• Announcements

    • Michael Stuart Kelly

      Evil emoticon   04/16/2016

      We now have a devil emoticon. Type colon, evil, colon, all together, then space. See an example by opening this message. Here's the example  .
william.scherk

Diana Mertz Hsieh Meets The Wall of Hypocrisy

306 posts in this topic

NB -- to Grundy herself and to the other Grundies of the OL universe, this is a Trivial Thread. Please do not comment if you find it boring or wrong. All Grundy comments will be monitored and harshly assessed by The Snark Pack.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Over at Noodlefood, Doctor Comrade DMH has come out swinging against the new 'Watch out for Diana, she is poison' website. Here is a selection of remarks and comments from a post that responds to these terrible people and their terrible, intolerant, and poisonous identification of DMH as a dangerous heretic.

This could be subtitled On a Self-Hoisting Petard.

For obvious reasons, the creators and supporters of this web site are not welcome in my life, including online. They are not entitled to post belligerent comments on my Facebook wall or in these NoodleFood comments, as happens periodically. They should have had the good sense to unsubscribe themselves from my OLists, rather than obliging me to remove them. Most of all, they're not entitled to violate my rights, such as by reposting video segments from my webcast without my permission. (Happily, I was able to remove such a video with a DMCA takedown request.)

if a child is proven in court to have zero current or future capacity to reason -- or, as in the case of the anencephalic, not even the potential for consciousness -- then that child could be humanely enthanized by its parents.

Later, someone seemingly determined to misrepresent what I said in the webcast -- as if I was all in favor of eating babies for breakfast -- questioned me about my views.

I can imagine a few far-fetched scenarios in which consuming human flesh would not be horrifyingly immoral, provided that no rights were violated in doing so.

All I get out of this is the familiar Judgity judge judge stomping-moose dance. That its is now being performed on Diana is a good thing. That the moose-stompers are more deranged and sectarian, and more hysterical and sloppy than she is ... that is just gravy, sweet white cornstarch and suet gravy.

The Ick Factor in Objectivism. Diana Hsieh denies reports that she favours the eating of babies. Ye gawds.

Edited by william.scherk
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As if we didn't already know the world is utterly degenerate and doomed, now these deranged individuals are actually allowed to start a website - a website which anyone could read - insinuating that Ethel is a False Friend of Objectivism, although these three or four people are clearly deranged and not PhD's, and not qualified to Look in Her Eyes much less comment upon her, and would not know a False Friend from an Ungrateful Protegee - truly, these are the End of Days.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> they're not entitled to violate my rights, such as by reposting video segments from my webcast without my permission.

Diana doesn't seem to have heard of 'fair use' which allows one to publish limited excerpts for critical or analytical or 'review' purposes as opposed to trying to resell or make money off someone else's work.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> they're not entitled to violate my rights, such as by reposting video segments from my webcast without my permission.

Diana doesn't seem to have heard of 'fair use' which allows one to publish limited excerpts for critical or analytical or 'review' purposes as opposed to trying to resell or make money off someone else's work.

Essentially she's aping Rand who'd send a lawyer after anybody for practically anything, probably because he was on retainer, so, go earn your money! Diana must have gotten this osmotically through superficial reading of the historical annotated corpus. So far my understanding of her understanding of Objectivism is it is a lake, frozen over, and she skates on the ice.

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh, they just locked the topic on OO! Just as I was adding a post!! "Please post future replies directly in the Noodlefood blog", like I can do that!!! Anyway, here's the post I was trying to make over there:

I'm a little-endian myself.

I had you pegged as a Yahoo. I’m a Time Lord, BTW.

Yes, like those. Add the McCaskey affair.

Indeed, but it’s hard to summarize that one in a single sentence. It wasn’t meant to be an exhaustive list.

The website doesn't look like it was created to make a personal attack on you. It seems to be made to address splits and schisms in Objectivism by providing links to the disagreement and then to the more consistent position.

There is a FAQ page where the website operators repeatedly claim that criticism of DH is not their raison d'être. IMO they doth protest too much, and their purpose is blindingly obvious.

http://www.checkingpremises.org/faq

I’ve seen plenty of crazy cultist crap in my time, and sad to say, this isn’t more than two standard deviations from the mean.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

checkingpremises.org is appears to be yet another of those Defending True Objectivism websites...

These sites get oh so boring very quickly... especially when their gold standard for "True Objectivism" is "agreement with everything said by Leonard Peikoff."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ick Factor in Objectivism. Diana Hsieh denies reports that she favours the eating of babies. Ye gawds.

