Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/19/2019 in Posts

  1. 2 points
    Well, I think you deserve a lot more than a pork chop. Just to let you know: I might not be able to be responding to anything further for a couple days. I have a dental operation scheduled for early tomorrow. Oh, such fun. Ellen
  2. 2 points
    Jon, tks, tsk. You are a naughty child. Might be? You said, "Might Be?" So you don't know. But you are just fine saying things without any proof. How do you know Richard Branson? How do you Richard knew NXIVM? People lie all the time, and they can EVEN lie under oath or they can fool a lie detector. You lack credibility.
  3. 1 point
    Starting in late July I pledge $100/mo to OL. I am quite capable of raising that if I read any more crap about how donating to OL grants anybody, including myself, any special status here. --Brant
  4. 1 point
    On Infowars: Blacklist: MSM Ignores Project Veritas Bombshell Google Exposé And there follows screenshot evidence. It's quite a show. Another quote from the end. I believe it correctly states what most Trump supporters--and even some anti-Trumpers--think about all this. But there is someone who did notice. The Google lady busted in the video: This is not how I expected Monday to go! by Jen Gennai She doesn't like it when the crap lands on her. She cried foul because people decided to do this covertly. But when you listen to the video, she likes it when it lands on others, especially when Google does it covertly. At least she said this: Imprecise language? Heh... Well done? She should know... Michael
  5. 1 point
    Michael, Nice, I see a tie-in there with what's going on now: a drawing is 'real' but not a real thing (it's a "representation" of what is real, or perhaps to be realized). That's what happens with words especially ones which hurt, and particularly online where you don't see the 'person' and physical reactions of one's respondents. So we get "sticks and stones .. but words will never hurt me". But they do, of course. To be kept in mind, certainly. The word-symbols i.o.w are unreal (abstract) and also 'real'. Goes for cyber-reality also . Keeping the connection is the trick. Like some of us wrt mechanical drawings who tend foremost to see the wheel- reality behind the representations, for whom wheel-drawings stand for the real thing, not e.g. a puzzle in geometry. Anyway, you got me on about something fascinating I've observed about different individuals. There was a 'literalness' about Rand, too - e.g. to her, visual art represented/recreates (as some artist's mind images it) the "real" - and should, or can only, be taken as such. As directly real as words, to her. Anyway thanks...
  6. 1 point
    Wow, you have been on a roll Jon. No prob, Ive been told worse.
  7. 1 point
    Jon, We disagree on this. But, once again, that's what we're here for. Humans disagree. I'm fine with disagreeing. (Most of the time. ) Michael
  8. 1 point
    I don't agree that what Jon was doing is bullshit. I'm just now reading through it, and I'm having a good laugh at the skill of Jon's parody of Peter. Ellen
  9. 1 point
    Jon, I think that Peter just looks at whatever pops up in the "Activity" feed and plops down his letter streams on whatever's handy. I think your impression that he's specifically following you results from statistical artifact. You happen to be doing a high percentage of the posting these days. I agree that Peter would be well advised to just not respond to your posts if he wants to be left alone by you But in a way, you're engaging in threat tactics: "Don't respond to me or I'll call you names." I hope it needn't be said, but I'll say it anyway: I do not want you off OL. Your posts are of much interest to me. Ellen
  10. 1 point
    Just when I think he has "understood" the rules of civilized banter he proves me wrong, Jules. Though his last few forays in big game hunting have been better. At some point Michael may even think we will be laughing together, though still "Friars Club roasting" each other. Who knows? Now back to me being his father figure . . .
  11. 1 point
    Transference [trans-fer´ens] in psychiatry, the unconscious tendency of a patient to assign to others in the present environment feelings and attitudes associated with significant persons in one's earlier life; especially, the patient's transfer to the therapist of feelings and attitudes associated with a parent or similar person from childhood. The feelings may be affectionate (positive transference), hostile (negative transference), or ambivalent. Sometimes the transference can be interpreted to help the patient understand childhood attitudes. end quote A person who transfers their personal feelings into an attack on another person, attributing what they are ashamed of, to that other person, is not a good characteristic and should not be condoned. Take each instance of name calling or slander and wonder, “Is that what they are really like?” Perhaps, Ellen Stuttle may be one person with an opinion on this, but anyone, please feel free to contribute. Peter
  12. 1 point
    That should get you a reprimand, but why bring up your sister? Now that is GI humor. You mentioned having a family. Is this how you treat them? This encounter clearly illustrates the difference between objective banter, argumentation, and what is clearly a destructive personal attack.
