New Low at SOLO


william.scherk

Recommended Posts

Over at the other place, Neil Parille posted an excerpt of and link to an article by some dude named David Bentley Hart. I don't agree with Hart, but was somewhat taken aback by the "kill yourself" commentary of two gibbering also-rans who soil their Pampers Pullups over there . . . Greg Davis and Doug Bandler.

I post a sample of the discourse below. I have wondered how and when SOLO might dwindle down to pure raging nitwittery given enough time. I think the end is nigh, me. The forum is now circling the drain.

Incidentally, there is a nice lady there, a fully Christian believer, Rosie, who persists in arguing with her fellow Kiwis on the subject of gawds. She put up an appalled post calling the nutcases on their meanness of spirit, and found herself subject to a barrage of gibbering epithets herself. The ground has turned sour over there. She might make a decent addition to the OL menagerie . . . if she is ready to haul herself out of the rotating currents.

If anyone here thinks OL gets dire and tiresome and hysterical from time to time, with borderline personalities stalking narcissists and so on . . . get a load of the competition.

Intellectual heights, anyone?

-- a roach like Parille

-- annoying little piss ant

-- annoying little cunt

-- nihilistic piece of shit

-- your obvious hysteria

-- you silly cunt

-- Neil, for you, perhaps suicide is in order. Just a thought

-- He may as well kill himself

-- Ant Parille is one of the most intellectually dishonest scumbags I've seen

All joyous celebrations of life from this thread, "Believe It or Not: David B. Hart on the New Atheism."

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

WSS,

Thanks for the report.

Weeks, even months, go by now and I don't peek at SOLO.

I can see now that I haven't been missing much.

It won't be long before Lindsay Perigo's last few flunkies succumb to auto-cannibalism.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, there is a nice lady there, a fully Christian believer, Rosie, who persists in arguing with her fellow Kiwis on the subject of gawds. She put up an appalled post calling the nutcases on their meanness of spirit, and found herself subject to a barrage of gibbering epithets herself. The ground has turned sour over there. She might make a decent addition to the OL menagerie . . . if she is ready to haul herself out of the rotating currents.

William,

OL is not in competition with SLOP. I have been very harsh in my criticism of it, but the question is not competitive. I have my reasons for my harshness, but they are well documented and do not need repeating here.

Besides, we have different aims. That place has one purpose--ostensibly to save the world in the name of Rand, but beneath the surface to make a personality cult for Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo--and OL has another purpose, i.e., to foster intelligent independent thinking using Objectivism as a starting point, and be a virtual social place for people interested in this.

Within those parameters, I would not want to give the impression that I am interested in stealing posters from anywhere. I don't do that, and besides, OL regulars often post there, which is entirely their choice.

But if your comment is a feeler to see if Ms. Rosie would be welcome on OL, she certainly would be by me. She argues the Christian perspective well and people who ponder Objectivism only become wiser with that kind of challenge.

Look how the presence of Libertarian Muslim enriched the discussions here. I believe that, because of his presence, many people think about--intelligently think about--things they normally did not think about.

There is one sensitive issue that you should be aware of. There is a group of Christians in NZ who formed an ad hoc group called the John Locke Foundation aimed at trashing Jim Peron and getting him kicked out of NZ. I have said some unflattering things about their behavior and I continue to stand by what I said. If Ms. Rosie is friends with them or involved with them in some manner, she might find your interest awkward.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The level of dementia has cranked up a notch . . . here is a link to the vibrating-with-scorn Doug Bandler tearing at Neil Parille: http://www.solopassion.com/node/7998#comment-91679

Dire. Holy Shit.

Lowlights:

"But know this you little worm, Rand's philosophy will live long after you

are a rotting piece of filth in your unmarked grave.

Neil, you must be such a sorry sack of shit that you have no life outside

the internet. No person of healthy self-esteem does this kind of crap.

Have you had sex in the last decade? I'm willing to bet yours is a life

of involuntary celibacy and your only "joy" is attacking Rand and

Objectivism. Lastly, from your picture, you look like a sorry specimen of

humanity; like an aging 90 pound weakling.

There are some people on this earth that are such scum the only thing

they deserve is abuse and contempt. That includes the piece of feces

known as Neil Parille."

All this because Neil posted an excerpt and a link without comment.

That sucking sound you hear is the gurgle of SOLO reaching for the heights.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the subject is up I was meaning to ask this: Are any of the other O'based forums worth being on? Which ones are there anyway?

