Objectivism Online run by hypocritical babies?


blackhorse

Recommended Posts

I was posting on OO regarding Ayn Rand and homosexuality (I prefer to defend her idea's regarding the matter) and they deleted my posts!-all the while they have this huge website stint going on against SOPA and defending free speech! One poster called me a homophobe (which I am not) and his post was left up. I have been nothing but articulate in my debating there. Is it just me or is that website run by hypocritical babies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 194
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You’ll have to share the posts with us if you want an opinion. You say you “prefer to defend” Rand’s stance, I don’t find that very promising, but by itself it shouldn’t get your posts deleted, even over yonder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OO is the worst example of the misuse and misunderstanding of Objectivism, and of the Hazards of the Ayn Rand Cult. How the owner can let the moderators be dictators speaks volumes about Diana. I got the feeling while I posted there that I was speaking to the violently insane.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OO is the worst example of the misuse and misunderstanding of Objectivism, and of the Hazards of the Ayn Rand Cult. How the owner can let the moderators be dictators speaks volumes about Diana. I got the feeling while I posted there that I was speaking to the violently insane.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

I've no use for such a place and have only been there several times over several years.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OO is the worst example of the misuse and misunderstanding of Objectivism, and of the Hazards of the Ayn Rand Cult. How the owner can let the moderators be dictators speaks volumes about Diana. I got the feeling while I posted there that I was speaking to the violently insane. Semper cogitans fidele, Peter Taylor
OO is the worst example of the misuse and misunderstanding of Objectivism, and of the Hazards of the Ayn Rand Cult. How the owner can let the moderators be dictators speaks volumes about Diana. I got the feeling while I posted there that I was speaking to the violently insane. Semper cogitans fidele, Peter Taylor

Peter,

Up til a year or so ago I would have agreed with you. Now, I think the moderators are doing a good job at walking

the fine line between encouraging robust debate, and heading off nasty personality clashes.

There has been a definite shift in policy over there, with orthodoxy being questioned more frequently.

One hears increasingly from independent thinkers working things out for themselves. Considering their youth (anybody under 40 is young to me) I am quite encouraged for the future of Objectivism.

And the mods too, reflect and guide that tendency, I think. I see no dictatorial methods by them, but rather thoughtful and considered posts.

(I also had a post deleted in the thread - just me being a little fatuous as usual. The mod explained via

PM that he thought it might be inflammatory. Fair enough, I didn't mind.)

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Up til a year or so ago I would have agreed with you. Now, I think the moderators are doing a good job at walking

the fine line between encouraging robust debate, and heading off nasty personality clashes.

Ditto. I think that the hypocritical babies are really growing up, and OO is much better because of it. Well, the moderator called "softwareNerd" is still lagging behind a bit and really seems to cherish his tiny little chunk of authority, but even he's much better than he used to be.

I'd be very interested in reading the posts of Blackhorse's which were deleted there.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OO is the worst example of the misuse and misunderstanding of Objectivism, and of the Hazards of the Ayn Rand Cult. How the owner can let the moderators be dictators speaks volumes about Diana. I got the feeling while I posted there that I was speaking to the violently insane.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

I’ve spent some time there, and have found it’s not too different from OL in that there’s plenty of good people, but also a few rotten apples bobbing around. It’s more actively moderated than OL, and that’s a double-edged sword. If Erik can’t (or won’t) produce the exact posts that were deleted I say we should withhold judgment.

BTW, I don’t believe Diana (Hsieh) is a moderator or is particularly involved over there. Her stuff gets cross-posted, and I don’t recall seeing her interact with people on the site in the time I’ve been posting there.

As to it being the “worst example” of cultism, do you really rate it lower than Harry Binswanger’s list? I don’t see a loyalty oath, and in spite of a (single) call for me to be banned for explicitly saying that “I sanction David Kelly and Barbara Branden” (or something like that), I’m still welcome there. I’ve also questioned the “intellectual heir” business over there. I did, OTOH, receive a “warning” for calling Ed Cline a twit, the upshot of which being that I’ve called him a twit several times more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OO is the worst example of the misuse and misunderstanding of Objectivism, and of the Hazards of the Ayn Rand Cult. How the owner can let the moderators be dictators speaks volumes about Diana. I got the feeling while I posted there that I was speaking to the violently insane. Semper cogitans fidele, Peter Taylor
OO is the worst example of the misuse and misunderstanding of Objectivism, and of the Hazards of the Ayn Rand Cult. How the owner can let the moderators be dictators speaks volumes about Diana. I got the feeling while I posted there that I was speaking to the violently insane. Semper cogitans fidele, Peter Taylor

Peter,

Up til a year or so ago I would have agreed with you. Now, I think the moderators are doing a good job at walking

the fine line between encouraging robust debate, and heading off nasty personality clashes.