  13. 1 point
    You don’t get my jokes and you attack me. That’s all you seem able to do. You misinterpret my cussing manner of laughing at all your great jokes and you attack, attack, attack.
  14. 1 point
    If a person cusses or bullies in writing, what is the possibility that that is how they act in their personal life? That sounds harsh and a bit too personal but not if someone claims they have no control over their actions. Involuntary and volitional contradict each other. Peter
  15. 1 point
    I agree Michael. One other point about being civil. A person may involuntarily cuss "in person" when that is normal group speak. You can't go back and edit "What the "F"" to your Army buddies. But when writing you can edit yourself before sending. To claim otherwise, is not logical. When I engage anyone in conversation online and it is not a personal message, I look at the "Activity" list for guidance. That is when I engage or not. If a person had no activity I would not engage. That is not stalking. On another list Azrael Rand wrote: Let me ask this question? If Ayn Rand were alive today and was able to keep up with the scientific discoveries of the day as well as current events do you believe she would have amended her philosophy to be consistent with its original premise based on the feedback given to her by reality or do you believe she would have stayed the course even up until today. I choose to believe in the former which is one of the reasons I believe in the concept of Open Objectivism. end quote What would Ayn Rand think of someone cussing, accusing, name calling, and being uncivil? I don't need to answer because it is obvious. Another line of thinking about that quote may be the subject of another thread. If she were still alive and writing, what would Rand change or expand upon? Peter
  16. 1 point
    Jon, Thank you for the above post. That gives me a much better idea of the specifics of your views on "the Gang." I'll answer somewhat out of order. I think you're probably right about the "thousand points of light" as a "back-of-a-napkin estimate" of critical mass. I also think that Trump's managing to get elected President of the United States threw the calculations and assumptions into uproar. It was an election that shouldn't, that couldn't happen, so the Gang elites thought. But it did happen, and they're in a tizzy as to how to proceed now. Thinking over my "Doesn't everyone know it?" has led me into memory-lane explorings of when/how I began to think that there were groups attempting to engineer world events. A major suspicion arouser for me was a job I had for a year, late '70-late '71, working as secretary/research assistant on a study of foundations. The job workplace was at the Russell Sage Foundation. The Ford Foundation was much featured in the study. I hardly remember any details of the report that resulted, but I remember my increasing feeling of unsavory stuff going on, and much being "understood" which wasn't said. There, I'm agnostic. I think that there are coteries and alliances, but I'm doubtful that there's a central core leadership. That brings me to your statement: "I’ve never myself to my knowledge been anywhere near them or anyone who has gotten near them." I have been near persons who I think are among them, and not just in the United States, in Hungary and Vienna. I think that the people I encountered in Europe aren't under the leadership of American chiefs and are rather disdainful of American elites. I'm talking impressions, not something I know for fact. Maybe I'll learn more later this summer on a forthcoming Vienna trip. Ellen
  17. 1 point
    To Michael and all others reading this. I’m thinking about taking another month off from communicating and supporting OL. I would hate to see such a wonderful site become a toxic waste dump. Are those posts conducive to living like an objectivist? Peter
  18. 1 point
    I went back to a few days (maybe two not counting today) and here is one opinion expressed. Can you figure out who said these things? Peter Hoping for a different outcome like the retard I say you are. . . . snap out of it. Now respond politely, as though that’s what I’m doing, ok? ‘Cause those are the rules of politeness in PeterLand. Or shut the fuck up with your sermons from now on. Deal? Fuck off pedophile. Fuck your light humor. I wasn’t hostile until after this shit from shithead-in-Chief. Heres a clue, fucktard, “the voices in your head” is a cheap attack. I don’t react well to cheap attacks from ignorant, weak little shits such as yourself. How many coups, fucktard? Go fuck yourself, Peter, that's what happened in Dominican Republic.