There is the site Rebirth Of Reason, Objectivism Online, and THE FORUM for Ayn Rand Fans.

RoR is what remains of the old SOLO, which split up a few years back, giving birth to SOLOpassion and OL. It is worthwhile, I suppose, as there are a few fun and interesting personalities. The subjects are often similar to the subjects at OL. Bear in mind that RoR has a moderation and banning policy that is fraught with peevishness. OLers who have been banned or moderated include Ellen Stuttle, Michael Stuart Kelly, Dragonfly, Daniel Barnes, Ted Keer. It too has dwindled in that last couple of years, and is pretty much a haunt of folks who aren't too bothered by the disappearance of such voices as I have noted. Like a hundred-seat nightclub where a handful of old drunks pretend to be young and vital and at the peak of their powers. Much seems musty and boarded up, and the usual festivities of groupthink and conformity take place.

I keep my membership there, but haven't posted (except once, regretted) since I self-exiled in protest at bannings/moderation. The value for any of us is the extensive, searchable archives that seem to go back to the beginning of time. At one time you could find in a thread Barbara Branden and Lindsay Perigo, Chris Sciabarra, Robert Campbell and a gallery of others active in Objectivish circles.

Objectivism Online is fun, if you like the idea of a forum where Orthodoxy rules and snippy, arrogant inbred O-fanatics gather to ask each other questions like, "What does Objectivism say about peeing standing up? Hurry, please." A raft of stalwarts do their best to instill Right Thinking in all aspects, and the moderators range from hysterical 300-pound social phobics to hysterically dogmatic Keepers of the Flame. Our Jonathan has been banned, unbanned, moderated and generally fucked over there most wonderfully in the last few years. I have only been partially-banned once, I think, just for challenging some nitwit moderater's dicta. They are often very tetchy and cultish, but for a view of socially-retarded youngsters entering the Orthodox priesthood and a idea of the prognosis for grim, fretful conformity, highly recommended.

THE FORUM for Ayn Rand Fans is also a fun, lively Orthodox place, but you must not have appeared anywhere uttering demurrals of OrthoO, or the headmistress Betsy Speicher will return your application with withering contempt. Some of the brightest lights in the firmament of the Objectivish Universe can be found blinking and sparkling in fustiness and rectitude, but there is more grace in the conformity than at OO.net. They don't go in for the "Can I pee now, please?" lunacy, reserving their injunctions for those who counter holy edicts from the cloisters of the ARI monastery. It is fun to read, though; right now they are dealing with the Harriman book in a relatively free and easy discussion, carefully colouring within the lines. You must accept a sort of loyalty oath to the Pope to become a member, but most of us can fake that if unknown to Headmistress.

Most of us interested in Online Objectivism also read Diana Hsieh's blog, Noodlefood, if only in secret, because she has a mighty intellect and the kind of sense of humour associated with Torquemada. If you cross her many boundaries you will be banned, if you are not already pre-banned. The primary value is her ferocious energy and her 'round ups.' If you become a regular reader, you will find she and her other blogger-associates dig up pretty much everything that goes on in the properly-O online world, but lately she has become a bit nutty about some bullshit PaleoDiet. I recommend it, however, if only as an example of how Righteous Objectivists efficiently patrol and extinguish dissent. You are probably pre-banned there.

On balance, OL is the most free and easy, with room for both Ortho, non-Ortho and non-Objectivists like myself. Michael simply does not ban lightly.

What all the lists have in common is the same problem all blogs/forums have when a strong owner is in place. Inevitably an Emperor or Empress or Politburo must get down to street police work and traffic citations. It's a built in feature. Unfortunately the worst kind of Ayn Rand impersonations occur -- as if balefully informing someone of their immorality and citing TVOS is all you need to do to maintain order.

OO.net has a Politburo rather than a Emperor, which makes the bannings and chastisings and outrage much more entertaining -- the police officers/moderators indulge their personality disorders in quite novel ways while pretending intellectual superiority over all that walks and crawls. If conformity is your fetish, that is your place.

The most damaged by Objectivism, or the most likely to be damaged by Objectivism fret and posture and slap backs and preen and whine and generally behave as would picnickers at an Official "Give me a place to be fucked up and feel at home" event. The most intensely kooky threads usually involve some person who can't get laid under any circumstances wondering why they can't get laid. The obvious answer is never apparent to the nitwits, but watching folks try to figure out how to be a social reject while pretending to be a world-striding superman is, as I say, fun.