I wonder what her husband, an MD, thought about that. That was one view that were best left unstated in public.

Ba'al Chatzaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
checkingpremises.org is appears to be yet another of those Defending True Objectivism websites... These sites get oh so boring very quickly... especially when their gold standard for "True Objectivism" is "agreement with everything said by Leonard Peikoff."

Yes: "Tempest in a teapot" time. (Thanks, Peter T.)

Does nobody get how fast things have moved on? What was "Ayn Rand (Pty) Ltd" is now

"Objectivism Corp", listed on the NYSE.

We all own shares now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whYNOT wrote:

Yes: "Tempest in a teapot" time. (Thanks, Peter T.)

end quote

Tony, she appears in a baseball cap with a shotgun on her site, but have you ever watched her video? I paid her five bucks to see it and it was enjoyable. She is a certified “babe.” I treat “hot intellectual babes” like her and Ann Coulter with a treacle-y critical tongue, which tips off the limited abilities of an excited, older guy.

Let us look at the offending passage.

Diana Hsieh wrote:

If a child is proven in court to have zero current or future capacity to reason -- or, as in the case of the an-encephalic, not even the potential for consciousness -- then that child could be humanely euthanized by its parents.

end quote

I don’t like the word “euthanasia.” My criticism is beyond semantics. Letting a human-formed being lacking a brain die naturally should not be called euthanasia or neglect. I would NOT begin by calling a failed human, a “human with rights.” Rights DO NOT BEGIN at conception. That human form began as a collection of cells, but never received the *spark,* so should still be called a collection of cells after separation from the woman, though it superficially has a human form. The woman IS NOT a mother. The human formed, mindless being is not a potential human. The ethics board for the Colleges of Obstetrics and Gynecology agrees with my analysis.

So, I have no argument with Diana. I agree with her.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes: "Tempest in a teapot" time. (Thanks, Peter T.)

More like "tantrum in a teacup".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes: "Tempest in a teapot" time. (Thanks, Peter T.)

More like "tantrum in a teacup".

Just guessing, but maybe "tantrum in a C-cup?"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes: "Tempest in a teapot" time. (Thanks, Peter T.)

More like "tantrum in a teacup".

Just guessing, but maybe "tantrum in a C-cup?"

LOLXXXL

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have done a little bit of helpful work with Diana's Tweets about her tormenters, and put it online at Storify.

See Doctor Comrade Diana and the self-hoisting petard

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William, on behalf of humanity I thank you.

--Brant

I thank you back, Brant, and I must say you and Humanity make a lovely couple.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

I've been meaning to use Storify one day.

I just can't seem to get excited about content curation (which basically means snip and quote from a variety of places and comment on it). Er... I get excited by the idea. But when I start doing it daily, it gets boring after the first week. (I've tried this in other places with news items in marketing topics.)

But that's the future of the web.

Cool.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have done a little bit of helpful work with Diana's Tweets about her tormenters, and put it online at Storify.

See Doctor Comrade Diana and the self-hoisting petard

William:

Excellent opening! If I get a political gig this year we may be talking about some work.

Diana Hsieh is a philosopher specializing in practical ethics. She hosts
the formerly popular blog
Noodlefood. She was once a comrade to Nathaniel Branden, but parted ways and
declared him Anathema.
Since that denunciation, she has become infamous in the Objectivish community.

Nice, tight and surgical.

Kudos

Adam

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WSS: fine work. Sad that such work is needed. Also too bad that she looks like a teenager whilst dispensing her nostrums.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PDS wrote:

WSS: fine work. Sad that such work is needed. Also too bad that she looks like a teenager whilst dispensing her nostrums.

end quote

I agree. Power corrupts. She is disagreeable. And corruptible. Diana does look a bit like a teenager. I hereby cast her to the TV program, Glee, which was doing a Michael Jackson tribute tonight. “She’s bad. She’s bad, and she knows it.”

What are we to do? What went wrong with Rand’s concept of the rational individualist, ideal human? Diana is a me-too-er like a lot of obedient North Koreans. What a shame.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Checkingpremises.org site has changed a bit, the FAQ is gone, and some essays by its “Principals” are up. I suggest “Subjectivist Objectivists” by Chip Joyce for a taste of highly distilled, concentrated cultism written at what I estimate to be an 8th grade level.

http://checkingpremises.org/subjobj

The problem Checking Premises confronts is the Subjectivist Objectivists. They used to argue that Objectivism is whatever they wish it to be (à la David Kelley) and that did not work well for them.