  19. 1 point
    Hey Jon, I think this is excellently done. All the more cause to keep in mind that trust in someone else's conclusions, should not be assumed. They arrive, you know, from ones reasoned chain of concepts, induced from *many* particulars (and data and sources), and so are hard, almost impossible, to reproduce and communicate. Something to bear in mind, and that you touched on yourself. What looks glaringly obvious to you isn't so to another. And for good reason: all propositions made by others, one reads, must be passed through one's "smell test" - does this conform to reality as I know it, by *my* series of inductions and integrations (and comparisons and differentiations)? The independent-minded listener can't take all that in, purely on trust. For someone, me or Peter to display a healthy skepticism to your propositions, isn't an attack on "you". I do think from reading you you have made over-hasty conclusions, mostly pointing to conspiratorial, notorious figures who do disgusting things, and sure, some in underground groups - cults.. I find myself, still, naively shocked at what superficially 'moral, upstanding' people can do. I don't doubt events will prove you right, on some, but not in every instance. (My pov is of the philosophical-political "conspiracy', by dangerous ideologues supported by many gullible innocents, planning our world - trying to shape the minds of individuals and masses. Those receive my greatest disgust). I think you're hasty and unjust, too, when you react slightingly e.g. against Peter's intelligence, visibly assuming his willful obduracy, when all he usually makes are very mild and mannered observations. He is most pertinent too, when you dig into them. He doesn't know what you know, you don't know what he knows and has experienced. So it goes for everybody.
  20. 1 point
    A clarification of the "LOL." What I was laughing about, Jon and Peter, was the implausibility of Peter's reading Jon's posts with enough attention to understand the details. Ellen
  21. 1 point
    Um, I think something I said didn't communicate accurately to you if you think that I ever placed no plausibility on what you're saying. I've placed a lot of plausibility on it all along. My asking questions about details - and entering correctives on certain wordings you've used (such as "total control") - isn't meant as questioning the fundamentals of "Gang" existence and goals. I have no doubt of the reality of those. Ellen
  22. 1 point
    My reference was to "The Gang," Peter, as per Jon's usage, not "a gang." Read Jon for details on who "The Gang" are. LOL I don't think you're gonna get the discourse style you want - although not treating Jon as a kook would help if you want politeness from him. Ellen
  23. 1 point
    Assuming Jon is correct about Gang operatives in Iran being the instigators of the drone shoot-down, the "grave public concern" is the work of political enemies for the sake of political and financial goals. The issue isn't petty personal rivalries but major global scale schemes. Ellen
  24. 1 point
  25. 1 point
    And may have been an ultraclever ruse to elicit just the revealing reaction it did elicit from Pelosi and Schumer. Ellen
  26. 1 point
    'Tis revealing, Pelosi et al's glee at the prospect of escalation. Ellen
  27. 1 point
    I am back to not reading Army Ants posts so I don't know what you are satirizing. But thanks anyway, Brant.
  28. 1 point
    Of interest? Posting Guidelines 1. Objectivist Living is a community of people with shared interests, people who are mainly interested in discussing Objectivism from all aspects (including checking basic premises from time to time), the Brandens, fine arts and creating works. Members also present articles and links to their own activities and items they find interesting to share. Thus the tenor is slanted toward understanding, discussion and sometimes education, not preaching or conversion. 2. The practice of good manners is a value sought and encouraged on this forum. Obnoxious and offensive behavior is not welcome. Excessive profanity, trash talk, bigoted remarks and such should be avoided. Should members start insulting each other (flame wars), the site owners will take discreet measures to resolve the issue. If this fails, harsher measures will be used. This should not be seen as a harness on anyone’s intellectual ideas and expression. It is merely a standard for behavior between posters and the bar is fairly high on this forum. 3. As Internet copyright laws are often vague (as of this writing) between what the law states and its application, we request users to use common sense in posting materials that might be copyrighted. If possible and when in doubt, posters should request permission from the owner first. Our intent is not to infringe the law and any material posted that blatantly infringes USA copyright law will be removed. (See Statement of Policy about Plagiary and Copyright Infringement.) 4. The site owners, at their discretion, may delete offensive or improper posts or parts of them, including links. Also, posts and threads may be moved on this forum from one place to another as new sections open up or if a topic is found to be more suited to a different section. Site owners and moderators may also edit posts to correct issues such as font size, typos, spelling errors, broken links, or other minor formatting issues, just as a matter of . . . .