There has been a definite shift in policy over there, with orthodoxy being questioned more frequently.

One hears increasingly from independent thinkers working things out for themselves. Considering their youth (anybody under 40 is young to me) I am quite encouraged for the future of Objectivism.

And the mods too, reflect and guide that tendency, I think. I see no dictatorial methods by them, but rather thoughtful and considered posts.

(I also had a post deleted in the thread - just me being a little fatuous as usual. The mod explained via

PM that he thought it might be inflammatory. Fair enough, I didn't mind.)

Tony

Well, I mind for you. I have never read a post of yours that was in any way fatuous, and to delete it seems officious.

I didn't know anything about moderation when I came onto a discussion board, I lucked into OL because I liked the "feel" of it and the good writing of the regulars Now I know it is the very sparing hand of the proprietors, instead of a team of moderators "dressed in a little brief authority" with checklists, that gives OL its unique character.

I agree with Brant who wrote elsewhere that he wouldn't stand for his writing being judged to suit someone else's agenda. Free speech uber alles imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Brant who wrote elsewhere that he wouldn't stand for his writing being judged to suit someone else's agenda. Free speech uber alles imo.

That is exactly why I stopped posting on OO. The moderators there apparently did not like my "attitude". If they objected to my posts because they were mistaken (factually), inconsistent, or violated the stated rules of their forum, I would not have objected. But none of the above. I also got a lot of flack because I kept posting factual and logical counter-examples to some of the other material. If they cannot tolerate a gadfly who is properly grounded, they sure do not want me there.

My contribution to the culture of mankind consists mostly of counter-examples. I love refuting erroneous claims with facts. One single stubborn fact can bring a gloriously beautiful marvelously wrought wrong theory crashing to the ground.

I think I raised some hackles when I pointed out that Athens was not the fount of science. It was not. Ionia and Samos was. And they got very annoyed when I pointed out Aristotle's many errors. I grated their nerves when I pointed out how Atheno-Centric their view of history was and how real progress was being made in the Late Middle Ages of Europe even before the Renaissance fully flowered in Italy. ( John Phillponos, Roger Bacon and Robert Grossteste). Apparently real history as opposed to the Randian version, annoyed them no end.

So I do not bother them any more.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter, Up til a year or so ago I would have agreed with you. Now, I think the moderators are doing a good job at walking the fine line between encouraging robust debate, and heading off nasty personality clashes. There has been a definite shift in policy over there, with orthodoxy being questioned more frequently. One hears increasingly from independent thinkers working things out for themselves. Considering their youth (anybody under 40 is young to me) I am quite encouraged for the future of Objectivism. And the mods too, reflect and guide that tendency, I think. I see no dictatorial methods by them, but rather thoughtful and considered posts. (I also had a post deleted in the thread - just me being a little fatuous as usual. The mod explained via PM that he thought it might be inflammatory. Fair enough, I didn't mind.) Tony
Well, I mind for you. I have never read a post of yours that was in any way fatuous, and to delete it seems officious. I didn't know anything about moderation when I came onto a discussion board, I lucked into OL because I liked the "feel" of it and the good writing of the regulars Now I know it is the very sparing hand of the proprietors, instead of a team of moderators "dressed in a little brief authority" with checklists, that gives OL its unique character. I agree with Brant who wrote elsewhere that he wouldn't stand for his writing being judged to suit someone else's agenda. Free speech uber alles imo.

Appreciated, Carol.

To be fair I'd made an insignificant and mischievous remark without point, so it was easily deletable.

There were several other non-Orthodox mentions I've made (about Branden and Kelly and splits and things) in the past that didn't get 'the treatment' - now, what's heartening, is the increasing incidence of referrals to those same thinkers)..

