ObjectivismOnline Objectivist Opposes Objectivism!

[Brant Gaede]

It's a crappy in your face screed provided "Forbes" by The Ayn Rand Center. I don't see how anyone can call themselves an "Objectivist" any more and think it has something to do with individualism. Another example of the misuse of Rand's name. Official Objectivism is a conservative (atheistic) sub-category of conservatism if not neo-conservatism. The conservatives find that too hard to digest so it's just a lumpy adhesion. Those with a primary economic-political orientation are going gaga over "Atlas Shrugged" these days, and they should, but not Objectivism as now represented, which is quite weak compared to Rand and Branden in the 1960s. This doesn't mean that the 1960s didn't set up what we have now. It sure did. NBI was authoritatian and anti-intellectual and Objectivism was too much Rand's "baby" just as "Atlas" was too. If that novel was a house that had taken 14 years, to build you don't tell the builder living in it that certain extremely important things were all wrong about it, like you don't lay the shingles from the top, and she shouldn't be living in it and should build another. Too big--too huge--an investment. Starting out she thought it was going to be much shorter.

--Brant

[Eiuol]

Jonathan, since I do browse the Interwebs and other goings on in the world of Objectivism and you are talking about me, I should defend myself as I see fit. I believe you misunderstood my reasons for deleting the post in question, was primarily my only judgment of an inappropriate comments at a particular member, while throwing in my own habit to tangents and responding to the content of your post even when moderating something else about the post. Plus, dare I say, my fallibility is in play about judging intentions, intentions which I now believe I was mistaken about. If you are going to post about me though and reference me specifically, at least go as far as to copy what I wrote in the PM to you so people can judge for themselves if it was an effort at censorship of ideas or of me being ignorant (about one single post!), or of you misinterpreting what I said to you. What you presented is without the context of anything I said to you.

"It'll be interesting to see if I get any responses from them, and if they're as irrational as Eiuol's response was." "That said, the only person who I'd be willing to sunbonnet up for is this Eiuol idiot."

It disappoints me that accusations of irrationality and idiocy crop up like this.

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan, since I do browse the Interwebs and other goings on in the world of Objectivism and you are talking about me, I should defend myself as I see fit. I believe you misunderstood my reasons for deleting the post in question, was primarily my only judgment of an inappropriate comments at a particular member, while throwing in my own habit to tangents and responding to the content of your post even when moderating something else about the post. Plus, dare I say, my fallibility is in play about judging intentions, intentions which I now believe I was mistaken about. If you are going to post about me though and reference me specifically, at least go as far as to copy what I wrote in the PM to you so people can judge for themselves if it was an effort at censorship of ideas or of me being ignorant (about one single post!), or of you misinterpreting what I said to you. What you presented is without the context of anything I said to you.

"It'll be interesting to see if I get any responses from them, and if they're as irrational as Eiuol's response was." "That said, the only person who I'd be willing to sunbonnet up for is this Eiuol idiot."

It disappoints me that accusations of irrationality and idiocy crop up like this.

Is that your real name? If not, here you're almost nobody since there's nothing in the profile. After a few score posts you will have acquired more identity even if not any other name or information is provided. As a general rule, I don't think moderators have much basis for complaining about their moderated who go complain about it elsewhere. Exceptions can and do obtain.

--Brant

I don't tolerate any moderation of my material whatsoever and don't go to any moderation-land except on an ad hoc basis

[caroljane]

Pretty tangentially, Brant, i too would never join a moderated forum, I just dislike the idea. Not that I think I would ever be moderated because I always post moderately. I have never been moderated by Michael/although I don't think I ever read the OL posting guidelines I am sure I would never violate them

Carol

A one forum woman in a million forum world

[caroljane]

And hey Jonathan, you know my calico pinafore is always at the ready.

[Eiuol]

Is that your real name? If not, here you're almost nobody since there's nothing in the profile. After a few score posts you will have acquired more identity even if not any other name or information is provided. As a general rule, I don't think moderators have much basis for complaining about their moderated who go complain about it elsewhere. Exceptions can and do obtain.

