I Like People
It's true. I really tend to get along with most everyone I meet. Now, I sure don't agree with all the things these people hold near and dear, but that's usually not an issue. You see, what I bother to speak about or take issue with all depends on the situation. What I say and do changes depending on if I'm meeting someone on the street, at work, at a family party, or at gathering of friends. I give people leeway and respect their right to hold their beleifs, even if I don't respect the beleifs. My repsect for that right only extends as far as that person doesn't try to force them on me or anyone else.
The departure of Rich saddens me in a way, as I often enjoyed his sense of humor and he offered a perspective that, though I often disagreed, gave me some insight into things. There are a few people that have left or been booted off from the old SOLOHQ that I was happy to see go, but Rich doesn't rank among these. He seems like a good person. I sense no malevolence, and would probably enjoy his company and even be able to be his friend if we occasioned to live near one another.
I would ask anyone ready to rail at Rich's departure to really consider this situation and I think you'll find that, the only reason Rich isn't here anymore, is that HE chose to leave, because it suited him. No one here forced him to leave. He wasn't moderated prior to his departure, though he was asked politely to keep certain topics to the dissent board. That request, given the amount of thread spread of his discussions, was quite reasonable.
Now for a little hypothetical fun:
Imagine a group of Christians who wish to engage in some activism. The goal, for the sake of this hypothetical, is unimportant but you can pretend they wish to allow prayer groups in public schools. They start having meetings about it and one day this guy comes along and says he’s interested in the same goal and they should work together.
During the course of many meetings he discusses why some of the Christians’ ideas are wrong. Offering no evidence for his claims, he is often set upon by those who don;t like to hear this. Upon some questioning he states that he used to be a Christian, but now he’s a Satanist, though still a friend of Christianity.
Some of the group members take him to task over his beliefs, and often the topic turns towards this issue, eating up time that could be spent on discussing school prayer. The group organizers say, “Look we’re not interested in hearing about your Satanism, but if you really want to talk about it, just do it in the back-room over there, and anyone else who wants to talk about it with you can do it there.”
This isn’t good enough for our Satanist though. He starts talking about how we really shouldn’t make so much of the differences in our beliefs, because we have a common goal in the school prayer issue, and after all, there are others out there who are far more disagreeable than him, like those damned Atheists. “Sure, fine, whatever,” the Christians says. “We don’t agree, but if you keep your Satanism talk to the back-room, it won’t be an issue.” “No way,” says our Satanist. “You guys are just going to drive others away from your cause. I’m leaving since you can’t be more tolerant.”
Now, we aren’t Christians and Rich isn’t a Satanist. Other than that, and the fact that Objectivism isn't an arbitrary religious system like Christianity, the parallel in my story is the same. It's not a valid expectation that Rich should be able to say what he likes in the RoR forum just because he happens to support some causes that are important to us as well. It's not enough that he's a nice guy. Apparently, the price we are expected to pay for the privilege of his posting on RoR is that we have to listen to anything no matter how opposed to basic Objectivist principles it is.
What am I to do? Rich left on his own, I assume, because RoR wasn't offering him what he wanted. Judging only by the information I have at hand, I'd say that his expectations were unreasonable. RoR offers people a fairly wide degree of posting leeway. It's rare when someone needs to be moderated, and most disagreements resolve themselves peacfully. Joe has even had the kindness to include a dissent space for those really at odds with Objectivism. It's not often that someone needs to be told to post there either, as people seem to use it for it's intended purpose.
Ethan
|
What's invalid is invalid. It's generally not a point of discussion except for those who insist on claiming that they have unprovable beliefs. Reality invalidates the arbitrary and the non-existant. ... not me. 
