The OL "tribe" and the Tribal Mindset

[Brant Gaede]

If you're in NZ you should have a natural US dollar buffer in your local currency. Still, everybody should have some gold in some form as an insurance policy. In 10 years the US dollar could easily be worth two-bits but gold will likely have the same buying power. It will not increase one's wealth.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

We are now getting the real Obama rally with the DOW up nearly 500 points today. Everybody wants to believe in equity investing but fewer realize it's become speculation and trading only. The rally could last until the end of August although I think end of July is more likely. Buying gold using dollar-cost averaging is not investing, speculation or trading if it's physical gold (buy the GLD ETF then sell it to pay for the physical to smooth out buying difficulties of the physical) but just savings. If you pay $1000 for an ounce of gold and in ten years the dollar is only worth 25 of today's cents the gold could easily be worth $4000 albeit with the same buying power. Of course, when you sell that ounce for $4000 you will report the $3000 capital gains to the IRS.

--Brant

[Ruth]

I would advise against buying gold for medium to long term hold -historically metals are one of the worst performing asset classes - they yield no dividend and are highly volatile. Most big US banks closed their gold books long ago.

We are currently looking at one of the most impressive rallies in history! I'm trying to gauge the strength of this last rally... DOW closed up 500 at 7776 this morning breaking through the 7450 (7500) resistance. The next barrier for the upward DOW is that massive resistance band 7900-8500.

Is the DOW strong enough to break through this 7900-8500...My initial thought is "no way", but with this massive 500 leap through the 7500 resistance area I'm now in doubt.

It's very exciting for me here in NZ - I've been scratching around finding every last cent to invest in the hugely oversold US market over the last 2 months. Our market here is way too small and too easily manipulated.

She's a big ship in the US - reminds me of the saying " Be careful sitting in a small boat with an elephant".

[Selene]

Ruth:

Thanks for your insights.

Additionally, I am apologizing for the way I greeted you a few days ago. I have had no problem with a strike since 1965 to 1969. Therefore, I reacted emotionally whereas I should have employed patience.

My understanding is that New Zealand has no extradition treaty with the US. I find that hard to believe.

Finally, a number of folks that I speak with amongst my clients/friends are quite split on the real power of this economy and the idea that Armageddon is right around the corner.

Glad you are profiting from this "situation".

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

The proper comparison is gold to dollar savings, not equities. The CPI under-estimates inflation in the US and the interest (taxable) is very low. For an equity alternative I'd have to pick large, integrated oil companies. It's not a good thing to put more than 20% of investable assets into any one sector or idea except, perhaps, short-term. Above all, eschew leverage.

--Brant

Michael, could you attach these posts to my Hedging For Armageddon II thread?

Edited March 24, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I did not move the posts, but I did copy them in the other thread.

You can see them here.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I was recently going over some material on motivation and I think I hit upon a fundamental between why I dislike Perigo so much. It is his piss-poor attitude toward celebrating the achievements of others.

There is a relatively unknown person (Diane Hochman) in the Internet marketing world I greatly enjoy. I have watched her grow over time and it is inspiring to see her progress. She based her initial efforts on an MLM guru named Joe Schroeder, who is like a hero to her. He developed some very interesting theories of success (and identified some really interesting patterns) and she takes them one step further. (btw - I am not into MLM.)

Now here is the idea I got from them. If you want to succeed in life, you must go to where people celebrate you. When people are trying to drag you down all the time, it is hard to keep up your morale during the hard times. We all get tired. We all get frustrated. We all have moments of doubt. Having people around you who celebrate you gives you a lift during those times. They keep you going.

The fact is that not everybody is going to celebrate you in life. Some people are going to hate you. Once you can accept that, it is easy to start being more selective about the people you want around you. That is how it has always worked with me.

Back to Perigo. I would be lying if I said he does not celebrate people around him. He does. My problem is his criteria.

If you agree with him and accept his guidance, he will celebrate you. If not, he will insult you in the grossest terms possible, even if he likes you and thinks you are a producer.