For the full potent effect of answering the question, "What would it be like if Objectivists were all screamingly irrational also-rans?" nothing beats SOLO, however.

Hope that helps.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, shucks! OL is the only Objectivist list you will find me on!

Seriously, I haven'y posted on SOLOP since August 10 with two exceptions to counter Doug Blander who is (1) an Objectivist (so he says) and (2) a racist (so he says he doesn't say but he does say). Greg Davis has been a persistent LP hatchet man.

--Brant

rant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you William. That was funny.

If I (ever, not now) do not post for a while it is because I am busy and not over in Solo/fruit loop Kiwi land. I monitored the site for a couple of days and thought, this place is too weird for me.

Objectivist Living is the best out there, though I do miss the old Kirez Korgan and his Atlantis and OWL.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William,

Walter wanted me to let you know that Objectivism has not neglected your urgent question (in #6). “Every man is free to rise as far as he’s able or willing, but it’s only the degree to which he thinks that determines the degree to which he’ll rise” (AS 1064).

Seriously, I have been contributing to the Objectivism Online the past few months.* I have been welcome, and all interlocutors, including those in disagreement with me, have been respectful. The new format of the site is nice, and I always liked their tree outlines of the threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William,

Walter wanted me to let you know that Objectivism has not neglected your urgent question (in #6).

Walter who, Stephen?

By my urgent question, I expect you mean this: "What would it be like if Objectivists were all screamingly irrational also-rans?"

My answer was, essentially, "see here."

Seriously, I have been contributing to the Objectivism Online the past few months.* I have been welcome, and all interlocutors, including those in disagreement with me, have been respectful. The new format of the site is nice, and I always liked their tree outlines of the threads.

I find value there. I am glad you (and perhaps the mysterious Walter) enjoyed some of my over-the-top polemic. Thanks for the link to your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

No, William. Your urgent question: "What does Objectivism say about peeing standing up? Hurry, please."

Walter is my partner these last nearly fifteen years. I can testify that he often laughs out loud in his sleep. Notes of Walter are here and there.*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OO.net has been a guilty pleasure of mine for several years. My favorite exchange was with a fellow named Kane who was asking how to treat a date he had later that night.

Kane: How do you think I should do it guys?

Me: Roark her, Roark her hard lol

Kane: What?

Me: Just kidding, be yourself and she'll like you.

Kane: Are you denying that Howard Roark represents the highest in Man and that his behavior should not be emulated???

Me: ...

I swear to God Almighty that conversation literally happened, word for word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OO.net has been a guilty pleasure of mine for several years. My favorite exchange was with a fellow named Kane who was asking how to treat a date he had later that night.

Kane: How do you think I should do it guys?

Me: Roark her, Roark her hard lol

Kane: What?

Me: Just kidding, be yourself and she'll like you.

Kane: Are you denying that Howard Roark represents the highest in Man and that his behavior should not be emulated???

Me: ...

I swear to God Almighty that conversation literally happened, word for word.

Joel,

That was on O.Online's chat was it?

I have no experience there.

For the rest, the forum, I feel that's not quite fair, and certainly not representative.

Yes, many members there are youthful, and you do get some seeking advice and personal justification from Objectivism, after being knocked out by only one Ayn Rand novel.

Most times they are answered unpatronisingly and seriously by the many excellent thinkers there.

Actually, considering the age of the newcomers, and that they are just now breaking away from parental and teacher authority - and considering what a drop-out I was in my 20's - I often am amazed by their quick grasp of the fundamentals and methodology.

And by their sheer enthusiasm for Objectivism, too, of course.

Whichever direction they take in, or out of, O'ism, they are off to a flying start in life; and I rather envy the comprehensive grounding in reason and reality they are getting so young. :)

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kane: Are you denying that Howard Roark represents the highest in Man and that his behavior should not be emulated???

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correct me if my interpretation is wrong, but isn't the above the old "we can only be sinners when compared to God" concept carried over from religion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

The newest low at SOLO has the SOLO leader cheering the death of a musician. A 'death metal' singer/songwriter who was stabbed to death in his home. Lindsay finds this to be appropriate and a tonic, and the normally only-mildly deranged Oblivia chimes in with a kookiepants coda.

You see, Filth killed Filth, a death metal filth person was killed with death metal (a knife). Rejoice.

Of course, the teeny roster of Team Stupid had enough power to roll over the sole person who questioned the rejoicing, and discussion then returned to its proper adjudication of who was really to blame.

