Recommended Posts

Phil is presently making intellectual mincemeat out of SLOP posters and turning them into a laughing stock. I had to see this to believe it (I have been off forums for a few days as I was in heaven with a birthday visit from Kitten).

Phil wrote an analysis of Hsieh's anti-Sciabarra tantrum - Diana's Takedown - even pointing out where she quoted a passage from Russian Radical and left out names in order to give a false impression. Did he get any refutation at all?

No.

He was called a lot of names, etc., etc., etc., and as of now the name-calling continues.

I know that I wrote strongly about giving those dudes too much attention on their own turf, therefore sanction, but let me say this publicly:

Good job Phil Coates. You have exposed the complete intellectual bankruptcy of those folks, who are proving that they can't argue a point when they are wrong if their lives depended on it. You kicked their asses seven ways to Sunday and seriously helped undermine Hsieh's credibility among Objectivists (including the credibility of the whole sorry tribe). Bravo.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll second that! I am just one of the unknown observers who is trying to get a clue about what is going on in the Objectivist world. It's the first post I have read on SOLOP in a long time. It gives perspective. You didn't change my mind on anything but you confirmed some suspicions. Thanks Phil.

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil, I confess I didn't think you were going to be able to keep it together, and that you would be buried alive by the constant barrage of toxic waste from the Hsiesters and Perigoons and Maurons. But you did it, and for that I salute and congratulate you! You managed to turn what looked like an echo of Thermopylae into a replay of Salamis. The barbaric "Persians" will never again be the same. :-)

I'm sure you had no intent (or hope) of changing the minds of your opponents. But as I'm sure you're aware, you performed a much more important service: you let the silent readers know that "Dialectical Dishonesty" had not a leg to stand on, and that the Big Lie technique will not work on those who do not allow themselves to be baited and distracted to relentlessly pounding home the truth.

Again, nice job, Phil.

REB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil,

There has been refutation at SLOP after all. Let's see the issues:

1. Chris's lying e-mails quoted by Hsieh are all the evidence anyone really needs to see that he is a liar.

2. Chris's lying e-mails quoted by Hsieh prove that he is a systematic liar.

3. Chris's lying e-mails quoted by Hsieh in her essay conclusively prove that he is immoral because he writes lying e-mails.

4. Hsieh understands what proof is much more than you do because you are a poo-poo head.

Now Perigo is in the wings threatening stuff that is far worse, so we better tread carefully.

Dayaamm!

//;-))

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... the curmudgeon is making menacing, uh, curmudgeon noises, is he? Must've missed that part, how precious! Does he collect dirt like Larry Flynt does?

rde

Sink your boats, break all the clay pots in your kitchen- it's whoop-ass time! -Sun Tzu (sorta)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil,

Your analysis of the essentials in Ms. Hsieh's argument was right on target.

I'm just sorry that you had to endure so much verbal abuse from Mr. Perigo's claque and Ms. Hsieh's claque, though the very abusiveness of it all helped to make your point.

A couple of things that Ms. Hsieh and her defenders have yet to address, among the many thousands of words flung and expended:

(a) Why would anyone who depends on the Ayn Rand Institute for sponsorship and support reveal fear of the top ARI leadership to someone like Ms. Hsieh, who is new to ARI, has been drawing attention to herself by zealously denouncing everyone that ARI might deem an "enemy of Objectivism," and is obviously after a position of power within that organization?

(b) What did Ms. Hsieh actually mean by her comment (on her blog in December 2005) that homosexuality is "unfortunate and sub-optimal"? Why did she say it in the first place, if she didn't intend to condemn gays and lesbians? All she has subsequently said on the matter, in sources that I have seen, is that she didn't mean that homosexuality is immoral. She has never said what she did mean.

Robert Campbell

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, I think the answers to your well-stated questions are obvious:

(a) No earthly reason!

(b) Bad, not morally bad, in the sense of an impairment, if inborn or unwittingly self-inflicted

REB

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been following with a bit of interest Phil's ass-kicking festival on SLOP while he mops the floor with them.

