RoR: Forum

Thanks for posting this Kat.

Mr Stolyarov is entitled to his opinion, he is however, incorrect. I suggest that you have members that this was sent to read his articles and judge for themselves whether his prudish, life and freedom hating philosophy are in any way related to Objectivism. I wouldn't let this bother you too much. Those who listen to his advice are the ones who lose.

Ethan

Post 1

Monday, May 30, 2005 - 3:02pm

Oh, Stoly, up to his old tricks again. I still recall this comparison to a classic British TV character:

http://solohq.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/1125_2.shtml#46

Some things never change! Like the Master, he just keeps appearing in the most darned of places...

Post 2

Monday, May 30, 2005 - 3:05pm

I only posted the first sentence of the email. There is lots more if anyone is interested. I find this Stoly character hilarious like a cartoon of some kind of commie zombie frankenstein with a god complex.

I can't seriously read his stuff.... it gives me hemorrhoids and hairballs. :-)

Post 3

Monday, May 30, 2005 - 3:19pm

Mah goodness greyshious.

Someone must doo the honahs, so with yoah due leave,

I am,

Colonel Michael Stuart

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 5/30, 10:48pm)

Post 4

Monday, May 30, 2005 - 3:20pm

Hey Kat,

Forward it to me. I'm a glutton for punishment as many know.

Ethan

Post 5

Monday, May 30, 2005 - 4:29pm

Uh .... Did someone invent an additional April Fool's day when I wasn't looking?

Post 6

Monday, May 30, 2005 - 7:58pm

Have any of you met Gennady? He's actually a pretty bright kid. Misguided, certainly, and arrogant to a fault, but bright. And he's quite hard-working, though I can't imagine he has much of a social life, for what that's worth. He might have a future in politics.

The problem is, he is not an Objectivist, no matter how much he claims to be one. He is what another NIF member described as a 'conservative without God'; in short, an atheistic quasi-libertarian conservative. He has somehow confused this brand of Victorian morality/free-market politics with Objectivism, and in doing so he has explicitly adopted a philosophy which is at odds with his personal convictions.
And he thinks "ph" should be spelled "f". In short, he wants to remake the English language in his image. Weird.

That said, it might not be the best course of action simply to dismiss everything he writes out of hand. Though I hardly agree with any of his interpretations or applications of Objectivism, he still does make a complaint that, if true, should be addressed. From his email:

"As a result of Perigo's purges, SOLO has suffered a brain drain of anybody with a sense of decency and rationality remaining. The only ones who continue to write for the organization are Perigo's personal fan club, acolytes who will second his every word and perverse slur. I would encourage anybody here who values reason, common sense, toleration, and his own reputation, to cease his association with Perigo's organization immediately."

I disagree with his accusations of hedonism and nihilism, and from what I have seen in my brief time on SOLO, the site hardly appears to require homogeneity of opinion (quite the opposite, in fact!). The second part of his critique, though, states that Lindsay and others in this group respond to argument with ad hominem attacks, and would rather ban someone of opposing opinions than address the issues and answer the challenges he presents through reasoned debate.
I don't know if this criticism is true - it doesn't seem to be, but I haven't been a member long enough to confirm or refute it - but if it is true, it is something that those involved should address and seek to correct.
If it is not true, on the other hand, then what the heck! There's no problem to begin with, other than a kid spouting off his intellectually off-tilt adaptation of a rational philosophy. Hopefully he will learn and mature in his thinking as he goes; I think there's hope, if he steps off his high horse and approaches issues with an open mind. Time will tell, I suppose.

Post 7

Monday, May 30, 2005 - 8:29pm

What were the reasons for his ban from solo?

Thanks,
Dean

Post 8

Monday, May 30, 2005 - 9:15pm

Luke,
I haven't been here an enormously long time, but in the past few months I've seen an extremely wide variety of opinions and styles freely expressed and tolerated.