--Brant

I don't tolerate any moderation of my material whatsoever and don't go to any moderation-land except on an ad hoc basis

It's not my real name, no. All you know about me is that I'm the moderator mentioned by Jonathan. I just don't want a moderator team to be misconstrued as a big brother cabal that gets together every week to judge who is a "real" Objectivist, based off of one moderated post. I doubt as much is actively moderated as you think.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Eiuol,

Let me welcome you to OL.

I don't know if you intend to stick around or are just dealing with the issue you are dealing with, but from what I have been able to detect from your two posts so far, you seem like a good person. I like good people. (Just look at the regulars around here. )

Anyway, for the record, everyone here speaks for himself or herself. There's no party line.

(Well... there is no Branden bashing, but, in practice, that mostly applies to a small number of PARC adherents who were once trolling the Internet wherever they could to make huge numbers of posts saying nasty things about the Brandens. I decided that here would be one place on the web where people in the Objectivist target audience could discuss them--even disagree with them--without all the yelling. So I made the policy. Besides, I happen to love Barbara like family.)

I admit to a bias against the practice of intimidating people with peer pressure and preaching, so I tend to interfere when things like that flare up. The focus here is not to preach a line of thinking, defend the honor of Rand or Randians and all that other stuff, but instead, for people to work out ideas for themselves with an Objectivist orientation being common ground as a starting point--as opposed to end point.

As each person is an individual, each one arrives with different intellectual baggage, so sorting out things can get messy. When someone beside you is yelling or preaching or demanding conformity when you express doubt, there is no way to hear yourself think, especially when you are trying to work through a concept or flesh out an idea critically. I prefer to let people have some breathing room so they can do their own thinking while interacting with both similar and different-minded folks. I trust people of goodwill to use their minds well, even when we disagree. Thus I tend to piss off the preacher-types.

Other than that, the rules are basic common sense against trolling. Even then, there's a lot of flexibility. And people come and go as they please. My view is that whatever is good for them is good for OL.

I do hope your experience on OL, whatever it is, provides you some value. I wish you well.

Michael

[syrakusos]

. I just don't want a moderator team to be misconstrued as a big brother cabal that gets together every week to judge who is a "real" Objectivist, based off of one moderated post. I doubt as much is actively moderated as you think.

In the case of Objectivism Online, it is not a team at all, from what I can see, but individuals who actions are supported by default, very much the way within a corporation, a manager who makes a bad decision will still be supported by the management team, rather than lose power to a subordinate worker.

On the other hand, imagine that you have a "Plastics Online" for developers, marketers, and engineers in plastics. Then, along comes someone who demands that you accept that plastics are evil because they come from petroleum. Trying to be reasonable, you point out that plastic-coated piano keys and billiard balls have saved the lives of elephants. In response, the anti-plastic agitator says that humans are the highest value and human achievement is supreme and if elephants must die to allow Rachminoff concerti, then so be it. And so on. Well, we are far afield from plastics now. So, you kill the argument and deactive the user account. Seems honest enough.

But then, along comes an engineer who says she works for Plastics, Unlimited and her firm is experimenting with nano-derived polymers and they have some interesting applications where plastics are common. And you respond: "Whoa! Nano-derived polymers NDPs are not plastics! We know plastics. We define plastics. We set the standards. You are not a plastics engineer. You claim to be, but we deny the validity of your claim. And we remove your posts and cancel your log-in." Is that reasonable?

[Brant Gaede]

Pretty tangentially, Brant, i too would never join a moderated forum, I just dislike the idea. Not that I think I would ever be moderated because I always post moderately. I have never been moderated by Michael/although I don't think I ever read the OL posting guidelines I am sure I would never violate them

Carol

A one forum woman in a million forum world

INTRUDER ALERT! INTRUDER ALERT! MICHAEL! MICHAEL! INTRUDER ALERT!

--Brant

[caroljane]

Pretty tangentially, Brant, i too would never join a moderated forum, I just dislike the idea. Not that I think I would ever be moderated because I always post moderately. I have never been moderated by Michael/although I don't think I ever read the OL posting guidelines I am sure I would never violate them

Carol

A one forum woman in a million forum world

INTRUDER ALERT! INTRUDER ALERT! MICHAEL! MICHAEL! INTRUDER ALERT!