Hsieh posted the almost whole e-mail excerpt from Chris Sciabarra to Joe Maurone (a small part was deleted). See it here. But for the record, here is a summary of what he stated to Maurone:

  • He is puzzled by Maurone's apparent defense of Hsieh.
  • Hsieh has turned against him and everything he stands for (and how).
  • She once attacked Maurone but the slate is now clean since Maurone disavowed the essay he wrote that prompted the attack.
  • He was once a mentor to Hsieh (with her calling him "Mother").
  • Hsieh turned on him, attacking him and his journal and regularly left her forum open for even more brutal attacks on him.
  • Hsieh mentioned that "out of respect for our past friendship" she would not rip him to pieces.
  • Barbara Branden is not corrupt and Maurone is mistaken for thinking this.
  • Hsieh is a dogmatist - she wasn't before, but she became one.
  • Hsieh rejects virtually all non-ARI scholarship and has become the veritable Comrade Sonia of Objectivism.
  • Hsieh attacked homosexuality as "sub-optimal" (and this was a polite way of saying "immoral" and "disgusting.")
  • Ayn Rand was honest about her own views on homosexuality.
  • He knows that Maurone doesn't want to have any serious disagreements with him.
  • He's not putting their friendship on the line.
  • He's very uncomfortable and seeing Maurone cozying up with people who view him as corrupt and evil makes him a bit apprehensive.
  • He doesn't think he can take a public denunciation from somebody he genuinely cares about (meaning Maurone, presumably), after having been dumped on by every Tom, Dick, and Harry for years on end.

The only thing I see to disagree with here is that, from what I have read so far on Noodlefood, Hsieh showed definite signs of being a dogmatist before changing over to ARI. Everything else is spot on.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whooooaaa! Phil knows Kung Fu!

I actually read the entire thread and I can't believe that an "I know you are, but what am I!" did not come up.

Phil v. kindergarten

I believe that Barbara's plague could be called Objectivist Rabies. All that snapping and foaming at the mouth........has to be Rabies. Sad really.

Whatever you call it...

It's just plain pathetic.

Except for Phil.

gw

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil wrote on the SoloP thread - here:

I don't know how many times I have to keep repeating this psych 101 and social skills and understanding of actual human beings point:

**Dishonesty is not the same thing as error**  

Even errors where you would know better and think someone else should know better (if they were you). Even egregious errors. You need a whole lot more to elevate it into that most serious category.

[....]

You can say they are stupid, have poor judgment, overstate things, drop context....whatever...but stop thowing around nuclear weapons in evaluating people you strongly disagree with.  

Stop accusing everyone of dishonesty and evasion on the slightest evidence.  

Or just because you don't like someone.  

Or they are an intellectual enemy.

Or you're really, really, really, really so mad you could spit!!!!

Grow up.

But what Phil is saying not to do is exactly what Ayn Rand did and taught by example. It's the sanctioned-by-the-leader's-practice O'ist method of evaluating people.

Another point: It seems not to have occurred to anyone posting on the thread, even Phil, that Chris wasn't looking at Diana's blog entry when he fired off his private note to Joe upon reading the post of Joe's which triggered his worry. Chris might have forgotten the second sentence of Diana's blog entry. Everyone seems to assume he was quoting something which was right in front of his face, which he was reading at that moment.

As to people's asking why doesn't Chris apologize to Diana for misrepresenting her statement about homosexuality: After what she and her friends have tried to do to him? Surely anyone expecting him to apologize must be joking.

Ellen

___

Link to post
Share on other sites

Joking, on So-Low Bashin'? You must be joking, Ellen. :-)

"Apology" is not a concept, but a con-word on Linz's list. The pattern is: insult the victim, then when the victim retaliates, even in jest, you snarl viciously at the victim and pretend that he has egregiously wounded you and must prostrate himself before the group. Here is a (so far) hypothetical example:

Linz: Phil, you sure are a mealy-mouthed c**ksucker!

Phil: Gee, Linz, you didn't complain last night when we were together!

Linz: Oh, boo-hoo-hoo, how could you joke about something as sacred as my sex life, you vicious monster.

Random Perigoon: Yeah, you pig, apologize now, or be condemned as the soul-less, malevolent beast that you really are.

The above is not an exaggeration. Some entity named "Penelope" actually tried that trick, and Linz & Co. not only let her get away with it, they aided and a-bedded -- oops, I mean abetted -- her.

With the advent of this transparently crazy-making tactic, So-Low Bashin' has now become a snake pit in a second way -- as in: lunatic asylum.

Phil has made noble efforts, but he needs to make good his escape, not allow them to keep baiting him to stay and take more abuse. What does it prove? That he is of good will, and they are not? I think that has been amply demonstrated long ago -- and we are well into the overkill zone.

REB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ellen,

Part of the shared background, for Chris Sciabarra and Mr. Maurone, is Reginald Firehammer's view of homosexuality.