The few times I've seen someone 'banned' is when they insist on repeatedly engaging in abusive remarks of a sort and at a level that discussion could no longer productively continue. (And even that in a very few cases. A lot of mean and juvenile remarks are tolerated without even a hint of 'banning'. I often wish the policy were actually more stringent.) On the contrary, most people who leave do so because they no longer wish to discuss on this forum.

Post 9

Monday, May 30, 2005 - 9:59pm

"I disagree with his accusations of hedonism and nihilism, and from what I have seen in my brief time on SOLO, the site hardly appears to require homogeneity of opinion (quite the opposite, in fact!)."

Welcome. SOLO seems a very diverse forum for a bunch of people with the same beliefs :-). There's plenty of disagreements among Objectivists here - and that's not to mention the anarchists, creationists, etc. that have been active contributors.

"The second part of his critique, though, states that Lindsay and others in this group respond to argument with ad hominem attacks, and would rather ban someone of opposing opinions than address the issues and answer the challenges he presents through reasoned debate."

I can't say I've been impressed from an intellectual standpoint with what I've seen from Lindsay personally, as many of his posts have been name calling, at least flirting with ad hominem. His posts can have merit for humor (his comments about rationality of women were golden), but rational debate they are not. However, there are many other people who post more frequently with Perigo anyway and who will engage in reasoned discussion.

In the couple months I've followed SOLO, I've only seen one person banned, Justin Ramaindo. He was a pretty confrontational character who faced immediate insults from others when he joined. I'm not sure whether I more question Perigo's decision to ban him, or perhaps the decision not to also ban other people who were arguing with him. It certainly hasn't been a ban-happy environment here in any case.

Post 10

Monday, May 30, 2005 - 9:49pm

Dean,
According to Gennady,
"In the end, I was informally banned (i.e. "put under moderation," with every one of my posts blocked by the moderators), due to no other reason that the administration could not refute me in honest debate, and saw my continued presence as a threat to the propagation by default of its attempt to infiltrate Objectivism with ideas of sexual license and hedonism."
I'm sure Lindsay has his own side of the story. And I, for one, certainly haven't seen anything that anyone has written here as an "attempt to infiltrate Objectivism with ideas of sexual license and hedonism." But, again, I haven't been here long. And my view of what constitutes 'sexual license and hedonism' probably differs vastly from Mr. Stolyarov's, anyway.

Jeff,
Thanks for the feedback!
I also dislike smears, insults, ad hominems, and other abusive and non-constructive rhetoric, and if that is what it takes to be banned from a discussion forum, then I have no objections to the policy.

Post 11

Monday, May 30, 2005 - 10:08pm

So why was this guy I always found to be a misguided, very smart bastard allowed to post so many articles that were absolute rubbish before he was banned (or self imposed exile?)

Post 12

Monday, May 30, 2005 - 11:54pm

He was never banned. He degenerated into the habit of making thread after thread and post after post that were nothing but insults and nonsense, and we set him to moderated status. He didn't like having his contributes judged as worthy or not based on the content, but we had to do it because he was spamming up the site to no end. He declared himself banned so that he could play the wounded victim, but we never did a blanket rejection of everything he submitted. For people that we want to do that to, we have a "banned" status. =)

Personally, I thought many of his contributions were interesting, but he is definitely an arch-conservative looking for rationalizations and not an Objectivist.

Post 13

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 12:07am

Dean,

I have been trying to read up on what sparked Stoly being moderated and can't come up with anything. In the e-mail (if you want the whole thing, Kat or I will send it to you), he provides links to Reginald Firehammer's articles against Solo (after he was banned) and an article on being banned by one Henry Emrich. Both quote Solo posts and talk about specific moments/issues. Stoly does neither, so unless Linz or someone who knows steps forth, it will remain a mystery and a mere Stoly gripe.