  29. 1 point
    There may be kids who are fans of Rand reading these posts, and Jon's filthy language may have been heard by them in the schoolyard but I don't think his language is appropriate. This does not require any true censorship of his ideas just of his low, gutter language.
  30. 1 point
    And you know coooos, Frenchy? How do you know coooos? You do know drunken gutter English, Jon. Poor soul has lost his way.
  31. 1 point
    And you know this how? What branch of the military were you in soldier? What was your MOS?
  32. 1 point
    I went back to page six on this thread and below I show some of Jon’s sources. I caution all readers of Jon’s to beware the X-files quality of his research. I don't trust him, his outrage, or his supposed self righteousness. Deflect. Scream. Explode. Attack. Those are his methods and I do not think he is fit to be on OL. But nuts are still fun to watch. Peter Here are the sources. RodSneaky. Storm is upon us. Tampa Bay dot com. The DC patriot.com/bombshell. Natural news. Huff Post. Twitter. News punch. Travis View. Gre search. Anonymous. Martin geddes. Real Jeffry P. Page 6. Frank report. Imgflip. Tony Ortega.
  33. 1 point
    Look at your sources man. RonSneaky? If you read it on the net or hear it on the telly, must it be true? Can you converse without getting emotional and worked up?
  34. 1 point
    You are still shaking. My most in-sincerest apologies. You are the one who ALWAYS sounds drunk and belligerent. Can you respond with reason, logic, and sincerity without name calling? You just may not be Objectivist Living material . . . . but what the hell . . . . I still read your interesting but unproven assertions. Here are some qualities you need to grow. Debunking skills. Credibility. So tell me what do you think happened to the 11 dead Americans in the Dominican Republic?
  35. 1 point
    You were viewing "What's Up With." Damn. You got scared.
  36. 1 point
    Very interesting. If you hover over someone's name it will tell you what they are viewing. I have blocked Jon but decided to engage him again. I can still read his "theories" by signing out and looking at content or activity. Jon was looking at . . . go see yourself.
  37. 1 point
    Aha! From the site, Necker Island: Necker Island is a 30-hectare island in the British Virgin Islands just north of Virgin Gorda. The island's land is entirely owned by Sir Richard Branson, chairman of the Virgin Group, and is part of the Virgin Limited Edition portfolio of luxury properties. The whole island operates as a resort and can accommodate up to 34 guests, with additional room for , , , , So, if you own a resort and Che shows up, you are a communist?
  38. 1 point
    CIA black op sites in Iran? Did Natural News tell you that or did "the voices" inform you?
  39. 1 point
    When conspiracy theories surface I read them and listen but I withhold judgement. Show me the proof.
  40. 1 point
    I went to the Fox link about NX. The dude left wiki in 2002. This is from that article. Larry Sanger, who left Wikipedia in 2002, said Wikimedia Commons (the parent company of Wiki products including Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikinews and Wikiquote) is rife with renderings of children performing sexual acts. Sanger sent a letter to the FBI earlier this month outlining his concerns and identifying two specific Wikimedia Commons categories he believes violate federal obscenity law. The first category, entitled “Pedophilia,” contains 25-30 explicit and detailed drawings of children performing sexual acts. The category was created three years ago. Wiki’s response: “The Wikimedia Foundation obeys the law. In the weeks since Sanger’s published allegations, the Wikimedia Foundation has not been contacted by the FBI or any other law-enforcement agency with regard to allegedly illegal content on any Wikimedia projects. Our community of volunteer editors takes action to remove illegal material when such material is brought to its attention. The Wikimedia Foundation is proud of the Wikimedia editors who zealously work to keep the projects free of illegal material. If and when we are informed by law enforcement agencies of illegal content that has not already been removed through self-policing, we will take quick action to delete it.” Sanger contacted the FBI> So, where is the FBI? Why haven’t they swooped in and rounded the criminals up?