You must find fascinating the mixed bag of individual voices on these forums, all grouped at varying distances around the same blazing fire. (So to speak.) I do.

O.O could make a great case study, alone, of a commune of bright youngsters testing their minds against reality, Rand, and other even larger 'smarties'.

Strutting their stuff with intellectual machismo, often of course, but why not? Somewhere and sometime, the wealth of ideas has an effect - not in blinding epiphanies, but dawning understanding. Even now, I experience it myself, and it is apparent in the growing maturity of the more honest posters: That Objectivism is a means, with short-cuts, but to ends you have to still work out yourself, without short-cuts.

Wow, look what we could have done with the Internet when we were 20!

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support what is “the good” and OO is not the good. It is Diana’s site and I now hold her in ill repute, and I will not support her in any way. A site that I support may not make me anxious or doubtful about the crap I will receive from the moderators, because of my views. A site I support may not criticize me for praising Barbara Branden, (with stated reasons) or for calling Ayn Rand, “Ayn.” A site I financially support should treat me like a valued customer.

Those royal ass holes at OO are not spokesmen for Ayn Rand. I would take that scolding from her but not from anyone else.

Peter

From “The Goddess of the Market, Ayn Rand and the American Right,” by Jennifer Burns, pages217 and 218:

Far from welcoming the swelling in Objectivist ranks, Rand was increasingly suspicious of those who claimed to speak in her name, even the Ayn Rand campus clubs, which germinated spontaneously at many of the nation’s top colleges and universities, including Boston University, Dartmouth, MIT, Stanford, and Columbia, began to bother her, for they used her name without her supervision. In May 1965 Nathan issued a rebuke and a warning to the campus clubs in The Objectivist Newsletter. He and Rand were particularly concerned about the names those organizations might choose. Nathan explained that names such as Ayn Rand Study Club were appropriate, whereas names such as The John Galt Society were not. “As a fiction character, John Galt is Miss Rand’s property; he is not in the public domain,” Nathan argued.

He also spelled out the proper nomenclature for those who admired Rand’s ideas. The term Objectivist was “intimately and exclusively associated with Miss Rand and me,” he wrote. “A person who is in agreement with our philosophy should describe himself, not as an Objectivist, but as a student or a supporter of Objectivism.” At a later date, when the philosophy had spread further, it might be possible for there to be more than two Objectivists. Further, any campus club that wished to issue a newsletter should indicate their agreement with Objectivism but make clear that they were not official representatives of the philosophy. Nathan closed with a strong attack against another group of Rand readers, the “craven parasites” who sought to use Objectivism for non-Objectivist ends. Into this category fell anyone who advocated political anarchism and anyone who tried to recruit NBI students into schemes for a new free market nation or territory.

end quote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter:

Current history's judgment on those decisions made by them in 1965 are not very forgiving.

I remember reading that issue very well, being twenty-one, teaching my second year at a NY City University that was crawling with left wing faculty that persecuted Randians, Goldwater folks and other conservative/libertarian thinkers and commenting to our group of Randians, YAFers and libertarians that we would have to soldier on even though Nathaniel and Ayn were attempting to cut our legs out from under us.

We did.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support what is “the good” and OO is not the good. It is Diana’s site and I now hold her in ill repute, and I will not support her in any way.

What do you mean by this? Are you claiming that she owns the site? I believe the owner’s name is David Veksler. All DH does is crosspost her stuff there. It’s rare that anyone bothers to add to the threads she creates, and I can’t recall seeing her engage in any discussion on OO in the time I’ve been signed up.

A site that I support may not make me anxious or doubtful about the crap I will receive from the moderators, because of my views. A site I support may not criticize me for praising Barbara Branden, (with stated reasons) or for calling Ayn Rand, “Ayn.”

I praised ("sanctioned") Barbara Branden there, and had one, trust me I kept a careful count, one silly ARIandroid say I should be banned. Result: nothing. I’ve had more calls for my banning from OL than OO (speaking of, did we finally drive off Wissler? Tsk).

