Another pile


kiaer.ts

Recommended Posts

Phil, please just stop responding to every provocation. Just don't even read them. When, for instance, is the last time Gaede or Engle made any comment above a fifth grade level?

It is a shame that the moderator here enjoys and even participates in this bullying. He calls it a guilty pleasure. He has stated over and over that he will not moderate this forum to stop personal attacks except those he sees as against himself. What does that tell you?

I can easily see why you might decide that the forum isn't worth it. You make yourself a target by actually caring - and you have to come to the realization that the opinions of most people aren't worth caring about. I don't know if you paid any attention to the events leading up to my being banned from RoR for "supporting religion". You should have seen the name calling. Even people who seemed decent "Objectivists" showed no sense of honor or justice or even any real comprehension of simple decency. There was no ability to separate personal feelings from objective judgment. Ganging up, innuendo, charges made without evidence, dragging issues from thread to thread and forum to forum. It was really a shock.

The lesson to learn is that talk, saying you believe in reason, and justice, is cheap. Value people's opinions at what you pay for them.

If you want to stay, just ignore the provocations. The little parasitic flies that flock to the scent of blood will get bored and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lesson to learn is that talk, saying you believe in reason, and justice, is cheap. Value people's opinions at what you pay for them.

I agree with this statement.

That is why I peeled this garbage from Ted off from another thread and put it here in the Garbage Pile, where the true value is more correctly indicated.

Since I'm paying for it and all...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Phil, please just stop responding to every provocation.

Thanks Ted, I don't really respond to each one. I like to try to sort of wait until they pile up and make a summary post like "many posters do X or commit the Y fallacy". But I am writing a book, and the kinds of things people do improperly when they think themselves rational are a part of it.

> I don't know if you paid any attention to the events leading up to my being banned from RoR for "supporting religion".

I didn't follow it. I find it shocking that you were banned - did Rowlands *really* give such a ludicrous reason!! I thought he was more intelligent than that?

> The lesson to learn is that talk, saying you believe in reason, and justice, is cheap.

Exactly. Talking the talk vs. walking the walk. Living by reason is hard.

> If you want to stay, just ignore the provocations.

I actually like to slap them down. And I really don't mind when there are so many that I don't have the last word.

They're useful:

I've got a bunch of computer files and journals which have actual posting exchanges -- I wouldn't use the names of real people in my writing, but some of the raw files which have a few clips from posting exchanges are: "civility and positive vs. negative relations and interactions (escalation)", "civility, proper discussion", "how to spread ideas and movements, influence, persuade", "objectivist and libertarian pratfalls", "thinking and argument errors - sweeping claims, unclear generalities, pretentiousness, claiming authoritative status or inflated expertise beyond actual knowledge", etc.

(Yes, I like files and journaling with very long and descriptive titles: They are easier to search and sort on and fine tune with. And when I have 49 files with the word persuasion in them or 36 with literature or 29 with psychology, it's necessary.)

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted, does this mean you've had a change of heart over the past year? Because this behavior you decry, you used to absolutely wallow in it. I think you owed me an apology several times over for it but since you have never once apologized your sermon here leaves me confused.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil, please just stop responding to every provocation. Just don't even read them. When, for instance, is the last time Gaede or Engle made any comment above a fifth grade level?

It is a shame that the moderator here enjoys and even participates in this bullying. He calls it a guilty pleasure. He has stated over and over that he will not moderate this forum to stop personal attacks except those he sees as against himself. What does that tell you?

I can easily see why you might decide that the forum isn't worth it. You make yourself a target by actually caring - and you have to come to the realization that the opinions of most people aren't worth caring about. I don't know if you paid any attention to the events leading up to my being banned from RoR for "supporting religion". You should have seen the name calling. Even people who seemed decent "Objectivists" showed no sense of honor or justice or even any real comprehension of simple decency. There was no ability to separate personal feelings from objective judgment. Ganging up, innuendo, charges made without evidence, dragging issues from thread to thread and forum to forum. It was really a shock.

The lesson to learn is that talk, saying you believe in reason, and justice, is cheap. Value people's opinions at what you pay for them.

If you want to stay, just ignore the provocations. The little parasitic flies that flock to the scent of blood will get bored and move on.

I agree with most everything Ted says in this post. I have never seen a statement from Michael to the effect that the only personal attacks he will censor are those directed against him, so I can't endorse that. I simply do not know if it's true. I sincerely hope not.