Mr. Firehammer, a fierce defender of Rand's sexual psychology, apparently never actually says that homosexuality is immoral. But the drift of his remarks is clear enough.

Mr. Firehammer is not only persona non grata with Mr. Perigo on account of his views--he was run off Ms. Hsieh's blog in record time. (At least he holds the record among those who actually posted a comment.)

Somehow Ms. Hsieh's remarks are OK with Mr. Perigo, but Mr. Firehammer's are not.

While Roger's explication of Ms. Hsieh's remarks on homosexuality seems reasonable, the fact remains that she has provided none herself. It can't be for lack of verbal facility...

Robert Campbell

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have yet to find anyone that can make a convincing argument (argument, not comment) about homosexuality. Comments yes, arguments, no.

It is true that homosexuals have endured all manner of brutal persecution. I have a huge problem with that, because it is evil, it is hateful.

Sexual orientation is no one's business, it means no matter. Sexual orientation is a fundamental right of existence. As far as I'm concerned, there is no goodness in making much of any kind of comments about gay people, including snotty, semi-reserved ones such as the now-famous suboptimal unfortunate riff.

There's just no use for it. Homosexuals will continue to practice homosexual behavior, and if others care about that, it speaks to them needing something more productive to occupy themselves.

Why someone would concern themselves with who/what kind someone else is fucking continues to escape me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert,

For the sake of precision, Hsieh did make a statement yesterday here. I will partially quote it.

Let me state my views even more clearly than I did in that comment: I do not regard homosexuality as immoral or disgusting in the slightest, I do not think homosexuals ought to try to become heterosexual, and I think of and treat homosexuals just the same as heterosexuals. If I ever hear an Objectivist claim or do otherwise, they'd be sure to get an earful from me.

She stated those opinions clearly, but she did not make any comment reversing her appraisal that homosexuality is suboptimal, unfortunate and impossible to be an "innate compulsion" (for a lovely turn of phrase as given in her original quote).

A is not A?

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

First,

Phil has made noble efforts, but he needs to make good his escape,

I kinda' wish he would escape also. Kinda'.

However, he may be having too much fun!

Second,

Sombody pronounce "Hsieh" for me. (stop snickering) I simply have not heard it pronounced out loud yet. I have been going with "shy". Am I close?

Third,

What is up with that Penelope entity? She acts like Phil personally put a cockle burr in her thong. Jeez!

Lastly,

I am very upset! I just know all this is going to lead to no more Brokeback Mountain jokes. Damn you Diana... what ever the hell your last name is!

gw

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary,

I don't remember anymore how she says her name. I prefer to fancy it as the sound that comes out of a Madagascar Hissing Cockroach- it just seems right all around.

As far as what's up with Penelope- there's definitely something stuck up there in her, yet-to-be-determined. Clearly a Very Serious Young Objectivist<tm>, ready to lay down the wrath of judgment, just like she thinks it's supposed to be done. A basic, Class A Randroid, it appears, currently enjoying Flavor of the Month status. Sadly, the dark minions of curmudgeonry will eventually turn against her. I thought it was pretty funny when she was trying to upload her photo, and it came out full size as a post. It got to be boner time over there for a minute. At least she has some idea of who the dogs are, now.

Sounds like a helluva date, that brazen filly...I would hate to do something "dishonest" and get on the wrong side of that. The lecturing would, I imagine, be exquisitely painful and tedious. I'm pretty sure she has a thick rulebook she uses for her man-training. (or whatever)

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have heard her say it, it is homophonic with "shay," as in the type of carriage, or as in the Rebellion.

A few months ago, I adopted a fake personality on Rebirth of Reason, and I called myself "Artemis Kerridge." Artemis was the Greek version of the goddess Diana, and Kerridge is homophonic with "carriage," of which one type is a shay. So, you see, I was "goofing" on Diana's name, and I share that here partly to help ingrain the correct pronunciation.

REB

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was "goofing" on Diana's name,

Carefull! You may have an entire SOLOthread dedicated to you soon!

A dumb question. In the translation from what I presume is Chinese, why is "Hsieh" not simply spelled "Shay?" Why is it not translated in phonetic form? I find this annoying on many asian translations.

Just bitchin'!

gw

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for the positive comments!! I am definitely tiring of the debate, though. I think I've made enough major points and repeated most of them for anyone capable of objectivity to begin to rethink their positions.

In many ways it's not actually a full debate because, while I've addressed all of Diana's arguments in her essay, she and her supporters have not done so with me. I'll make ten points and they'll ignore eight ... and demagogue the other two.

