My response to Ed Hudgins' "The Atlas Society Policy and the Summer Seminar"

[John Dailey]

MSK:

~ You said (in post #93) that "...Internet marketing is nothing but Psychology + Math. Enter Alexa. You need measuring tools for the math part."

~ Last time I saw such 'basic' marketing was 2 decades ago when I was trying to find out what makes Astrology seem so, so...'scientific'-based.

~ "'Psychology' (ahem) + Math" indeed. Can one say: sophisticatedly-applied Street-Psychology? --- (If you 'math' it, they will come!)

LLAP

J:D

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

The guys I listen to and study right now are all millionaires from doing that way.

What else do you use to control Internet sales other than psychology and math? I am all ears.

Michael

[John Dailey]

MSK:

~ Far be it from me to give 'tips' to Astrology millionaires.

~ Just trying to point out that there's a dif 'twixt the Gates and the (Jean) Dixons.

~ Not all 'millionaires' are of the Maslowian type Rearden orientations is all I meant re my 'Psychology + Math' point. --- There're quite a few scam/extortionist 'millionaires' around, and separating wheat from chaff should be a concern.

~ 'Nuff said.

LLAP

J:D

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As time goes on and matters start disappearing down the memory hole, there is a tendency for people to forget the fundamentals present in the event. This is why history repeats itself so often.

So I want to keep something on record here at OL that I just read on SOLOP from one of the few older Objectivists who still buy into Perigo's crap. There is a poster named Scott DeSalvo who just came out with the following troop-rallying statement with respect to TAS's cancellation of the invitation to speak.

After a string of profanity and nastiness typical of the crap that is promoted on that site, a fundamental principle came to surface in a surprising moment of candor and clarity. The post is here and the pertinent quote is below:

Submitted by atlascott on Wed, 2008-02-13 04:22.

. . .

If we were all in the same room, bet your ass there'd be a real brawl if these fuckwits had the balls to say for real what they safely type in the interweb.

See, it can get messy and personal if you treat ideas seriously and not as passionless intellectual baubles.

In other words, this guy is a thug threatening violence to anyone saying something he doesn't like. This is not a young kid full of piss and vinegar. This is a mature man and a lawyer to boot.

That is not Objectivism. But that is what is being preached under the name of Objectivism.

Barbara Branden once called ARI intellectuals who preached bombing mosques and schools the "lepers of Objectivism." In my own mind, I extend that title to anyone who preaches violence in the name of Objectivism as a proper response of intellectual disagreement.

Should anyone doubt the nature of the spirit of what kind of distortion of Objectivism is being preached on SOLOP, let him read Scott DeSalvo's words. If anyone should imagine that after matters settle down, there is no need to keep a harsh attitude towards that irrational personality cult, let him reflect on the words above by Scott DeSalvo in defense of Lindsay Perigo against TAS and see if he wants to discuss anything with that thug and "get messy and personal" and engage in a "real brawl" with him or "bet his ass" to check and see.

As for me, I will take the man at his word. He equates ideas with violence in the same manner all thugs do. I reject that as evil.

And by the way, I "have the balls" to say what I think to anyone's face, much less a two-bit thug. I mean up close and personal, too. I have scars all over my body to prove it. I would have no problem whatsoever saying to DeSalvo's face what I think of Perigo or any other matter.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

EDIT TO POST ABOVE: Just to demonstrate that this thuggishness is not one person only, but something encouraged by Perigo himself on SOLOP, here is his evaluation of DeSalvo's post:

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Wed, 2008-02-13 21:06.

That's a magnificent roar ya got there, Big Boy!

Had you let out this roar a month ago it might have shocked the KASSless corpus into generating a backbone and standing upright against the lynch mob.

I disagreed loudly with the invitation, but I do not believe that the TAS directors would have been cowed into submission from fear of being physically beaten up. They are honorable men, and they are all men in the best sense of the word.