I know it's often difficult to separate deliberate personal attacks from sarcasm or humor. I could understand allowing a certain amount of that, as long as it's measured and integrated into an otherwise thoughtful post. But a lot of posts on OL--and usually from the same people--are nothing but personal and vicious. Why can't such posts be deleted and the person warned that such conduct is unacceptable for a website devoted to rational, intelligent living?

I don't buy Phil's statement that he doesn't mind posts that are insulting. His responses indicate otherwise. Ted's advice about ignoring such posts is well-advised. It's Parenting 101: Children repeat behavior that gets reinforced. The pathetic little toddlers need attention, and negative attention is much more rewarding than being ignored.

It's too bad that Michael relegated this to the garbage pile. The issue is an important one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis,

I don't allow myself to be insulted here on OL. It's a question of respect.

I have built things before and watched crap like this destroy them. So I'm just not going to let it happen.

At the other times in my past, I did not balance correctly the principle of fairness with the principle of property. In my commitment to fairness, I did not allow for the way people behave in group. Nowadays I do.

Here's an analogy. If I went to a party at someone's house somewhere and started saying all kinds of nasty things about you, that would be my choice and you could do little about it. You would probably ignore me, or say nasty things about me to your own friends or whatever. The end result would not be very serious.

But what if I went to a party in your own house and started bashing you in front of your guests in a loud voice? It you allowed that, how long do you think it would take before people started going into your things, breaking glasses and plates after they got drunk, spitting on the floor, making a mess at will, etc.? And how long do you think it would take before little cliques started forming with self-appointed leader wannabes intent on taking over your house and setting the rules?

People do that. I know they do, too. Even metaphorically adapted for a resource like a discussion forum. I have lived this too many times to think otherwise.

When I stopped using drugs, I made a rule for myself. If a person wants to insult me, he will have to do it behind my back. I demand respect to my face. It's a condition for hanging around me. This serves me well on running a discussion forum. I'm flexible, of course, and I cut a lot more slack for friends who have provided a lot of value to me over time. But that's my approach and that's the way I choose to balance implementing principles.

About others being nasty to each other here on OL, I don't like it. But each person is owner of his/her own behavior choices. My overall concern here is the health of the forum. And once again, the issue is balance. If you get too namby-pamby in controlling others, the best and brightest feel stifled. If you let general snarkiness and nastiness go past a certain line, the best and brightest also feel stifled. So you have to set some flexible limits, but you also have to let people do what people do.

This irritates the hell out of people who enjoy controlling others. I don't care, though. They can set up their own shops to scratch that itch.

In my case, I have no interest in running a club for a small number of insiders while the best and the brightest move on. On a very selfish level, I want them around me because I learn from them. I vastly prefer looking up at those I admire over looking down at those I control.

And there is another point. There are the exceptions--even to the flexibility.

Here's a case in point for a good exception, and this is my own understanding. It is not from any discussion I have had with anyone. Shayne and George often get into it and get quite nasty to each other. And they keep on keeping on. Shayne has a long-standing reputation of having difficulties with people skills, often demonstrated by thin skinned overreactions to what he perceives as personal attacks. But he has a beautiful mind. I believe George sees this and is dishing out tough love. The proof to me is that they are now becoming far more cordial to each other and Shayne is starting to accept George's suggestions, especially about reading.

I get to watch one beautiful mind guide a younger one in growth without killing his spirit.

How cool is that? I think that is damn cool.

Allowing this to develop is probably something Phil and Ted do not approve of, but they can set up their own forums and set their own rules. I am a builder and a planter, not a people controller.

My goal is to foster independent thinking, not preach the gospel of Ayn Rand. I start from Rand because her ideas are really good, but I believe everyone should be encouraged to do their honest best at their own thinking, not follow others who tell them what they should and should not think.

Those are the roots of my approach. OL has a nice little selective audience that grows steadily without promotion. This has not been by accident. People are attracted to my approach, and for good reason. They feel I care about the best within them, that I care about letting them control their own lives, and even care about them expressing this to each other in all its ups and downs.

They are right. I do.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OL has a nice little selective audience that grows steadily without promotion. This has not been by accident. People are attracted to my approach, and for good reason. They feel I care about the best within them, that I care about letting them control their own lives, and even care about them expressing this to each other in all its ups and downs.

They are right. I do.

Michael, you must have missed a meeting. At that meeting, Phil demonstrated that because of the insults and vilification I routinely hurl at the most thoughtful posters on this forum, they have all left or quit posting. Under these circumstances, it is hardly credible that OL should have a growing audience. Please analyze your data a second time and see if you get the same results.

Concernedly,

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Thanks for that long explanation in post #8.