I'm grateful to Ellen and a couple of others who jumped in from time to time to help clearn up the Augean stables so I wasn't completely alone there.

And I am truly *stunned* at how lame the Wolfpack's supposed rebuttals of me have been...these are supposed to be educated Objectivists, not middle school kids. Diana is supposed to be trying to get an advanced degree. (So many of them I just didn't want to have to stoop to answering and couldn't keep up: it was like constantly cleaning up after people who kept shooting at the urinal and missing.)

Diana is far more verbally skilled than most of the Wolfpack but possessing not a drop more maturity, wisdom, or perspective. She is actually going to be -incredibly damaging- to Objectivism and will be dredged up repeatedly in the future by anyone writing a negative book about Objectivism. Damaging, not with regard to the *content* of any of her ideas, but with regard to her *methods*, her mean-spiritedness, her viciousness, her lack of benevolence, her exaggeration, her childish rages and thin-skinnedness.

So as far as Gary thinking I was "having too much fun" to quit the debate, I'm not: It's too easy and too repetitious and too much like cleaning the toilet or teaching retards. The first gets to smell and the second to feel like driving with the emergency brake on after a while.

I just posted something on my RoR "takedown" thread which summarizes the sort of fallacies I'm talking about...probably no point in reposting it here?, since OL people I'm sure read RoR.

> not allow them to keep baiting him to stay and take more abuse.

Roger, abuse and insult doesn't matter particularly and I pretty much shrug off. It's sort of like schoolyard taunting. Background noise which only makes the issuer look infantile: Name-calling is the last resort of he who has no argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil, I think you did everything that could be done under the circumstances. And, as you said, your real audience was not the Wolfpack, but whomever was lurking with an open mind and was able to see the value of your arguments and the ad hominem nature of most of the supposed arguments against you. I kept waiting for someone to say "Sez you!"

What is truly remarkable about the people who now see you as "the enemy" -- and who will go on to trash you at every opportunity -- is how many of them once paid you appreciative compliments about your posts. Apparently, the power of the group was too much for them; they were unable to hold to their first-hand view of you once the group had pounced. I see this phenomenon in the attitude of many of the people on Solo toward TOC, David Kelley, Robert Bidinotto, toward Chris, toward me, toward Nathaniel, toward others who have abandoned Solo. We have all been transformed into "enemies of Objectivism" to be scourged.

It tickles me to speculate about what would happen if the Perigos and the Hseihs were to begin finding fault with Rand.

Barbara

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been learning something about Chinese, and will answer the question about Diana's name.

"Hs" is not the same as "Sh." But I'd have to pronounce them both for you to hear the difference. That's why.

Diana is using the old system of interpreting Chinese into our alphabet. In current use, her name would be written "Xie," with the "X" being used for the "Hs" sound that we don't have in English.

Close to "Xyeh." is how I'd say it. Again, X is the "hs" sound.

I don't actually speak Chinese, though. I just know some of the basics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It tickles me to speculate about what would happen if the Perigos and the Hseihs were to begin finding fault with Rand.

In one respect, Diana has found fault with Rand. I'm too tired to look up the post, but toward the end on the homosexuality subject she objected to having those "awful" views attributed to her -- those views being views Rand is on public record as having enunciated.

Phil, sorry I couldn't do more. I'm so limited in my computer time, and that list has an especially difficult user interface from the standpoint of my eye troubles.

You done good, I think. I doubted at first if you'd accomplish anything helpful. But I think that the persistence paid off with on-record results that add up to a demonstration of non-objectivity which would be hard to miss by anyone giving a fair reading.

Ellen

___

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re my comment about the display of non-objectivity responding to Phil on SoloP, I do except two persons from my overall evaluation: Boaz Simovici and Chris Cathcart. I thought both of them were approaching the issues like real intellectuals. Chris C. I've read before on various lists. Boaz I hadn't known of before, but he impresses me as being a really bright and well-educated up-and-coming young thinker from whose pen I anticipate possibly major work. Also, there were a few others whom I consider just not skilled enough to see the issues rather than skilled enough but sidestepping. (Unlike Phil, in his summing-up comments on RoR, I think there was some deliberate sidestepping, not merely "emotionalism," engaged in by several of his prominent adversaries.)

Ellen

Edited to correct the spelling of Mr. Simovici's first name. I couldn't remember if it was spelled with a final s or z. I'm assuming that Robert Campbell has it right in his post down the line.

___

Link to post
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