Let those who approve of such preaching knock themselves out. Let those who prefer to forget what thugs and bullies preach knock themselves out. Let those who pretend that people don't mean what they say knock themselves out. Let it all get soggy again while people pretend that preaching violence is legitimate Objectivism.

Well, I do not approve. I won't forget. Not for quite a while. I take this kind of crap at its word and I mean what I say.

I know this is tiresome, but this crap will have to be done and accepted in the light of day.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Well, Michael, I have to drop back in here and almost completely agree with you. However, I have to point out that I once told a radiologist on Atlantis II that if I met him I would invite him to step outside and have it out with him. Something to do with Barbara Branden, I actually have forgotten the details except the invite was metaphorical. I was then accused of initiating physical force. Heck, when I was in junior high school I made such an invitation to a fellow student and we met in an alley next to the school. Before the fight began, we were surrounded with other kids, rules were laid down, including rounds, and we started boxing. We even had self-appointed seconds. After a few rounds security arrived and everybody ran away except the boxers. Did anyone initiate force? I don't think this sort of thing is what Mr. DeSalveo was suggesting. The only other fights I've ever been in, except with my brother, I had an M-16 and I won. Question: If I were to meet this lawyer in this room of his, could I just take him at his word and hit him with a baseball bat in self defense? Answer: No. Why? Because I know he's a bullshitter, not a real thug. But the rhetoric of a thug, sanctioned by Perigo btw, is disgraceful to self-proclaimed Objectivists. Unfortunately you get the same thing big-time when some ARIans discuss foreign policy.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant!

Thank you.

I agree with everything you wrote, even about DeSalvo not being a thug for real. (Hell, lawyer is bad enough.) In my heart I believe he is nothing but a goon wannabe playing at being an Internet bully and trying to show off.

But let's take him at his word for now. Other people, especially newbies, will.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Brant; It's nice to have you back.

Michael; I agree that this SOLO person would not really beat you up.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chris,

That is true on more counts than one.

But do you agree with what this guy wrote? That people dare not say certain things (presumably about Perigo) to his face, otherwise he would try to beat them up? He was clear and he did use more-or-less correct English.

And do you agree with the endorsement and praise he received from Perigo for threatening to beat people up?

Is A still A, or is that changing in Objectivism?

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; ABSOLUTELY NOT! I think the writer probably got beat up every day he was in school by bullys and now wants to bully others.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I do not want to keep this issue open, but I do want to keep something on record. I mentioned that the preaching of violence as a response to ideas in the name of Objectivism by Scott DeSalvo was endorsed by Perigo. It has now been honored with one of SOLOP's Boy Scout like awards. A thread February Summary was posted by "Lance" on Feb. 29, 2008. The quote below (typos and all) is from the part of that post beneath the title, "Awards."

KASS Post of the Month: Scott DeSalvo, February 13, Hudgins thread:

You are 100% balls-on correct.

You are SUPPOSED to call a lying fuck a lying fuck.

Do these people recall or have they read about how passionate Ayn Rand could be when aroused to anger? Was it a fluke? Or was it justifiable anger in the face of evil?

How can you have an organization dedicated to truth when you live in such mortal terror of being criticized? Where does such a fear come from?

Always suspect those who are afraid of transparency, and those who try to muzzle free speakers and free thinkers....

What is infinitely more offensive than my turn of a salty phrase is Hudgins' conduct here, and the jackals-upon-the-lion pounce Linz's detractors perpetrated here. If we were all in the same room, bet your ass there'd be a real brawl if these fuckwits had the balls to say for real what they safely type in the interweb.

See, it can get messy and personal if you treat ideas seriously and not as passionless intellectual baubles.

This is chip-on-the-shoulder crap, daring anyone to comment about it.

Well, I dare.

That crap is not Objectivism. It is thuggishness pawned off as so-called rational passion. That thuggishness peppered with vulgarity has not only been sanctioned, it has now been held up as the best post on SOLOP in February 2008 by the administration.