As for referring to AR as “Ayn”, I don’t do it, and think it’s silly when someone other than Barbara (or people who knew her personally) do it, but wouldn’t make a big deal out of it. Were you moderated over there for that? Well, tsk-tsk, I hope that’s the worst thing that ever happens to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ninth Doctor wrote:

Were you moderated over there for that? Well, tsk-tsk, I hope that’s the worst thing that ever happens to you.

end quote

I was told "to leave and never come back." And that is almost exactly what I was told. And then, because I had stupidly put my email address down, some people followed me that way, asking questions or berating me on my hotmail account. So Diana Hsss doesn’t own it? Weird.

I wrote Diana complaining and she never answered. I wish I had kept the private emails from “the moderators” that I was saving for her to read, but when she did not reply I deleted it. Perhaps I have done her a disservice, but she still could have written me back, saying, “It ain’t me Babe.” I remember. When I went to her site there was a link to OO so I thought it was “her” site. And someone had told me it was “her site.” But they may have meant it was just a place she sometime’s post.

Ninth Doctor hopes, “that’s the worst thing that ever happens to you.”

It was horrible! A nightmare! They were making faces at me. What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger? Well, unless you were badly beaten, or lost a limb, or were scarred over 90 percent of your body, or if you can only live on a respirator with a feeding tube, or if . . .

They pissed me off. I am not going back unless I see an overwhelming reason to step back into Bizarro Land.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was told "to leave and never come back." And that is almost exactly what I was told.

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showuser=10069

Holy crap, you were on there for 6 days, you did 35 posts in that time, and are banned! The last post says something about "expletive deleted", and you were going on about abortion. Oh well, as Ahnuld might say:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The irony of the whole thing is that OO is allegedly pro free speech and anti SOPA, yet they delete more comments there than you can shake a stick at. It's BS. If they are so afraid of robust debate that they feel the need to silence those who dissent, than i suggest such people are hypocrites and work counter to really hashing out dialogue and idea's. Babies is a fitting word for them. Michael allows people their opinion even though he may disagree, but at OO it is goose step or get out. Objectivism doesn't need any more self righteous assholes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The irony of the whole thing is that OO is allegedly pro free speech and anti SOPA, yet they delete more comments there than you can shake a stick at. It's BS. If they are so afraid of robust debate that they feel the need to silence those who dissent, than i suggest such people are hypocrites and work counter to really hashing out dialogue and idea's. Babies is a fitting word for them. Michael allows people their opinion even though he may disagree, but at OO it is goose step or get out. Objectivism doesn't need any more self righteous assholes.

As Rand said roughly, you have free speech, but you don't have the right to demand my platform to speak.

It's like being invited into someone's house, using their lights and water, wearing out the rugs, leaving wine-glass rings on the table etc, which go with the territory of normal use - but picking fights, and embarrassing your hosts, and their guests,

do not.

"There can be no such thing as the right to an unrestricted freedom of speech (or action) on someone else's property."

[AR-'CtUI']

As far as I'm concerned, you posted an out-dated, ignorant quote by Rand from an interview, while claiming, disingenuously, that you were the one person staying true to her word. We've been through it all before, and last time it was settled to the satisfaction of everyone: She was wrong about homosexuality.

Your stance primarily annoyed members, not the mods. They merely responded by heading off a flame war - and the thread has continued with several highly perceptive and rational arguments. So maybe there was worth to it, after all.

Fact is, when a newby asks an innocent question, he may not divulge from the replies that the subject is moot; not when there is one dissenting voice. A gay guy I know who has been interested in O'ism, had months ago accepted my explanation - after becoming uneasy about the philosophy and homosexuality.

I don't believe it makes you happy to hear that I had to go over all the reasoning with him yet again, after you responded on O.O.

Face it: the topic is 'done and dusted', by mainstream Objectivism, as well as nearly all individuals within it, and you are flogging a dead horse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WhyNot, you are entitled to pick and choose what you like about Ayn Rand and Objectivism. I choose to give her more credit than others on the matter. But to claim that she was wrong is not giving Miss Rand credit on critiical thinking of the subject. You don't know how much and to what depth she has thought on the matter. Because YOU may dislike her thoughts on the matter do not give them any less weight and reality.