  41. 1 point
    Does anyone know of any new legal charges being brought to bear? When I searched for NX I saw Goldie Hawn of all people had pulled out of a speech she was to give there, after an article about the group appeared. I tried to search for people who had been to parties at NX and went to a NY Post story and my computer when thud and I had to reboot. The UK’s Daily Mail has a story that two “wild parties” were held on Branson’s island. However, A Virgin Management spokesman said that 'there is absolutely no association between Sir Richard and the Nxivm group or its leader.' Branson reportedly denies even knowing the group or any supposed activities on his Necker Island. Most of the news sources that pop of with these stories appear to be fringe, fake journalism. Wikipedia is not hiding facts about this group as far as I can tell. I still do not see a tie in between NXIVM and Jimbo, or Branson. Is it possible as with the Goldie Hawn case, people are duped into attending something also attended by NX members? Or they do not know who these NX people are, at all? Why are major reputable news sources NOT running with this story? there are a few names mentioned below. Peter From WIKIPEDIA: NXIVM (/ˈnɛksiəm/ NEKS-ee-əm) is an American multi-level marketing company[2] based near Albany, New York, that offered personal and professional development seminars through its "Executive Success Programs". The company has been described as a cult and a pyramid scheme, and has also been alleged to be a recruiting platform for a secret society (variously called "DOS" or "The Vow") in which women were branded and forced into sexual slavery. In early 2018, NXIVM founder Keith Raniere and his associate, actress Allison Mack, were arrested and indicted on federal charges related to DOS, including sex trafficking.[3] Others associated with NXIVM were also charged with federal crimes. As of April 2018, five people associated with NXIVM—Mack, NXIVM co-founder Nancy Salzman, Lauren Salzman, Seagram heiress Clare Bronfman, and bookkeeper Kathy Russell—had pleaded guilty to various charges.[4][5] Raniere's federal trial began on May 7, 2019. On June 19, 2019, he was convicted of sex trafficking and racketeering.[6][7] Notable members[edit] NXIVM was founded by Keith Raniere (born August 26, 1960).[89] In March 2018, Raniere was arrested and indicted on a variety of charges related to DOS (a "secret sisterhood" within NXIVM), including sex trafficking, sex trafficking conspiracy, and conspiracy to commit forced labor.[3][53] His trial began on May 7, 2019.[90] In 1998, Keith Raniere met Nancy Salzman, a nurse and trained practitioner of hypnotism and Neuro-Linguistic Programming. The two founded "Executive Success Programs", a personal development company[8] offering a range of techniques aimed at self-improvement.[9][10][11] Barbara Bouchey was a client of Nancy Salzman, having been referred to her in 1988. Beginning in 2000, Bouchey dated Raniere. In 2009, Bouchey and eight other women ("The NXIVM Nine") confronted Raniere with concerns about abuse within the organization. That year, Bouchey left the group and later went to law enforcement.[91] In 1991, Raniere was pitching his business "Consumer's Buyline" when he met Toni Natalie.[92] Natalie and her then-husband became top sellers for the organization. [92] Natalie recalled that she was able to stop smoking after a two-hour session with Raniere.[92] Within a year, Natalie and her son had moved to be near Raniere; her marriage ended shortly thereafter. Natalie and Raniere dated for the next eight years.[92] In the mid-90s, Raniere and Natalie operated a health-products store.[93] In 1999, Raniere's eight-year relationship with Natalie ended. Natalie would subsequently claim to have been the victim of harassment.[94] In a January 2003 ruling, federal judge Robert Littlefield implied Raniere was using a legal suit to harass Natalie. Wrote Littlefield: "This matter smacks of a jilted fellow's attempt at revenge or retaliation against his former girlfriend, with many attempts at tripping her up along the way"[95][92] In 2011, Natalie filed documents in federal court alleging that she had been repeatedly raped by Raniere.[92]Sara Bronfman is the daughter of billionaire Seagrams chairman Edgar Bronfman Sr who was introduced to NXIVM by a family friend in 2002.[88] She in turn introduced her sister, Clare Bronfman to NXIVM. Clare Bronfman was arrested by federal agents on July 24, 2018 in New York City and charged with money laundering and identity theft in connection with NXIVM activities. She pleaded not guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn. She was released on $100 million bond and placed on house arrest with electronic monitoring. [96] On April 19, 2019, Bronfman pleaded guilty to conspiracy to conceal and harbor illegal aliens for financial gain and fraudulent use of identification. She faces 21 to 27 months in prison and has agreed to forfeit $6 million.