ted,

I don't understand what you mean.

Post 30

Sunday, May 6, 2007 - 3:40pm

I do, and sanctioned him for it.

Post 31

Sunday, May 6, 2007 - 3:42pm

JML wrote in Post 25 of this thread:

In direct contrast to myself, you apparently think that the entire world is somehow just eagerly anticipating your marching confidently across its terrain, and that it will, of course, fawningly lay down some sort of red carpet for you to "conquer" it or something. You apparently suffer from optimistic delusions of self-importance and an overconfident, ten-foot-tall-and-bulletproof sense of life. And you say that I have delusions of self-importance? If anything, I think everybody else does. I'm merely trying to survive their overconfident and ravaging presence all around me.

I have reasonable expectations that others will let me alone, not that they will unroll the red carpet just for me. So far, experience has corroborated my expectations. As I said, I do take reasonable precautions in order to actualize my reasonable expectations.

Post 32

Sunday, May 6, 2007 - 3:48pm

I do, and sanctioned him for it.

Well, if you would be so kind, please explain it to me. To the best of my understanding, he is supporting the use of false pictures and such, but not dishonestly. He is also revealing the inanity of using "real pics" as an antitode to "fake pics" because, quite accurately, he explains that anyone could actually use a fake pic from off the internet and claim it's them when it isn't, and that no one could be the wiser.

This I understand. What I don't understand is this last statement of his:

Is there any good reason this topic needs to be continued here? Whoever cares so much about scrawling on Linz's fence should either do so openly, or make the effort to do so under an alias - and entertain us with his exploits - if entertaining they be. Otherwise, enough.

Is he saying I haven't done this? Is he saying I have? I don't understand what this means. Sincerely, I don't.

(Edited by Jeremy M. LeRay on 5/06, 3:49pm)

Post 33

Sunday, May 6, 2007 - 3:51pm

As I said, I do take reasonable precautions in order to actualize my reasonable expectations.

As do I. It just so happens that our expectations are very often informed by our previous experiences and, apparently, mine have been a good deal worse than yours. And so, precisely for this reason, based on those experiences, my expectations, too, are reasonable.

Post 34

Sunday, May 6, 2007 - 5:05pm

Heroes shouldn't get tired, Jeremy, at least not quickly. So, put your money where your mouth is. There is a litany of ways to do that, as Ted pointed out. Solo wasn't fair to you, I'm sure that's probably true, but ragging about it here isn't productive.

Post 35

Monday, May 7, 2007 - 7:33am

Jeremy, you were not banned, but moderated. All folks without pictures were moderated with a few exceptions for those who have been around long enough. The details can be found Jason's Blog. You are having problems posting just let me know.

edited

As a correction, Jeremy was moderated for posting under multiple identities. The picture rule was in response to people trying to post in bad faith, as others have observed above. Sorry to feed the troll but I couldn't let my mistake sit uncorrected.

(Edited by William N. Green
on 5/07, 3:06pm)

Post 36

Monday, May 7, 2007 - 9:54am

See! That proves it. THEY ARE WATCHING YOU.

Ted

Post 37

Monday, May 7, 2007 - 11:58am

Solo wasn't fair to you, I'm sure that's probably true, but ragging about it here isn't productive.

Actually, it is productive... and by Objectivism's own codes of conduct.

Ayn Rand said repeatedly that, in a free economy, the most legitimate method of accountability for a business or organization would be through its reputation in the public, and not through any inefficient government intervention programs. In other words, what people are saying about a given product or organization.

So, that's precisely what I'm doing. Just as about everybody at SOLO has done with regards to spreading dishonest rumors about me (at least my rumors are, actually, true) I am "getting the word out".

Post 38

Monday, May 7, 2007 - 12:09pm

Jeremy, you were not banned, but moderated. All folks without pictures were moderated with a few exceptions for those who have been around long enough. The details can be found Jason's Blog. You are having problems posting just let me know.

This statement is just plain false, and I am stopping just short of actually calling you a bold-faced liar for saying it. I was banned. Not moderated.

Almost immediately after joining with Bill Visconti and others in confronting Robert Whinefield, Lindsay asked me point blank if I was Orion Reasoner. I replied, "Who is John Galt?" and, immediately thereafter, I was unable to view posts, respond to posts, post new threads, or even read SOLO email any longer. Period.

What's more, an on-screen message informed me that I was now unable to view or post in the forums.

That's precisely what happened. I was banned. Outright.

Of course, Jason Quintana has apparently decided to lie for the record -- his blog -- and say I was "moderated", not banned but, as usual, he is doing his usual.

Post 39

Monday, May 7, 2007 - 12:11pm