What do you think a "forum" is? If everything said has to be in unanimous support it would not be a forum, but a testifying weigh station. So what about "forum rules". Civility yes, but their forum rules reads like a nazi manual. The moderators at OO are nothing less than the modern day proto-objectivist that tends more toward anarchism than objectivity. If they feel threatened by others ideas they resort to personal attacks all the while grand standing as defending "objectivity"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I really don't know what you're talking about.

In recent months I've spent considerable time at O.O and posted quite a few things which, by all rights, SHOULD have been deleted and weren't.

I've been aggressively hostile, hyperbolic, borderline obscene and completely tangential and yet not a single bit of it has been censored! So. . . What in Galt's name were YOU trying to say?

As for goose stepping, that's simply false. I've given Rand's ideas the same scrutiny I give to Marx or Kant, explicitly, and others have defended such spectacularly, and I'm not aware of anyone else being censored- so what's this party line and where's the enforcement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I do pick and choose which of Rand's ideas I'll hold, on the basis of logic. Giving her "credit" sounds a lot like an excuse to not think it through, for yourself.

And if honesty, both intellectually and vocally, excluded me from being a full-fledged Objectivist then I would blaspheme in a heartbeat.

What's the point of accepting individual rights on faith?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't know what you're talking about.

In recent months I've spent considerable time at O.O and posted quite a few things which, by all rights, SHOULD have been deleted and weren't. I've been aggressively hostile, hyperbolic, borderline obscene and completely tangential and yet not a single bit of it has been censored!

Whether or not a person is censored on OO depends on who he is arguing with, and which ideas he is challenging. Members can be as "aggressively hostile, hyperbolic, borderline obscene and completely tangential" as they wish as long as they're on the "right side," or are attacking someone who is an "enemy" of what the OO administrative majority thinks is Objectivism. I've been censored there for simply reporting facts, and even for defending Objectivist positions which the moderators somehow believed were not Objectivist positions.

We've had several past discussions here on the topic of OO's meddling moron moderators. Here's a thread that includes a few examples of their lunacy:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12335

Will you post some links to examples of your posts that you thought were deserving of censorship? My guess would be that if you were abusive and got away with it, it's because the moderators saw you as attacking those whom they don't like, or as defending positions that they agreed with.

So. . . What in Galt's name were YOU trying to say?

As for goose stepping, that's simply false. I've given Rand's ideas the same scrutiny I give to Marx or Kant, explicitly, and others have defended such spectacularly, and I'm not aware of anyone else being censored- so what's this party line and where's the enforcement?

How would you be aware of people being censored at OO? The moderators don't announce that they're taking action against posters, but just delete posts, often times without explanation.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oonline has been "unavailable" all day... I guess it was their only defence against Jonathan's art history lessons.

They have other defenses. Name-calling, disappearing from discussions, accusing me of being dishonest and therefore of suddenly being unworthy of their time, etc. Oh, and keeping me on moderation and sometimes only letting my posts go through after the thread has disappeared from the recent posts page, thus trying to leave the impression that my opponents had a resounding last word to which I couldn't muster a reply. Most of the members aren't fooled by that tactic, though. Mostly just Nicky.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to comment about OO other than to say it's good to have people interested in Ayn Rand's ideas enough to discuss them in public. Also, this stuff gets messy--it always has in our neck of the woods. And it can get very intelligent. Consistency on this score is not a habit in O-Land. Within that context, I'm glad OO is around.

I don't post on other O-Land forums as I keep having a tendency to get banned. :smile:

(I keep having these damn authority issues... :) )

But once in a while I venture out. My last Non-OL O-Land post was to the Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature blog a couple of weeks ago. When you go to the home page of that blog, up on the top right, there is a link to a post called "Are You A Rand Cultist? Take Our Simple Test." When you click on it, you will find the usual spin in Danial Barnes's enlightened self-regulating tone. :)

Depending on the points you score, you can fall into one of three categories:

1. "Ayn Rand fan who while rightly inspired by her vision of productivity, reason, and human achievement is nonetheless sensible enough to have avoided her various cultic incitements."

2. "Amber light: definite Randroid tendencies."

3. "Ultra-Randroid, and proud of it."

As you see, I read the post. And I read the comments. I didn't bother taking the test (which was kinda lame). But I couldn't resist and had to post (see here).

Just for the record, I used to be a pretty good fan of Ayn Rand.

But now I am a Rand cultist.


:smile:

Michael

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