My attitude is that if you achieve something worthwhile, I will celebrate you. I will celebrate your achievement. I will say do more. Go for it. There are people who post (or no longer post) on OL who do not like me. I usually ignore the dislike and when I see their achievement, I have celebrated it (within the bounds of being relevant to the context). In my world, that is what you do. You celebrate achievement.

Perigo's standard of celebration is not achievement, but simply agreeing with a body of thought as interpreted by him and accepting him as the intellectual leader for setting the terms of that interpretation. If you achieve something great and think of him as your guru ("Uncle Linz" and so forth), it is true that he will celebrate your achievement. But if you achieve something great and do not follow his lead, he will call you a "shit-eater" for liking music he does not like. (His favorite term is "Why eat shit when you can have food?") Or something else for other disagreements. He has a whole lot of hip-sounding jargon for people of achievement that he uses to denigrate them.

As to your achievements? As the lady says, "Blank-out."

I call this disrespect. And I call this life-hating and narcissism on a fundamental level. I do not understand how someone can be familiar with Objectivist thought and not understand that achievement is more fundamental than agreeing with a leader.

But there it is.

I'm just thinking out loud, but it is important for me to understand why I spend time analyzing this loser. It's not just his malice. I have encountered irrational malicious people like him before and moved on. Maybe it's because Objectivism is involved, but I believe it is more than that.

At least, I now have one more piece of the puzzle.

Michael

[Ruth]

Disrespect is an appropriate word, I think. People should be praised for being excellent at what they do. At heart I don't believe Perigo is a rude, ill-mannered man - but I may be wrong. He is certainly less rude than some of his fans. For example I will not engage with anyone who swears at me. He has never done that to my knowledge.

I think a lot of his online hostility stems from frustration -- Rand's ideas have not been able to gain any significant traction here in NZ. I suspect a steady diet of National Review and Fox News has also been responsible for the doomsaying outlook we see now. And of course some people are not happy unless they have something/someone to hate. Obama currently fits the bill.

A friend of mine who is a technical stockmarket analyst wrote a piece about group think. He wrote it about stocks of course, but I think it is relevant to life in general:

See how the posters influenced each other with their comments - threads become support groups for those that have all made the same mistake. The effects of "group think" are all too evident as they lead each other down the garden path.

These "toxic" threads share many similarities and are quite easily identified. Here are a few pointers :-

• Watch for a preponderance of overly loyal extremely positive contributions.
  
• Any negative posters are "run off the thread".
  
• Look out for multitudinous "cut and paste" entries of scarcely relevant articles from the net.
  
• Beware of threads where anyone posting a negative comment is personally attacked.
  
• Dissenting views should be encouraged, not rubbished. We learn nothing from those that agree with us.
  

I used to get a bit 'obsessed' with certain people - but it is an energy sink Michael. Really they don't matter, and their opinions don't matter. Somewhere along the line Rand's adage 'Thou shalt think' became "Thou shalt think like me".

Being proven correct and being successful in what one does is what is important.

Edited April 5, 2009 by Ruth

[Newberry]

I enjoyed Michael and Ruth's last posts.

Rand's mantra about writing fiction is to show what the characters say and do. Along those lines, to paraphrase Edison, success is 10 percent thought and 90 percent work.

When I read and post on Wetcanvas, a art site with over 100,000 members, I always track and find the poster's art. This further helps me understand where their comments are coming from. (I make about 50% of my income from online sources, so it behooves me to keep a presence on complementary sites.)

For those that do not do, their options are limited and you would think they could offer, on objectivist sites, respect to those that achieve and create. But, I think Ruth's friend's quote "threads become support groups for those that have all made the same mistake" names it well. I will keep that in mind. Thanks Ruth!

I recently left RoR, not out of anger, but simply because there was no celebration of what I have to offer in both thought and achievement. One poster commented that if the people of strong confident opinions leave what is left...