--Brant

No use to raise the alarm now Brant, as Michael is my kissin' cousin and adopted brother and blood is thicker than water, except maybe in Oregon.

You're stuck with me.

[Brant Gaede]

Pretty tangentially, Brant, i too would never join a moderated forum, I just dislike the idea. Not that I think I would ever be moderated because I always post moderately. I have never been moderated by Michael/although I don't think I ever read the OL posting guidelines I am sure I would never violate them

Carol

A one forum woman in a million forum world

INTRUDER ALERT! INTRUDER ALERT! MICHAEL! MICHAEL! INTRUDER ALERT!

--Brant

No use to raise the alarm now Brant, as Michael is my kissin' cousin and adopted brother and blood is thicker than water, except maybe in Oregon.

You're stuck with me.

And the US is stuck with Canada.

--Brant

same thing

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, since I do browse the Interwebs and other goings on in the world of Objectivism and you are talking about me, I should defend myself as I see fit. I believe you misunderstood my reasons for deleting the post in question, was primarily my only judgment of an inappropriate comments at a particular member, while throwing in my own habit to tangents and responding to the content of your post even when moderating something else about the post.

There was nothing inappropriate in the OO post of mine which you deleted. It is duplicated in this thread's initial post. In it, I correctly identified the fact that Objectivism does not base aesthetic judgments on the standard of "man's life," and that, in attempting to base aesthetic judgments on ethical ones, the poster was not following Rand's Objectivist method, but was mistakenly deviating from it and rejecting it. I made no personal attacks. I didn't make any moral judgments of the poster for being mistaken.

Plus, dare I say, my fallibility is in play about judging intentions, intentions which I now believe I was mistaken about.

Are you saying that you were mistaken about my intentions? If so, thank you.

If you are going to post about me though and reference me specifically, at least go as far as to copy what I wrote in the PM to you so people can judge for themselves if it was an effort at censorship of ideas or of me being ignorant (about one single post!), or of you misinterpreting what I said to you. What you presented is without the context of anything I said to you.

I'll be happy to copy and post what you wrote to me in our private exchange, but, since anyone could show up here claiming to be anyone else, I'll first need you to confirm, via private message to me on OO (on the message thread that we've already got going) that I have your permission to post your PMs. Or, better yet, forget that. Why don't you just post the messages of yours that you want made public yourself? That way no persmission is needed.

Btw, who are you? What's up with moderators at OO not identifying themselves by their real names? I don't get it. You're so into Objectivism that you want to be involved at an administrative level at an intellectual discussion site, yet you want to remain annonymous? It kind of comes across as a contradictory mix of pride/dedication and embarassment/worry-over-what-others-might-think? Will you please explain?

J

[Eiuol]

I can and could present an argument where judgments of beauty can have an indirect relationship with "man's life" as a relevant consideration in inducing a concept of beauty. But that's a tangent and not the reason for the post delete. In any case, if you wish, I can explain my reasoning for the post delete, but I think it's moot now anyway. It wasn't that you were deviating from a "party line" position.

For some reason people seem to think OO is the place for the "party line" Peikoff dogmatists. Sure, there are some of those on the site who have that type of viewpoint (none of which are mods), but I can only think of two such posters post much since the last ~4 months. Then again, there are people who are no longer mods, so I can't speak for their actions before I was a mod.

Are you saying that you were mistaken about my intentions? If so, thank you

Yes, I'm saying I misjudged.

I wrote: "I'm the one who hid it since it appeared to me you were trying to misconstrue some of Rand's statements when I'm sure you know better, and you say it contradicts Oist aesthetics to just say later/eventually all of Oist aesthetics is stupid anyway. " Is the only thing I think is relevant to say from my PMs, because as I said, those words are based on a misjudged premise of your intention.

I don't have a reason to mention my real name since I don't use Facebook even. I have no other online identity really. I can't speak for the others, though I don't think it's any more unusual than other sites where there are a mix of users who are private or relatively open.

MSK, thanks for the greeting. I might visit the epistemology section of the site because that's my main area of interest.

[Selene]

Folks:

Damn...looks like we are developing a model for world peace...rational discussion with a willingness to apologize.

Carry on everyone...

Adam

Post Script:

Welcome Eiuol. I look forward to your views on the elements of beauty.