I don't agree with all of it (I cetainly didn't see the ad hominem exchange between Shayne and George the way you did and fully expect it to flare up again), but I understand better where you're coming from -- and that you've put thought into distinguishing different cases of insult or incivility.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I know it's often difficult to separate deliberate personal attacks from sarcasm or humor. [Dennis]

I don't think you assess it from one post -- anyone can get up on the wrong side of the bed that morning & we all misword things in an informal, chatty type of venue & sometimes our good-natured joshing can fall flat or be meaner than intended.

But instead see what "builds up". What is a consistent pattern over time.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis,

I don't allow myself to be insulted here on OL. It's a question of respect.

When I stopped using drugs, I made a rule for myself. If a person wants to insult me, he will have to do it behind my back. I demand respect to my face. It's a condition for hanging around me. This serves me well on running a discussion forum. I'm flexible, of course, and I cut a lot more slack for friends who have provided a lot of value to me over time. But that's my approach and that's the way I choose to balance implementing principles.

About others being nasty to each other here on OL, I don't like it. But each person is owner of his/her own behavior choices. My overall concern here is the health of the forum. And once again, the issue is balance. If you get too namby-pamby in controlling others, the best and brightest feel stifled. If you let general snarkiness and nastiness go past a certain line, the best and brightest also feel stifled. So you have to set some flexible limits, but you also have to let people do what people do.

Michael,

You self-righteously demand respect for yourself by keeping your finger poised on the delete key. But you openly allow certain OL members to engage in gratuitous verbal assaults on others because you care about "the best within them."

"But that's my approach and that's the way I choose to balance implementing principles."

That sounds to me a lot like a double standard. I seem to recall someone (guess who) saying he would not tolerate "double standards" in terms of what the leader of a forum could do and what other members could do.

But hey, you know, let's all remember what old Ralph Waldo said about consistency and hobgoblins. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You self-righteously demand respect for yourself by keeping your finger poised on the delete key. But you openly allow certain OL members to engage in gratuitous verbal assaults on others because you care about "the best within them."

"But that's my approach and that's the way I choose to balance implementing principles."

That sounds to me a lot like a double standard. I seem to recall someone (guess who) saying he would not tolerate "double standards" in terms of what the leader of a forum could do and what other members could do.

But hey, you know, let's all remember what old Ralph Waldo said about consistency and hobgoblins. . .

You don't know what you're talking about. It is a question of property rights. He founded this site with certain ground rules, such as not insulting the Brandens. These are the terms and conditions on which he's willing to fund and manage this site. If you don't like the rules go someplace else, try to do better. If you actually do better then hats off to you. I mean this sincerely. But it is plain stupid to complain that "my house my rules" is somehow hypocritical.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You self-righteously demand respect for yourself by keeping your finger poised on the delete key. But you openly allow certain OL members to engage in gratuitous verbal assaults on others because you care about "the best within them."

"But that's my approach and that's the way I choose to balance implementing principles."

That sounds to me a lot like a double standard. I seem to recall someone (guess who) saying he would not tolerate "double standards" in terms of what the leader of a forum could do and what other members could do.

But hey, you know, let's all remember what old Ralph Waldo said about consistency and hobgoblins. . .

You don't know what you're talking about. It is a question of property rights. He founded this site with certain ground rules, such as not insulting the Brandens. These are the terms and conditions on which he's willing to fund and manage this site. If you don't like the rules go someplace else, try to do better. If you actually do better then hats off to you. I mean this sincerely. But it is plain stupid to complain that "my house my rules" is somehow hypocritical.

Shayne

Perigo couldn't have said it better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis,

Barbara never accused Perigo of being befuddled by alcohol on his own site.

She did it here.

And she was right to do it.

I defended Barbara's right to free speech in the post you linked. Not any right to spit in Perigo's face on his own site. He deserves to be spit on, but he also deserves to run his site as he sees fit.

I don't ever recall arguing this any differently.

Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo gave his best shot against Barbara on his own site (and his email grapevine) and I never questioned his right to do so. I did what I could to discredit him on this site, though. Others joined me, too. And the results are for anyone who has eyes to see.

That dude's a creep and now he has a well-deserved reputation in the Objectivist and libertarian world as a creep. I helped that image along just by publishing my views here and providing a platform for others, like Barbara, to do the same.

When he publicly said I could post on his site, I said, "Fuck no!." (I can find the post if you like.) Part of my reason was my revulsion of him, but the other part is that I do not think it is right to go to someone else's house and say to him what I normally say about that creep.

Incidentally, my standards have not changed since Kat and I founded OL. I stand by them now as I did back then.