[97]Allison Mack is an American actress known for her role on the series Smallville. In 2010, Mack was reported to have been recruited to the Vancouver chapter of the multi-level marketing organization NXIVM, along with her Smallville co-star Kristin Kreuk.[98] Mack was arrested in Brooklyn by the FBI on April 20, 2018, on charges of sex trafficking, sex trafficking conspiracy, and forced labor conspiracy in relation to her role in the NXIVM organization. Mack pleaded guilty to racketeering charges in April 2019, and is currently awaiting sentencing in September 2019. Sarah Edmondson is a Canadian actress. After leaving NXIVM in early 2017, she publicly denounced the organization, claiming that she was invited into "DOS," a substructure within NXIVM operated by Keith Raniere and Allison Mack, and was branded with Raniere's and Mack's initials at Mack's Albany home.[99][100][101] Edmondson showed the brand in a New York Times expose of NXIVM.[99]India Oxenberg, daughter of actress Catherine Oxenberg, was introduced to the group in 2011. [102] At Raniere's trial, a witness testified that India had spent a year on a 500-calorie-per-day diet.[103] In May 2017, India admitted to her mother that she was among those who had been branded.[104] India left the group in June 2018, after Raniere's arrest.[105] In August 2018, Catherine Oxenberg's book Captive: A Mother's Crusade to Save Her Daughter from a Terrifying Cult was published.[106]Mark Vicente, a filmmaker known for the 2004 film What the Bleep Do We Know!?, began involvement with the group in 2005. Vicente testified against Raniere at his 2019 trial.[107]
  42. 1 point
    Natural News is reputable? Can anyone find other sources accusing or proving Jimbo Wales is corrupt? I have heard before about him being chummy with the Clintons, but he also proudly states he is an objectivist, and those two facts don't jibe. Richard Branson and Jimbo are both rich so there is that "country club pal" factor involved. I do wonder why Jimbo moved to London, but I don't plan to look for answers further. Until more evidence appears from reputable sources I will continue to think of Jimbo and Richard as "decent" sorts even though they both seem to be Brits now. Joke. Since I rarely look at porn I will Not hold Jimbo's porn connections against him. I remember someone mentioning the nude site Domai years ago and I saved about a thousand nude "artistic" photographs of women from it. It's artistic I tells ya. edit. I see my earliest mention of the nude female site Domai was in 2010 but I don't say which objectivist recommended it, so it could have been on an older, defunct site.
  43. 1 point
    I don't recommend a first strike at this time and certainly no nukes. We could flatten the country in a few hours, killing most of their people and destroying all bases and ships with conventional weapons in a week.
  44. 1 point
    An unsettling story by Casey Newton of The Verge ... on Facebook content moderators.
  45. 1 point
    Don't you see a difference between keeping group members in line with blackmail and controlling, for instance, whether or not the North Korean government resorts to using nuclear weaponry? Also, a difference between affecting what happens and running the show? Even on the level of keeping group members obedient with blackmail, there's no guarantee of compliance. Plus, the greater the number of people in a group, the smaller the chances of unanimity. There are just too many factors for there to be a central control on the scale you appear to be saying exists. Anyway, I don't want to be arguing with you about who is or isn't a Gang member and to what extent the Gang runs world affairs. My concern is with a small group of people who are not Gang members, who include a couple brilliant biochemists in their number, and who are developing ingenious biological methods of thinning out the globe's human population. A few things you said sparked my curiosity as to whether or not your sources are aware of the schemes I mean. Doesn't sound as if they are. Ellen
  46. 1 point
    Here is an enlightening post, which proves that all of you have been correct.
  47. 1 point
    As I said over on the five-minute phobia thread, you are using stolen concepts here. If empirical studies are as unreliable as you say, I have to wonder what you would consider good evidence and why that is better. How you would prove such a claim without empirical evidence is beyond me. In any case I did not say that controlled studies are "the only way" to gather information. In the passage you quoted I expressly mentioned that testimonials (about sentence-completion, for example) could be of some value. Speaking from an amateur literacy in the field, I should think that a good followup would include standardized tests, self-reports and interviews with duly blinded investigators, and maybe other techniques as well. As a matter of fact I've read several of Branden's books. The theoretical part was impressive. The exercises struck me the same way folk-dancing does: harmless fun if you're into it, but not for me.