I have been on board since shortly before you showed up (remember that?) and I arrived only after Firehammer got banned and Stoly got muffled. From what I have seen so far, you have to work really hard at being an asshole to get banned or moderated around here. It just doesn't happen by accident, nor does it happen for one or two grumpy posts that cross the line bigtime of good taste and rationality. Toleration actually is quite high in this respect.

But let's see if some answer to your question is forthcoming. I, for one, am also interested. (Edit - my post just now crossed with Jeff Landauer's - which pretty well explains the matter.)

Luke Morris,

Good to see you around here. I completely agree with Jeff Perren, but I would also like to add some comments about Sense of Life. One thing I have noticed is that Linz is incredibly tolerant of opinions and discourse being aired on Solo that are in diametric opposition to his own views. He lets the flare-ups happen as they may. He does get abrasive and is rather prone to coining phrases (weasel words, pomo wanking, Saddamite, etc.), but you should check out his articles - they are small gems of - there is no other phrase - passionate rationality.

I have discerned two lines that should never be crossed around here (and these are my own opinions and observations, not any party line). The first is on the gay issue. There was a humongous debate over this before I got on board and the result was the banning of Firehammer and a few others - not because they disagreed with Linz, but because they simply would not leave the issue of trying to prove that homosexuality is depraved alone - long after they had made their point.

Well Linz is gay and so are quite a few others around here. I personally find, after reading most of that debate, that he and the other gay members were way too tolerant. This is essentially Linz's house and he deserves the respect of not having to clean spittle from guests off his face all the time about his sexuality. If someone thinks a gay person is a pervert, then he/she should not be in Linz's house anyway. What the hell do these idiots think they are doing? Would they like someone to go to their establishment and constantly call them obscene, disgusting, hideous, nauseating, repugnant, sickening, vile, filthy, foul, indecent or whatever?

The second is a feel - a blend of reason and high emotion - that should be respected. Part of the allure of Solo is the fact that, if you are sincere, you can say almost ANYTHING about your own self and your own beliefs and you will find people who will enthusiastically agree with you while others will trounce you mercilessly. You can thus test your own convictions against people on both sides who care passionately and think deeply.

Sometimes you see intellectual straight-jacket patrol fiends show up loudly proclaiming to be the Guardians of the Truth of Objectivism and Proper Behavior, condemning anyone and everyone for giving vent to enthusiasm or otherwise trying to express their reason emotionally. These inconvenient creatures are tolerated for a while, but if they keep insisting on trying to destroy the spontaneousness and sincerity that have become the hallmark of Solo, they are warned, then moderated.

Are mistakes made? Sure. Whenever the emotional level is high, people will shit on themselves at times. This happens to all of us. Is the level of research and reasoning high in posters? You're damned right it is. Just hang around for a while. Try talking crap and see what happens. Does bad taste occur? It does - and gloriously so. No "forbidden" issue is taboo here. You can get as sexual, scatological, perverse or whatever as you wish - but only if you can stand the catcalls when you go too far. (And people around here can be brutal.)

The type of prude who continually refers to this kind of expression as "obscene" and "degraded" and "poor taste" or whatever, especially condemning the tremendous amount of good-natured joking that goes on like that, admonishing everyone to be more "mature" or some other joy-choking term, does not last very long.

Probably the easiest way to get moderated and banned for good from Solo is to be consistently boring. To me, that is really the most heinous unforgivable sin that you can ever commit.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 5/31, 12:11am)

Post 14

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 1:13am

For those interested in the hedonist/post-modern nihilist accusation, it's an old story. Stoly is not an Objectivist, just a typical conservative who thought he could prove his conservative views by rationalizing them with bits of out-of-context Objectivism. This particular argument he actually got from an openly conservative religious participant. He believed that sex outside of marriage was a sin and anyone who suggested otherwise must be a hedonist. The only two possibilities, evidently, are lifelong monogamy in the form of marriage, or sex with anything and everything. If you're not for the former, you must be for the latter. If you're not a conservative like him, you must be a hedonist and a post-modern nihilist. You either agree with his conservative standards, or you have no standards.