My policies are clear. If you find them immoral, then so be it. If this be the case, then in your eyes I am immoral. And proudly so.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You self-righteously demand respect for yourself by keeping your finger poised on the delete key. But you openly allow certain OL members to engage in gratuitous verbal assaults on others because you care about "the best within them."

"But that's my approach and that's the way I choose to balance implementing principles."

That sounds to me a lot like a double standard. I seem to recall someone (guess who) saying he would not tolerate "double standards" in terms of what the leader of a forum could do and what other members could do.

But hey, you know, let's all remember what old Ralph Waldo said about consistency and hobgoblins. . .

You don't know what you're talking about. It is a question of property rights. He founded this site with certain ground rules, such as not insulting the Brandens. These are the terms and conditions on which he's willing to fund and manage this site. If you don't like the rules go someplace else, try to do better. If you actually do better then hats off to you. I mean this sincerely. But it is plain stupid to complain that "my house my rules" is somehow hypocritical.

Shayne

Perigo couldn't have said it better.

What was that, a puny attempt at insult? Ha! And all while arguing with Michael about how hypocritical he is with his civility standards. Hilarious.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I'm on the topic of Perigo, there's an interesting aspect to it.

Back when there was SoloHQ, he was in charge. He managed to turn a good chunk of Objectivist and libertarian people against Barbara because that was where they were. He was in charge and he actively manipulated public opinion on that site with different deception and bullying techniques, including robust email campaigns.

I remember how sorely disappointed I became to see what I originally thought was a group of rugged individualists acting like sheeple following a bullying weasel, but there it was.

Old habits and impressions die hard, but they eventually die. When SoloHQ dismembered, and ole Objectivist guru wannabe continued his campaign against Barbara, he gradually found he could no longer mobilize a large contingent of people to say bad things about her. I--and others--didn't let him.

It was easy, too. I declared back then that the entire Internet was open for people to disrespect her and NB, but there was one corner of the universe where this was not going to happen--right here on OL.

The sheeple eventually saw that he was no longer in charge, thus could not harm them, so they scattered.

He and his cronies howled and howled about how unfair I was. But here's the truth.

Merit and common sense (and reason) rule in my world. That dude is nothing without his little power games. He wanted to destroy Barbara, but he couldn't destroy a flea unless he was in charge and had his underlings do it for him.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis,

Barbara never accused Perigo of being befuddled by alcohol on his own site.

She did it here.

Huh?

Re: "Drooling Beast" by James Kilbourne

James, it was courageous of you to write this -- and especially courageous of Linz to allow its publication. Linz, I salute you for it, with all my heart.

I think it is the truth, from my limited experience of alcoholism. But I, like James, know from personal experience with an addict that it can be resolved and that its resolution leads to a happier life than the addict can yet imagine. And I know that the failure to resolve it leads only to tragedy. Linz, do it! -- get help, and do it! I think you have no idea how many people love you and will be pulling for you and wishing you well.

Barbara

7-31-05

Rebirth of Reason, formerly SOLOHQ

What am I missing?

Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier post that I linked. If so, I apologize. It looked like you were criticizing Perigo's double standard of what he allowed on his site.

My policies are clear. If you find them immoral, then so be it. If this be the case, then in your eyes I am immoral. And proudly so.

Michael

I don't think you're immoral at all. In many ways, I think you’re a very admirable man. And Objectivist Living is a terrific webforum. But it could be a lot better if it didn't allow rampant hooliganism.

You think it’s popular now. Just imagine what it might be if people could post here without fear of some pompous a-hole spitting in their face?

And I suspect there are a lot of people who agree with me and aren’t saying so, for whatever reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You self-righteously demand respect for yourself by keeping your finger poised on the delete key. But you openly allow certain OL members to engage in gratuitous verbal assaults on others because you care about "the best within them."

"But that's my approach and that's the way I choose to balance implementing principles."

That sounds to me a lot like a double standard. I seem to recall someone (guess who) saying he would not tolerate "double standards" in terms of what the leader of a forum could do and what other members could do.

But hey, you know, let's all remember what old Ralph Waldo said about consistency and hobgoblins. . .

You don't know what you're talking about. It is a question of property rights. He founded this site with certain ground rules, such as not insulting the Brandens. These are the terms and conditions on which he's willing to fund and manage this site. If you don't like the rules go someplace else, try to do better. If you actually do better then hats off to you. I mean this sincerely. But it is plain stupid to complain that "my house my rules" is somehow hypocritical.

Shayne

Perigo couldn't have said it better.

What was that, a puny attempt at insult? Ha! And all while arguing with Michael about how hypocritical he is with his civility standards. Hilarious.