One thing I know for certain, is the importance of good ideas--being able to mentally map out to the problems and solutions ahead of time, then roll up the sleeves and get down to implementing those ideas. Without good ideas, it is almost impossible to execute anything with confidence and success.

Enjoyed having my coffee here, now for some elbow grease!

Good day to you all.

Michael

Edited April 5, 2009 by Newberry

[Rich Engle]

Newberry, you are too funny to hang out at any site where people don't enjoy your work, which is kind of past the acceptance stage at this point. Audiences are fickle, but once in awhile we get to choose 'em, too.

Altruism. Well, there's all kinds of morals. With altruism, you start acting like something that causes unscratchable itches elsewhere. It annoys others, even if you are a nice person. And then, there are people that have altruistic sentiment, which I value more, plus they are less dangerous. At least choice gets involved once and again.

I'm too lazy to look it up but paraphrasing Heinlein (it was from Time Enough For Love or something in the future worlds thing)...if you see a soothsayer on the street, give him a coin, he's just trying to make it. But, if you find a True Believer, shoot him on sight."

I'll regret that paraphrase but I'll stand on the translation.

Best, Newberry--nice to see you have somewhere to paint. I work with an artist, too. It is nice.

rde

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just caught something on SLOP from Perigo that was quite amusing. No one could ask for a better example of how hypocritical Perigo is in applying standards. It's like the old quip, "I never smear. Smearing is what other folks do. When I do it, it's merely stating facts."

Take a look at the "when I do it" part (from this post):

Babs...

... O-Lying...

... the mobsters...

... the skanky Robert Campbell...

... doing her dirty work in public...

... O-Lying mobsters...

... Babs's dogma...

... filth like J. Smith 1, LDS,...

... lack of breeding it will display...

... its headbanging...

All of this was in just two short paragraphs. Now for the total disconnect with reality, the "when others do it" part (the opening of the third paragraph):

As for "smearing" J. Smith 1, LDS, I leave the smearing to his lot.

These were one right after another, so there is no excuse for anyone not seeing the double standard. Perigo also stated quite clearly that he does not really mean what he says. Look here:

Unlike him I don't hang on my every word, going back years...

No doubt he'll produce something from his extensive collection of Linzisms...

The only sense I can get out of this is that Perigo says stuff he believes will not have any meaning later. And he feels no obligation to mean anything he said in the past. After all, why bother with pesky little facts like your own words?

"Say what you mean and mean what you say" (the Solo Passion motto) is a standard for for others, not for him.

I don't judge Perigo to be an ignorant man, so he must be aware of these kinds of inconsistencies that run throughout his writing. I just don't think he gives a damn about respecting his audience and lies on purpose in public. I think he is dishonest and feigns innocence as an act. I also think plays the victim with too much gusto, especially after what he did to Jim Peron.

I stand in awe of myself that I was once taken in by this dude. I actually thought this petty little hypocrite was an Objectivist leader.

Michael

[Jonathan]

It has been pointed out to me that Pigero has revealed here that there was a behind-the-scenes whispering campaign waged against me which led to a lynch-mob getting me banned from SOLOP:

"In the private note to which you refer you said you didn't want to continue the discussion publicly while a certain third party was getting in the way. That's no longer the case, so I'm up for it if you are."

J

[Jonathan]

When I was posting on SOLOP, Ellen was upset that I was getting in the way of her discussion on music with Pigero, but now that I've been banned from SOLOP, and I'm therefore out of the way and no longer interfering, what does she do? She quotes the above post of mine! A post that was posted here on OL and not on SOLOP! And then she announces that she won't be discussing the music issue further with Pigero!