Let those who wish to ignore this ignore it. But those who ignore it deserve everything they get. It will not be the fault of SOLOP's directors. They state very clearly where they are at and it just doesn't get any clearer than honoring the brute's code (to paraphrase Rand) with an award.

People think they don't mean it. I think they do mean it.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

I do not want to keep this issue open, but I do want to keep something on record. I mentioned that the preaching of violence as a response to ideas in the name of Objectivism by Scott DeSalvo was endorsed by Perigo. It has now been honored with one of SOLOP's Boy Scout like awards. A thread February Summary was posted by "Lance" on Feb. 29, 2008. The quote below (typos and all) is from the part of that post beneath the title, "Awards."

KASS Post of the Month: Scott DeSalvo, February 13, Hudgins thread:

You are 100% balls-on correct.

You are SUPPOSED to call a lying fuck a lying fuck.

Do these people recall or have they read about how passionate Ayn Rand could be when aroused to anger? Was it a fluke? Or was it justifiable anger in the face of evil?

How can you have an organization dedicated to truth when you live in such mortal terror of being criticized? Where does such a fear come from?

Always suspect those who are afraid of transparency, and those who try to muzzle free speakers and free thinkers....

What is infinitely more offensive than my turn of a salty phrase is Hudgins' conduct here, and the jackals-upon-the-lion pounce Linz's detractors perpetrated here. If we were all in the same room, bet your ass there'd be a real brawl if these fuckwits had the balls to say for real what they safely type in the interweb.

See, it can get messy and personal if you treat ideas seriously and not as passionless intellectual baubles.

This is chip-on-the-shoulder crap, daring anyone to comment about it.

Well, I dare.

That crap is not Objectivism. It is thuggishness pawned off as so-called rational passion. That thuggishness peppered with vulgarity has not only been sanctioned, it has now been held up as the best post on SOLOP in February 2008 by the administration.

Let those who wish to ignore this ignore it. But those who ignore it deserve everything they get. It will not be the fault of SOLOP's directors. They state very clearly where they are at and it just doesn't get any clearer than honoring the brute's code (to paraphrase Rand) with an award.

People think they don't mean it. I think they do mean it.

Michael

Michael -

I am quite familiar with such behavior. I have seen it among young, elementary and junior-high school age boys. Most grow out of it by the time they reach high school. Clearly, some do not.

Bill

[Ed Hudgins]

Michael - While not wanting to dwell on this matter much more either, such posts do demonstrate the serious need to define a mature Objectivism as I tried to do several years ago in a Summer Seminar talk. I will try to get a revised text of those remarks up soon.

An obvious problem is that those who are excited about Objectivism will see posts like the one you highlight online and think either 1) that Objectivists are the irrational whim-worshippers that they denounce and thus be turned off, or 2) that to be passionate means to behave in this sort of deplorable manner.

There are intellectual errors involved as well: misunderstanding the nature of passion; failing to appreciate the need to evaluate actions in context and with respect to the goals; evaluating the validity of goals. But these are topics for a longer piece!

[John Dailey]

~ In post #85, Barbara wrote

"I think it's a mistake, unless there is a powerful reason to do so, to speculate about someone's psychology on a public forum. On such a forum, what one might say to a couple of friends will instead be read by hundreds, even thousands of people for many years. It becomes, in effect, set in stone."

...and goes on to criticize the worth of, and the implications of such anal...lyzing (or is it...rationalizing one's dislike of their behaviour?) of the detracted individual's worth (in this particular case, Will Thomas, though E. Hudgins, R. Bidinotto, and the whole of TAS are implied.) --- Controversies over the term 'psychologizing'...especially as used by Rand...come to my mind. Maybe 'motivational-evaluation' is a more apropos...euphemism...here; it's certainly more empirically descriptive of the subject of one's derogation of person 'X.'

~ Clearly some disagree with Barbara; as many threads have shown...especially when talking about Rand's behaviour.

~ Pity.

LLAP

J:D