is it true that Rand forbade her associates to read certain things?

I want to know:

Is it true that Rand forbade her associates to read certain publications or authors? If so, had she herself read those items she forbade to others?

Post 1

Thursday, January 14, 2010 - 10:29pm

What's next the next question, did she urge abortions on happily expectant mothers? Or use the blood of gentiles to cook her famous ketchup goulash? Really, Kate, without some reason, i.e., evidence, for posting questions like this they amount to arbitrary smears. This is terribly broad and contextless. Assuming you have something particular in mind it is dishonest not to be concretely specific.

Please post a verifiable and reliable source for this notion immediately.

Post 2

Friday, January 15, 2010 - 12:18am

Yes, Kate, please do whatever Ted Keer asks because he is in charge here. If you doubt that, just ask him.

(Have you updated your profile yet? You do not need to post a picture of yourself, but you do need to tell Ted all about your hobbies.)

(And by the way, Kate, please do so "immediately" as he asked because even when you are not participating on RoR, you must answer to Ted Keer for your time.)

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 1/15, 12:21am)

Post 3

Friday, January 15, 2010 - 5:53am

Kate,

I'd assume you had heard or read that somewhere, and would have to agree that when asking such a question, it is appropriate to at least explain the source.

Otherwise, as blurted out, it is akin to asking "okay, so have you stopped beating your wife?"

jt

Post 4

Friday, January 15, 2010 - 6:22am

No. If this were true you'd have some evidence.

Post 5

Friday, January 15, 2010 - 8:48am

Kate,

A context for the question would be a good idea. I'm curious why you would ask this, myself.

Post 6

Friday, January 15, 2010 - 8:55am

Me and My Shadow?

Countenancing a smear simply because I question it, Michael? I focused on the question, you on the person.

For how many months now have you let it gnaw at you that I ask people like Mr Boese, on an Objectivist forum, to tell us which of Ayn Rand's books they have read? I haven't asked to rent space in your head, but you've built quite a nice little shrine to me there nonetheless.

Why do you reduce yourself to stalking me from thread to thread like a troll? Try, just once, to stand for something rather than against someone. (Why not comment where you have an interest, like on the money thread?) Whether it is myself or others in relation to whom you define yourself, you remain a second-hander, a shadow.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 1/15, 9:04am)

Post 7

Friday, January 15, 2010 - 1:25pm

I hadn't thought of asking the question you say would come next, Ted -- and wouldn't ever have imagined asking such a bizarre question, if you hadn't raised it?

I wanted to know whether something I'd heard was true or false. If something makes it wrong to want to know that, please explain what makes it wrong -- and how.

Post 8

Friday, January 15, 2010 - 1:36pm

I heard that from someone who isn't a Rand fan, who isn't here, and who claimed (falsely, I assume) that "only a fool doesn't know she did this [censorship]. The Randites themselves [he claimed] will happily admit it, if you ask., because they think it was good."

Since such a bizarre notion had never occurred to me (the notion that Rand would have censored anyone's reading of anything whatsoever -- let alone that "the Randites" here or elsewhere would think such an act "was good"!) , asking about it here seems right -- if only to disprove the assertion which ended the preceding paragraph.

Post 9

Friday, January 15, 2010 - 2:26pm

Kate:

I wanted to know whether something I'd heard was true or false. If something makes it wrong to want to know that, please explain what makes it wrong -- and how.

The problem Kate is that you can't prove a negative. If someone makes an assertion, the burden of proof falls on them.

I could easily accuse Rand of any number of things without any proof to show. But to others who don't make the accusation, all they can do is ask for that proof. They can't prove Rand never did such things, they can only demand evidence for it, and if none is forthcoming, there is no reason to believe it to be true.

Why not ask if Rand was a vampire that sucked the blood out of gentile children? Could I prove she was never a vampire?

But even if Rand did these things, it's improper to dismiss her ideas based on her personal actions. It amounts to nothing more than an ad hominem attack. Her ideas should stand on their own, without any scrutiny into her personal life.

Post 10

Friday, January 15, 2010 - 3:00pm

It hadn't occurred to me to dismiss Rand's ideas based on her actions. Of course, if she had justified some action of hers as a necessary consequence of some idea of hers -- and if the action had been, plainly, wrong -- I'd want to find out whether that action was indeed a necessary consequence of that idea.

Post 11

Friday, January 15, 2010 - 3:03pm

Michael advises:

Yes, Kate, please do whatever Ted Keer asks because he is in charge here. If you doubt that, just ask him.

(Have you updated your profile yet? You do not need to post a picture of yourself, but you do need to tell Ted all about your hobbies.)

(And by the way, Kate, please do so "immediately" as he asked because even when you are not participating on RoR, you must answer to Ted Keer for your time.)