=====================================================================================================

Note to Carol: Have the cryptologist section of the Northern Allied Igloo League [NAIL] begin analyzing the name "Eiuol,"

as I am certain there is a hidden message in code in the sequence of letters.

Suspicious in Seattle

======================================================================================================

[Mikee]

Louie? Really well hidden...

[Jonathan]

I can and could present an argument where judgments of beauty can have an indirect relationship with "man's life" as a relevant consideration in inducing a concept of beauty. But that's a tangent and not the reason for the post delete. In any case, if you wish, I can explain my reasoning for the post delete, but I think it's moot now anyway. It wasn't that you were deviating from a "party line" position.

When you said that I was "trying to misconstrue" Rand's views on aesthetic judgments, when I in fact accurately reported her views on aesthetic judgments, I took you to be saying that I was lying about her views.

Now, as for your statement above that "beauty can have an indirect relationship with 'man's life' as a relevant consideration," I agree. Judgments of beauty can have "indirect relationships" with lots of things which become "relevant considerations in inducing a concept of beauty." However, that doesn't make those things the standard by which one judges beauty.

Yes, I'm saying I misjudged.

I wrote: "I'm the one who hid it since it appeared to me you were trying to misconstrue some of Rand's statements when I'm sure you know better, and you say it contradicts Oist aesthetics to just say later/eventually all of Oist aesthetics is stupid anyway. " Is the only thing I think is relevant to say from my PMs, because as I said, those words are based on a misjudged premise of your intention.

Then thank you, again, for recognizing your misjudgment. I appreciate it. I think a person's willingness to admit and correct his or her errors is a sign of character.

I don't have a reason to mention my real name since I don't use Facebook even. I have no other online identity really. I can't speak for the others, though I don't think it's any more unusual than other sites where there are a mix of users who are private or relatively open.

I understand that a lot of online uses are annonymous. I've occasionally posted under pseudonyms myself and have had various reasons for not wanting people in certain forums to know my name. But in all such cases, I've been just a poster, and not a moderator or owner. I guess I just find it curious that people would feel a strong enough connection to the public promotion and discussion of Objectivism so as to become a moderator at an Objectivist site, and then maintain the annonymity that they originally showed up to the site with. Shouldn't that be the point at which you publicly introduce yourself to the community, and put a name to who you are and what you stand for?

J

[Eiuol]

I understand that a lot of online uses are annonymous. I've occasionally posted under pseudonyms myself and have had various reasons for not wanting people in certain forums to know my name. But in all such cases, I've been just a poster, and not a moderator or owner. I guess I just find it curious that people would feel a strong enough connection to the public promotion and discussion of Objectivism so as to become a moderator at an Objectivist site, and then maintain the annonymity that they originally showed up to the site with. Shouldn't that be the point at which you publicly introduce yourself to the community, and put a name to who you are and what you stand for?

That's an interesting idea I haven't explored much. My interest in the Objectivist community, in terms of actual community as opposed to reading books by various Objectivist intellectuals, hasn't strayed far from my origins so to speak, so I don't have any public image to even promote. Then again, since I have a strong interest in having Objectivism become more widely known and accepted at least as good, having a more solid identity would be useful once I have some "big" plan in mind. My first name isn't even that majorly secret, given that Mikee already figured it out, but it still doesn't tell you anything about me. Really all I'm missing is a last name. If anything, my real name is more anonymous to you than my online name.

[George H. Smith]

I understand that a lot of online uses are annonymous. I've occasionally posted under pseudonyms myself and have had various reasons for not wanting people in certain forums to know my name. But in all such cases, I've been just a poster, and not a moderator or owner. I guess I just find it curious that people would feel a strong enough connection to the public promotion and discussion of Objectivism so as to become a moderator at an Objectivist site, and then maintain the annonymity that they originally showed up to the site with. Shouldn't that be the point at which you publicly introduce yourself to the community, and put a name to who you are and what you stand for?

That's an interesting idea I haven't explored much. My interest in the Objectivist community, in terms of actual community as opposed to reading books by various Objectivist intellectuals, hasn't strayed far from my origins so to speak, so I don't have any public image to even promote. Then again, since I have a strong interest in having Objectivism become more widely known and accepted at least as good, having a more solid identity would be useful once I have some "big" plan in mind. My first name isn't even that majorly secret, given that Mikee already figured it out, but it still doesn't tell you anything about me. Really all I'm missing is a last name. If anything, my real name is more anonymous to you than my online name.