Shayne

Where is the insult, puny or otherwise? Your post simply confirmed my point about double standards and I pointed that out.

Now I'm tempted to make an insult but I won't. I won't. Like hell I . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is of interest to me because this is my 5thmonth on the internet and 3rd on this forum. Michael recently made an analogy of guest and host which perfectly accorded with my expectations when I joined, and still obtain.

I have been variously asked, "Why are you here"? "If you're a socialist, why don't you provoke debates"? and so on, and my instinctive answer was, out of courtesy. I gained access to the site with minimal entry qualifications, MSK took me on good faith. Entering into his site property I met many people with interesting things to say, and have engaged in many conversations with them. I have had maximum enjoyment and education and been able to ask questions without hostility. I have been involved in a gunfight and a catfight, true, but they started it.

I thought that internet interaction would be interesting, fast=paced conversation on impersonal issues. I soon learned that no issues are impersonal.

And the discussions still take place in a house. I thought the "cyber-community" was just a media gloss, not so. This is Michael and Kat's place and we get to blab and bellow all over it. Let's just try to be intelligible about it. And wipe our feet on the way in.

Carol

Here for a good time, not for a hard time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think it's popular now. Just imagine what it might be if people could post here without fear of some pompous a-hole spitting in their face?

And I suspect there are a lot of people who agree with me and aren't saying so, for whatever reason.

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What am I missing?

Dennis,

The accusation, for one.

I don't see any accusation in the way I understand the term. I think it is a travesty of double-speak that the Objectivist world has allowed Barbara's expression of concern for a (then) beloved person to be called an "accusation."

And I can think of about 50 responses off the top of my head that would put any suspicion of alcoholism to rest, if that were the real concern, even if alcohol were a real problem (which I believe it was). You're a therapist, so I have no doubt you can, too.

But that was not the real concern back then. I have an email from Perigo from that time saying that this kind of statement undermined his authority as an "Objectivist leader." In other words, BS was his concern, not true understanding or acting on principle.

Now, imagine if I were in his shoes back then. And imagine I did have a flaming problem with booze (like he did). And imagine everything unfolded as it did with James Kilbourne's article. How does this response strike you?

"Barbara, I appreciate your concern but you are mistaken. Please do not insist on saying that kind of stuff here. If you think I am an alcoholic and wish to say so in public, take it elsewhere. This is my site and I find that offensive. So, once again, thank you for your concern, I love you too, but no more. Please. This one's a deal-killer for me."

Done.

Problem resolved

Does anyone believe Barbara would have insisted before a request like that? She thought that by allowing publication of the article, Perigo was making a public confession. He was in the habit back then of denying publication of stuff he did not like and even altering the articles he allowed to go up--without the consent of the authors.

Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier post that I linked. If so, I apologize. It looked like you were criticizing Perigo's double standard of what he allowed on his site.

I was not criticizing that, but I was pulling the teeth from Stuttle's attempt to put that bullying crap ("I dare you to call me an alcoholic, you immoral bitch!") over here. That was not going to happen, not even between the cracks of a remote insinuation. Not on OL.

btw - Thanks for the apology, but it was not needed. I consider you a friend.

You think it's popular now. Just imagine what it might be if people could post here without fear of some pompous a-hole spitting in their face?

I try to keep a balance going. If things get too far out of hand, shoot me a note. I don't see everything. Flexibility does not mean stifling, but it also does not mean free-for-all.

Let's try to be reasonable instead of civil-in-a-straight-jacket. Or, as Kurt Vonnegut would say, "Let's have a little less love in the world and a little more common decency." :)

btw - I don't want OL more popular than it is right now. I'm waiting until I make enough money in another field so I can hire people to help me manage this place before I open up the traffic stops. (Believe me, if I wanted, I could have more traffic than anyone imagines just from doing a couple of the Internet promotion techniques I have studied--at which point OL would become my jail cell.) I don't promote OL on purpose. It's a time sucker with no money.

I don't mind keeping it going as it's a labor of love and I believe strongly in what I am doing. (I also care about the people here.) There's a time for growth, though. From what things look like right now in my other projects, that time is not now. But it will come.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think it's popular now. Just imagine what it might be if people could post here without fear of some pompous a-hole spitting in their face?

And I suspect there are a lot of people who agree with me and aren't saying so, for whatever reason.

Yes.

Ted, this is hypocritcal. When I was new on this forum you spit in my face, and swore at me, and though it surprised me it certainly did not make me conclude that that the forum was a vicious snarkhole. It was an emotional debate and these things happen.

Link to comment
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