Perfectly clear now?

Post 15

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 1:15am

I just hope another member of the Chicago Objectivist group sends out an open letter refuting this drivel, which is particularly disingenuous in light of how much Stolyarov abused the freedoms of SOLO for his own solopsistic gain. Arrogantly flooding an open forum with your own content defies decency, intellectual etiquette and tastefulness. In retrospect, Stolyarov should've been put under moderation for that -- since SOLO aims for standards and quality as well as openness -- but he wasn't. Instead, Lindsay merely made a public announcement clarifying that Stolyarov had no official affiliation with SOLO, as people might perceive given the vast oceanic volumes of content that appeared under his name. Only after his endless, loony outburst at that announcement was he finally put under moderation. It was certainly appropriate and probably belated.

And moderation, as Stoly well knows, is no "informal banning," although it may well be an informal middle-finger. Formally, it is simply quality-control.

And a correction to MSK's post: nobody was banned as a result of the homo debate. Firehammer was put under moderation only after he dishonestly characterized as a "banning" Lindsay's polite request that he stop discussing the issue on *one* particular thread. He -- along with his lover-crony -- was banned months later for making vile personal insults.

Alec

(Edited by Alec Mouhibian
on 5/31, 1:17am)

Post 16

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 1:38am

Alec,

And a correction to MSK's post: nobody was banned as a result of the homo debate. Firehammer was put under moderation only after he dishonestly characterized as a "banning" Lindsay's polite request that he stop discussing the issue on *one* particular thread. He -- along with his lover-crony -- was banned months later for making vile personal insults.

Thank you for that information. It was not clear in my mind (and I had no wish to go through those articles of his again - I read them a while back - where he yapped on and on and on about the exact time of this and the exact phrasing of that, or complained about idiotic stuff like Linz wanting to change the world we live in as if that were a bad thing - I think he said "save" the world - well, whatever - I didn't want to read that crap again.)

Michael

Post 17

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 2:01am

For the newbies here, I hope all is clear from the preceding few posts. Stolyarov was never banned; he was placed under moderation�long after his pompous twattery became unendurable. I agree, in hindsight, that we should have repudiated him far sooner. His obnoxious, ludicrous conceit and phascist views had long since made it clear that an Objectivist he was not.

As phor Phirehammer, he repeats to this day the lie that he was banned phor opposing homosexuality. He and his equally unappetising cohort Cass were banned phor posting gutter innuendo against the Brandens. On the matter of homosexuality, Phirehammer had demonstrated his dishonesty by claiming not to judge homosexuals as immoral while likening homosexual urges to impulses to steal and commit arson ... as soon as you *acted* on them, you *did* become immoral! But he wasn't banned phor that. He was banned phor being a tawdry wannabe character-assassin.

Phirehammer, Stolyarov and a handphul of like-minded intrinsicists regale each other with anti-SOLO stories on Regi's site. They're like a SOLO Victims' Support Group! I call them Phirehammer's Phascist Phive, in depherence to Stoly's ambitions to change the spelling of "ph" words, to their authoritarian rationalism, and to their smallness, in all senses of the term.

Not a pretty picture. I encouraged Kat to post the quote since I thought it was very phunny. But it has afforded an opportunity to clear some matters up that newbies might be confused/concerned about.

Colonel Kelly�I especially want to say thank you to you, Sir! Your salute to the spirit of SOLO brought tears to my eyes.

Linz

Post 18

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 2:33am

MSK,

I sanctioned your post above, a great summary of the attractions of SOLO, made extraordinary by this magnificent final paragraph:

Probably the easiest way to get moderated and banned for good from Solo is to be consistently boring. To me, that is really the most heinous unforgivable sin that you can ever commit.

Amen,
David

Post 19

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 3:40am