Kant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The newest low at SOLO has the SOLO leader cheering the death of a musician. A 'death metal' singer/songwriter who was stabbed to death in his home. Lindsay finds this to be appropriate and a tonic, and the normally only-mildly deranged Oblivia chimes in with a kookiepants coda.

You see, Filth killed Filth, a death metal filth person was killed with death metal (a knife). Rejoice.

Of course, the teeny roster of Team Stupid had enough power to roll over the sole person who questioned the rejoicing, and discussion then returned to its proper adjudication of who was really to blame.

Kant.

"Nihiliam it might be; Objectivism, it ain't."

Edited by daunce lynam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the subject is up I was meaning to ask this: Are any of the other O'based forums worth being on? Which ones are there anyway?

There is the site Rebirth Of Reason, Objectivism Online, and THE FORUM for Ayn Rand Fans.

RoR is what remains of the old SOLO, which split up a few years back, giving birth to SOLOpassion and OL. It is worthwhile, I suppose, as there are a few fun and interesting personalities. The subjects are often similar to the subjects at OL. Bear in mind that RoR has a moderation and banning policy that is fraught with peevishness. OLers who have been banned or moderated include Ellen Stuttle, Michael Stuart Kelly, Dragonfly, Daniel Barnes, Ted Keer. It too has dwindled in that last couple of years, and is pretty much a haunt of folks who aren't too bothered by the disappearance of such voices as I have noted. Like a hundred-seat nightclub where a handful of old drunks pretend to be young and vital and at the peak of their powers. Much seems musty and boarded up, and the usual festivities of groupthink and conformity take place.

I keep my membership there, but haven't posted (except once, regretted) since I self-exiled in protest at bannings/moderation. The value for any of us is the extensive, searchable archives that seem to go back to the beginning of time. At one time you could find in a thread Barbara Branden and Lindsay Perigo, Chris Sciabarra, Robert Campbell and a gallery of others active in Objectivish circles.

Objectivism Online is fun, if you like the idea of a forum where Orthodoxy rules and snippy, arrogant inbred O-fanatics gather to ask each other questions like, "What does Objectivism say about peeing standing up? Hurry, please." A raft of stalwarts do their best to instill Right Thinking in all aspects, and the moderators range from hysterical 300-pound social phobics to hysterically dogmatic Keepers of the Flame. Our Jonathan has been banned, unbanned, moderated and generally fucked over there most wonderfully in the last few years. I have only been partially-banned once, I think, just for challenging some nitwit moderater's dicta. They are often very tetchy and cultish, but for a view of socially-retarded youngsters entering the Orthodox priesthood and a idea of the prognosis for grim, fretful conformity, highly recommended.

THE FORUM for Ayn Rand Fans is also a fun, lively Orthodox place, but you must not have appeared anywhere uttering demurrals of OrthoO, or the headmistress Betsy Speicher will return your application with withering contempt. Some of the brightest lights in the firmament of the Objectivish Universe can be found blinking and sparkling in fustiness and rectitude, but there is more grace in the conformity than at OO.net. They don't go in for the "Can I pee now, please?" lunacy, reserving their injunctions for those who counter holy edicts from the cloisters of the ARI monastery. It is fun to read, though; right now they are dealing with the Harriman book in a relatively free and easy discussion, carefully colouring within the lines. You must accept a sort of loyalty oath to the Pope to become a member, but most of us can fake that if unknown to Headmistress.

Most of us interested in Online Objectivism also read Diana Hsieh's blog, Noodlefood, if only in secret, because she has a mighty intellect and the kind of sense of humour associated with Torquemada. If you cross her many boundaries you will be banned, if you are not already pre-banned. The primary value is her ferocious energy and her 'round ups.' If you become a regular reader, you will find she and her other blogger-associates dig up pretty much everything that goes on in the properly-O online world, but lately she has become a bit nutty about some bullshit PaleoDiet. I recommend it, however, if only as an example of how Righteous Objectivists efficiently patrol and extinguish dissent. You are probably pre-banned there.

On balance, OL is the most free and easy, with room for both Ortho, non-Ortho and non-Objectivists like myself. Michael simply does not ban lightly.

What all the lists have in common is the same problem all blogs/forums have when a strong owner is in place. Inevitably an Emperor or Empress or Politburo must get down to street police work and traffic citations. It's a built in feature. Unfortunately the worst kind of Ayn Rand impersonations occur -- as if balefully informing someone of their immorality and citing TVOS is all you need to do to maintain order.

