| | > Linz of course has the right to run SOLOP any way he likes.
He certainly can, Luke. My point was not about rights but about hypocrisy. When he proudly claims to welcome free and open debate and criticism then bans anyone whose criticism is too persistent or whose points he doesn't wish to engage seriously -- but who nonetheless follows the rules of Solo -- then he seems to be -deliberately- misstating (because it's hard to see how he could miss the blatant contradiction).
If someone says, it's my site and I'll just boot anyone I don't like or disagree strongly with, then I'd have more respect for his integrity.
Right up to the day before he banned me he said this on the very same thread:
"[Phil] you are free to criticise, as you well know, since you take full advantage of it....if [people] have some problem with SOLO and/or me and don't raise it here when they're at perfect liberty to then, yes, they're gutless."
.....
Diana H, -- though virulently irrational in many ways and more of a danger** to Objectivism because more otherwise-thoughtful people are hoodwinked -- is a more straightforward witch-burner-in-the-name-of-ideas: She seems to almost instantly boot anyone who arouses her anger or who she strongly disagrees with on all kinds of issues, many of them issues relating to personalities (Peikoff, Speicher) and applications (war, military strategy).
She doesn't pretend that she runs a home for all different kinds of viewpoints and or that she just LOVES free-wheeling "Kassy" debate, the way Lindsay P claims to do. Basically, anything that pushes her buttons or Linz's is something that will get someone bounced. There's no maturity or objectivity to it in either case.
The wider principle here -- and the reason this is worth posting about -- is objectivity and why it is hard. People have feelings and intense emotional reactions and they tend to react based on them not on a calm, deliberate weighing of the actual facts.
This applies to how people run websites, choose enemies (and friends). And apply Objectivism. Here I'm not talking about two websites or people, but making a wider point:
Scratch an advocate of objectivity and careful, scrupulous reasoning and fairness and bending over backwards to seek out and give all the evidence a hearing and -- far too often -- you will find a grudgeholder or a cultist, a shameless whim-worshipper or an emotionalist who does it simply because it feels good or it's easy.
**the intrinsicist fanatic burrowing within a movement is more dangerous than the subjectivist buffoon
|
|