What game shall we play next?

Ghs

[caroljane]

The name game is interesting though, as whateverhisnameis says.

When I ventured onto OL bringing my real names with me, I actually expected that I would just be a A Mind meeting with other Minds in impersonal and stimulating discourse. Of course within a short time I was spilling my guts and telling my life story, and making friends and enemies who are personally real to me although I will never meet them.

( did not have any big plan in mind except of course the Secret Plan which is proceeding nicely, mwah=ha=ha.

[Brant Gaede]

I understand that a lot of online uses are annonymous. I've occasionally posted under pseudonyms myself and have had various reasons for not wanting people in certain forums to know my name. But in all such cases, I've been just a poster, and not a moderator or owner. I guess I just find it curious that people would feel a strong enough connection to the public promotion and discussion of Objectivism so as to become a moderator at an Objectivist site, and then maintain the annonymity that they originally showed up to the site with. Shouldn't that be the point at which you publicly introduce yourself to the community, and put a name to who you are and what you stand for?

That's an interesting idea I haven't explored much. My interest in the Objectivist community, in terms of actual community as opposed to reading books by various Objectivist intellectuals, hasn't strayed far from my origins so to speak, so I don't have any public image to even promote. Then again, since I have a strong interest in having Objectivism become more widely known and accepted at least as good, having a more solid identity would be useful once I have some "big" plan in mind. My first name isn't even that majorly secret, given that Mikee already figured it out, but it still doesn't tell you anything about me. Really all I'm missing is a last name. If anything, my real name is more anonymous to you than my online name.

What game shall we play next?

Ghs

"I'm qualified to be a moderator on an Objectivist forum. Blank. Blank. Blank. Blank. My name is Louie. Blank. Blank. Blank."

--Brant

He's qualified, as demonstrated, to dish out bullshit.

[George H. Smith]

The name game is interesting though, as whateverhisnameis says.

When I ventured onto OL bringing my real names with me, I actually expected that I would just be a A Mind meeting with other Minds in impersonal and stimulating discourse. Of course within a short time I was spilling my guts and telling my life story, and making friends and enemies who are personally real to me although I will never meet them.

( did not have any big plan in mind except of course the Secret Plan which is proceeding nicely, mwah=ha=ha.

I have never used a fake name, even when I ventured onto forums, such as Christian websites, where I knew I might generate some controversy. As far as I'm concerned, using a pseudonym is like wearing a mask when talking to someone in person. It's rude. (I am not talking about user names, of course, when one's real name can be accessed.) If you are not willing to take responsibility for what you write, then don't write it.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

There are many good reasons to conceal your Internet ID, but that doesn't mean you can't put it in your profile. There are even good reasons not to put it in your profile. Depends on who you are and what you do and other reasons. You can give up enough info though to make yourself a real person. Jonathan does this, but in many posts over a long time.

--Brant

[caroljane]

I think there are some practical and professional reasons for people to protect their identities online, but when you are actively promoting a cause I don't see the sense in it. You should want your name identified with your beliefs as early as possible. Loud and proud!

[caroljane]

I would add a rider about posters and moderators on highly sensitive forums such as mideast ones on Egypt, Syria etc, I imagine they might be targets of death threats for real.

[George H. Smith]

There are many good reasons to conceal your Internet ID, but that doesn't mean you can't put it in your profile. There are even good reasons not to put it in your profile. Depends on who you are and what you do and other reasons. You can give up enough info though to make yourself a real person. Jonathan does this, but in many posts over a long time.

--Brant

There may be exceptions, of course. I don't have a problem with Jonathan because, as you say, he has demonstrated himself to be a "real person" over time. But this is a rare exception, in my book. I don't trust newbies who won't give their real names. I also don't trust purported experts in a given field who won't give their real names, especially people who claim to be experts in science.

I cannot think of a good reason why anyone who wishes to discuss philosophy would need to conceal his or her identity. If more personal matters are involved, there might be a good reason.

Ghs