That’s the opening line. But perhaps he’s a newbie and just needs an editor.

No? Uh-oh.

Chip Joyce was in the first graduating class of the Ayn Rand Insitute's Objectivist Graduate Center, where he studied full-time under the professorships of Dr. Leonard Peikoff, Dr. Harry Binswanger, and Mr. Peter Schwartz. He has studied Objectivism since 1987.

Also of particular interest is Rand’s “To Whom It May Concern”, posted unapologetically.

http://www.checkingpremises.org/towhom

Some other details:

David Kelley, PhD, is Executive Director of The Atlas Society. Formerly he founded and ran the
now-defunct
The Objectivist Center.

Wishful thinking by the Loony-Brethren?

The Brandens both wrote unauthorized biographies of Ayn Rand--after her death in 1982.

Here we must cut them some slack. How would any of them know that NB's book is his memoir, not a biography of AR? They'd have to look at the book, maybe hold it in their hands. Which reminds me, I've probably told this story before but anyway, I had to deal with one of these freaks, and at one point there was a question that could only be answered by referring to a photo that's in Barbara's book. I think it was one of the wedding pictures where all of the Collective were together. So, I fish out the book, and open it to the page in question, and this freakazoid literally would not touch the book. Y'know, I hand it to him with the page open, and he refused to hold the book in his hands. So I had to hold it there in front of him.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we must cut them some slack. How would any of them know that NB's book is his memoir, not a biography of AR? They'd have to look at the book, maybe hold it in their hands. Which reminds me, I've probably told this story before but anyway, I had to deal with one of these freaks, and at one point there was a question that could only be answered by referring to a photo that's in Barbara's book. I think it was one of the wedding pictures where all of the Collective were together. So, I fish out the book, and open it to the page in question, and this freakazoid literally would not touch the book. Y'know, I hand it to him with the page open, and he refused to hold the book in his hands. So I had to hold it there in front of him.

Dennis:

Incredible. I never heard that one before. Was the person afraid that his/her hands would burst into flames. Talk about cult religiosity! Sickening.

Out of curiosity was that individual male or female?

Adam

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity was that individual male or female?

Male. He's in one of Peikoff's videos, there was a mock "Introduction to Objectivism" thing in a classroom setting, about an hour long, where LP talks for maybe a half hour, followed by questions. The questions are handed out in advance and he's one of the questioners.

Which reminds me, I used to know one of the people on the feedback page too. I think I'll pass on singling him out, and limit my comment to: cuckoo.gif

http://www.checkingp...es.org/feedback

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we must cut them some slack. How would any of them know that NB's book is his memoir, not a biography of AR? They'd have to look at the book, maybe hold it in their hands. Which reminds me, I've probably told this story before but anyway, I had to deal with one of these freaks, and at one point there was a question that could only be answered by referring to a photo that's in Barbara's book. I think it was one of the wedding pictures where all of the Collective were together. So, I fish out the book, and open it to the page in question, and this freakazoid literally would not touch the book. Y'know, I hand it to him with the page open, and he refused to hold the book in his hands. So I had to hold it there in front of him.

Dennis:

Incredible. I never heard that one before. Was the person afraid that his/her hands would burst into flames. Talk about cult religiosity! Sickening.

Out of curiosity was that individual male or female?

Adam

Now just a minute there. Did you try to hand him another book as a control? Maybe he was like that with all books!

--Brant

let's get scientific here

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now just a minute there. Did you try to hand him another book as a control? Maybe he was like that with all books!

--Brant

let's get scientific here

LOL! This is the same person who lent me GHS's Atheism, Ayn Rand and other Heresies. This was when it first came out, he had gotten it right away. So yes, it was only anything by a Branden, it was like their books carried leprosy. Kelley too, but I didn't find that out until later.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now just a minute there. Did you try to hand him another book as a control? Maybe he was like that with all books!

--Brant

let's get scientific here

LOL! This is the same person who lent me GHS's Atheism, Ayn Rand and other Heresies. This was when it first came out, he had gotten it right away. So yes, it was only anything by a Branden, it was like their books carried leprosy. Kelley too, but I didn't find that out until later.

He obviously didn't know that Nathaniel championed ATCAG for months and months before it was published or that George typed it all out on Branden's old typewriter or that Nash published it as well as The Psychology of Self Esteem. A good thing too. I don't think he'd have survived the shock.

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now