  48. 1 point
    No, everyone is just breathing a sigh of relief that there is no high-level obnoxiousness at that moment :-) Jim
  49. 1 point
    That which I think has been most harmful to the Objectivist movement: Objectivists who think that Objectivism must be accepted in its entirety, that it is a perfect, integrated system, and that to disagree with any "essential" aspect of it is to reject Objectivism, and, therefore, to become an "enemy of Objectivism." This view seems to cause people to behave in self-limiting and self-destructive ways. It causes them to publicly declare things like, "If you're not purely Objectivist (as defined by us), we don't want you, we don't need you, so fuck off." (Attractive slogan, no?) Those who think that Objectivism must be accepted in its entirety often seem to think that it also must be promoted in its entirety, which means that formal educational programs must be the primary means of spreading Objectivist ideas. It seems that even conversations must come as close as possible to resembling a lecture: an Objectivist Crusader usually can't discuss, say, a current political event or a work of art without mentioning Objectivism, quoting Rand, quizzing his opponents on their knowledge of Objectivism, and making suggestions about how they might study Objectivism better. One can't "leave them hungry and begging for more" - one can't be clever and original in an argument, inspiring his opponents with new ideas and new ways of looking at things, and wait for them to ask what his intellectual influences were. No, in all intellectual discussions, a proper Objectivist Crusader must tie the issues and arguments to the whole of Objectivism immediately. In effect, he must change the subject of every conversation to Objectivism. (And from what I've seen, he must also lecture his opponents about Objectivism even after they've repeatedly told him that they are bored out of their freaking minds, no longer listening, and sick and tired of his intrusive, pompous, condescending behavior.) Since no two people will ever agree precisely on what is "essential" to Objectivism, I think that the "Objectivism must be accepted in its entirety" approach is a major cause of the movement's extreme sectarianism and sycophancy. Objectivists often seem to see everyone beyond their insular little cliques as attacking Rand and Objectivism (even strictly personal conflicts are treated as attacks on Objectivism). The movement is full of petty, abusive and manipulative behavior, lies, "airbrushing," public excommunications, denouncements and betrayals -- usually over minor, esoteric differences or purely personal issues -- and ridiculously overblown senses of self-righteousness and self-importance. All of it very public, all of it in the name of "defending" Objectivism, and all of it seen as highly heroic only by those indulging in it. J PS - This (which I've posted elsewhere a few times) is what I think that radio commercials would sound like if businesses borrowed the Objectivist movement's theory of marketing: "The McDonald's on 3rd and Maple is evil. They don't understand or practice the true McDonald's methods and recipes. They are false friends of McDonald's. For one thing, they don't correctly arrange the reconstituted onions on their Big Macs. And their Special Sauce applicator is totally inconsistent. Sometimes the amount of sauce it squirts out is too much or too little by up to 8 percent! If you want a ~real~ Big Mac, eat at our McDonald's out on Highway 18. We are the only true defenders of Ray Kroc's vision. Be forewarned that before ordering, we will expect you to sign an oath that you will never eat at the evil 3rd and Maple McDonald's. They are piece of shit lying scumbag fuckheads who are trying to destroy the purity of of the McDonald's name. We will not sanction your sanctioning them."
  50. 1 point
    Barbara, I have to disagree even that it's "an intelligent and valuable argument." The one point she makes which is important to try to make is that if the energy restrictions desired by the AGW (anthropogenic global-warming) proponents are instituted, this would mean severe consequences for the quality of living of multitudes, and literal death for many -- the exact consequences and figures are speculative, but they'd certainly be draconian. However, she goes so far over the top in her demonizing of liberals, she loses credibility even on the nugget of truth in what she's saying. And I think "embarrassing" isn't the word for what her views on evolution make her look like in scientific circles. There's no way I'd even bring up that article, let alone recommend it as "worth reading," to any of the scientific types I know. And the problem it presents from Larry's standpoint is that the scientists he's trying to persuade to look more carefully at the scientific issues pertaining to AGW are only too likely to hear of the article (not from him) and to bring it up in just the vein Brant described, as indicating that only "the freaks and nutcases" are taking the anti-AGW side. Ellen ___