Do others here agree that I should do so? If so, I would very much like to know others' reasons for agreeing with that view.

(Edited by Kate Gladstone on 1/15, 3:04pm)

Post 12

Friday, January 15, 2010 - 3:37pm

Kate, Michael was using heavy sarcasm and earned sanction (Atlas points) because of the agreement of others with his sarcastic comments.

No, you need only act ultimately on your own self-interest, not on the prods or demands of others whether they like it or not. As for certain irritating posters who attempt to bury this site with their relentless volume, I suggest a boycotting strategy. See "Lessons in Adulthood from an Adult Entertainment Forum" for more.

To answer your question, it would have helped if you had prefaced the initial post the way you further set context in Post 8. This is a methodological issue. As you drill through the details of Objectivism, you will learn about arbitrary assertions (statements without evidence) are neither true nor false. As baseless statements, they deserve dismissal without further consideration. The burden of proof always falls onto the shoulders of the person making the assertion.

The next time you hear people make these kinds of wild accusations, demand they either produce hard evidence or shut up.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/15, 4:30pm)

Post 13

Friday, January 15, 2010 - 4:57pm

LS: "... it would have helped if you had prefaced the initial post ...
The next time you hear people make these kinds of wild accusations... "

Also a winner of Atlas Points for his reasoned response. Count on Luke to find the high ground. Point taken.

Post 14

Friday, January 15, 2010 - 5:29pm

I am fascinated by this notion of perennial victimhood that you mention on every thread, Luke. I would like to join your organization, and subscribe to your newsletter. How do I join?

Post 15

Friday, January 15, 2010 - 8:32pm

Kate,

Your tendency to ask questions that are in effect smears is inappropriate. If you can't understand what I'm saying, or what questions amount to smears, then open them in dissent and ask them there.
--------------------

Does any one know if the editor has the ability to move the entire thread into Dissent?

Post 16

Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 2:24am

Kate, I just took a quick look at your profile and noticed that you have read quite a bit of the Ayn Rand library. I agree with others that your posts at least "appear" to have a smearing agenda though I doubt that is your actual motive. Instead, I suspect you are falling into the trap of giving too much credit to Ayn Rand's detractors and not enough to her actual virtues.

It takes time to chew and digest the ideas and to see "the big picture" of Objectivism. I suggest taking a break from the forums to read Leonard Peikoff's book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, an RoR summary review and discussion of which you can find here.

It is very important to do this kind of "homework" when participating in forums like this one. It makes for a much more productive discussion for all. As a Library Science graduate, I am sure you can understand this.

Post 17

Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 3:31am

KG: I want to know: Is it true that Rand forbade her associates to read certain publications or authors? If so, had she herself read those items she forbade to others?

It is a valid question. Much has been written about Ayn Rand. The books by Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden are about as critical of her foibles as most regulars here would tolerate. I have not read any of the other works, such as My Thirty Years with Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff, or Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical by Chris Sciabarra. Then there is the Passionate Criticism of Ayn Rand's Whatever by James Valiant. So, there is a lot out there about her, stories, retellings, personal memories, recovered repressions and so on. That Ayn Rand said that or did this, as claimed, would just need a reference. That is all that is really being asked for, Kate: What is your source?

That said, too, I ran into an interesting and egregious example. One of my classmates is extremely well-read and thoughful, albeit consistently collectivist. I ran into him in the student union and on his laptap, he was working on a term paper and it had a quote from Ayn Rand with "fuck this" and "fuck that" in it attributed to her. I asked him for his source on that -- he had link to a website -- and I said that Ayn Rand never talked like that in public or private. I allowed that I could be wrong, but it was totally out of character for her based on my readings.

So, there is a lot out there, some of it far from the truth. Kate Gladstone asked a simple question.

And the reason why she struck a nerve, is that unlike using the f-word, telling the Collective what not to read would be in character... and we all know that...

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 1/16, 3:35am)

Post 18

Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 6:14am

Does any one know if the editor has the ability to move the entire thread into Dissent?

No, the editor can't. Knowing Kate's history, though, I'm sure she doesn't mean anything scandalous. Understanding subtle language cues is difficult for some folks. Kate isn't trying to make Rand look like the devil, but the question makes it look like she is.

Mike,

And the reason why she struck a nerve, is that unlike using the f-word, telling the Collective what not to read would be in character... and we all know that...

I disagree. It would be far more in character for Rand to rage against anyone defending the crap they've read, opposed to telling them not to read it. I can see Rand getting fed up with a student attempting to compare her ideas with those she loathed.

Rand was quite clear in her West Point address that ideas move everyone, and understanding what you adopt as a principle will necessarily guide you. I can't imagine Rand prohibiting any of her students from thinking for themselves.

Post 19

Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 7:10am