OO.net has a Politburo rather than a Emperor, which makes the bannings and chastisings and outrage much more entertaining -- the police officers/moderators indulge their personality disorders in quite novel ways while pretending intellectual superiority over all that walks and crawls. If conformity is your fetish, that is your place.

The most damaged by Objectivism, or the most likely to be damaged by Objectivism fret and posture and slap backs and preen and whine and generally behave as would picnickers at an Official "Give me a place to be fucked up and feel at home" event. The most intensely kooky threads usually involve some person who can't get laid under any circumstances wondering why they can't get laid. The obvious answer is never apparent to the nitwits, but watching folks try to figure out how to be a social reject while pretending to be a world-striding superman is, as I say, fun.

For the full potent effect of answering the question, "What would it be like if Objectivists were all screamingly irrational also-rans?" nothing beats SOLO, however.

Hope that helps.

WSS -

Whew! You definitely have a talent with words! In general, and especially in your colorful (and accurate) description of the "other" online forums!

Probably some (most/all) of the blogs that Red Sonia has links to, also display cultish allegiances, or Hsieh wouldn't list them.

Considering all the bizarre behavior that has occurred on these online sites, and all the renewed interest in Rand, it is surprising that Jeff Walker has not published an updated edition of his "National Enquirer"-style collection of the worst that some Objectivists have to offer, The Ayn Rand Cult. Not that I am recommending a new edition, because that book contained many distortions and exaggerations. Regrettably, though, a substantial amount of the behavior that he described was accurate. But its gossipy style indicated that the author had some sort of vendetta against Objectivism in all it manifestations.

A new edition covering the antics and eccentricities of Objectivists over the last 20 years since that book was published, would have to be at least double (triple?) its original size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The newest low at SOLO has the SOLO leader cheering the death of a musician. A 'death metal' singer/songwriter who was stabbed to death in his home. Lindsay finds this to be appropriate and a tonic, and the normally only-mildly deranged Oblivia chimes in with a kookiepants coda.

You see, Filth killed Filth, a death metal filth person was killed with death metal (a knife). Rejoice.

Of course, the teeny roster of Team Stupid had enough power to roll over the sole person who questioned the rejoicing, and discussion then returned to its proper adjudication of who was really to blame.

Kant.

From one of the SOLOPsists:

Yes. The moral vacuum left by the waning of religion is worsened by post-modern philosophy (Lindsay's "PomoWanking" expression) and the relativism and nihilism which it has unleashed. The modern culture does not believe in values anymore. This I have come to realize is not only the cause of the horrid music that we see (or suffer through) but also the amoral anarchy that is the dating world (thus "Game").

I enjoy listening to some "death metal" now and then, but it's actually pretty hard to find being played anywhere. You have to go out and search for it. Metal and similar rock genres are a fraction of a fraction of what's on the air and being consumed, so I think one would really have to be a paranoid fruitcake to convince oneself that it's everywhere and that "the modern culture" therefore "does not believe in values anymore."

(Not to mention the fact that we're talking about Objectivish morons here, and therefore we need to remember that they interpret art very subjectively and simplistically -- if they don't like it, it's bad, if a piece of music is "dark," then the person who wrote it values evil, if a song's lyrics are about a murderer, then the person who wrote it values murder and murderers, etc. -- that is, if they even bother to listen to the music before judging it.)

The SOLOPsist continued:

Post-Kantian, post-modern philosophy has ushered in a cultural dark age. I think the culture was better off pre-1950s even though religion and sexism and racism were all stronger. The first half of the twentieth century may have been a cultural high-point for the Western world that we won't reach again perhaps for a couple of hundred years. The West is going to have to work Kant and his disciples out of its system and that is going to hurt.

If "the culture" is going to get rid of Kant, I think the first step would be to purge Objectivism of his influence, and that would be quite hard if not impossible to do since, as I proved here using the logic and evidence employed by Objectivist luminaries Newberry and Hicks, Kant is the true father of Romantic Realism, his Critique of Judgment is the foundation and core of the Objectivist Esthetics, and therefore of the entire Objectivist philosophy. Kant's concept of the Sublime was the basis and essence of Rand's sense of life. Her novels are the ultimate concretization of Kant's ideas.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some day in the next few months a wave of people are going to attend the Atlas Shrugged movie and then go online to see what Objectivism is all about.

This sort of thing on SOLO is one of the things they are going to see, with Perrigo spouting nonsense about a murder and his acolytes singing amen. But hey, on the bright side, that Mario Lanza sure can sing, right?

Edited by PDS
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