Regarding Ellen's views on music, in the past she has characterized Pigero's approach to aesthetics as inappropriate "harangues" which are reminiscent of the bad old days of Objectivist aesthetic intimidation. Yet her part in the SOLOP music discussion has been about how Rand, if she had been more knowledgeable of music, might have best gone about trying to support her expectation that her tastes in music would one day be shown to be objectively superior, and about how others, like Pigero, who believe that their tastes are objectively superior, might also better support their assertions. So, from my perspective, it seems that Ellen's goal has been to help Pigero make a better-sounding (though still insufficient) argument with which to support his "harangues." On the one hand she says that she opposes aesthetic intimidation, but on the other hand she's eager, for whatever reason I'm failing to understand, to give aesthetic intimidators what she thinks is better ammunition than what they've been using.

Pigero might as well be claiming that graphic novels are the apogee of visual art thus far, with the reasoning that graphic novels contain higher contrasts and brighter colors than oil paintings, and stronger life-affirming themes. And then Ellen might as well argue that Pigero would be better off making the argument that the true advantage that graphic novels have is that they can tell a more complex story via multiple images, and such visual story telling ability is what is primary about graphic novels -- that there are more idiosyncratic formal potentials for visual drama available to the graphic novel artist than to an artist who paints a single image.

The problem is that such an argument wouldn't actually be a better one for Pigero to use, since it would do nothing to support his position. It would still be a false agrument, and one false argument is no better than another false argument. Graphic novels are not objectively superior to oil paintings, regardless of which aspect of graphic novels a person thinks is primary to the art form, just as Romantic music is not objectively superior to non-Romantic music, regardless of which aspect of Romantic music a person things is primary to the art form.

Now, for the other issue. In the SOLOP post that I linked to above, Ellen provided evidence of her backstage whispering campaign by publicly posting her previously private message to Pigero:

Subject: "Tonal drama" is what makes your case. ; -)

I'll write -- off-list -- with some details in the next few days. I want to do it off-list because (1) I don't want it to look adversarial: I'm not trying to argue with you; I'm trying to help with the musical features; (2) I don't want Jonathan in the way.

See? Proof that Ellen led a lynch-mob that got me banned from SOLOP. I'm a victim just like heroic martyr Pigero, who was victimized when Barbara "led" a "lynch-mob" by sending a private note to Ed Hudgins and publicly posting her views long after everyone else had.

But, seriously, the above is what I find confusing. Ellen tells Pigero that she doesn't want to argue with him or to be adversarial, but to "help with the musical features." In other words, it seems that she wants to show him what she (falsely) thinks is a more powerful argument that he can use to aesthetically browbeat others.

J

Edited April 25, 2009 by Jonathan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

The main issue with Perigo and those who try to validate him is tribal, not substantive.

It never was and never will be substantive. Even Rand is window dressing in that world. (Music certainly is in the discussion you mentioned.) The ideas exist as weapons to compete with and rule those who want to participate (with all due public deniability in place, of course). It's that small. They don't even want to rule the world like respectable villains!

I feel sorry for those, especially the younger people, who I perceive are actually trying to understand the issues.

I wish it were different, but the prime mover for Perigo & Co. is the tribe and some audience to scratch a vanity itch. The audience Perigo gets from making low-life scandals will do for those ends. That's why it works. But it never gets any deeper than that.

The public appeal is not even philosophical rubbernecking for most of the audience. It's just drive-by rubbernecking because they know this person or that and watching them squeal from being attacked is entertaining. People even like to see strangers fight. Call someone a name and people show up to watch what happens.

I really despise the vain kind of discourse I constantly read in that world when it is dressed up to look like substance. I take ideas seriously. I call the gospel those folks preach "superficial profundity." (I forgive artists and super creative people, but they at least have talent and produce things.)

I also marvel at how people fall for it. Pepper in some big words and jargon and attitude and voila! You have instant integrity for show. I don't marvel all that much, though, since I used to fall for it.

The confusion this causes newbies to Objectivism is quite a ride. If you are a newbie, you have to really want to understand Rand—really, really, really want to understand Rand—to get past that crap.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

It's really not even cultish behavior, though that has been examined (and I do believe there are cult of personality Rand folks, but they are insignificant). I'm not even sure it is tribal, because it does not have enough basic drive to it to really qualify as that.

Perigo is, self-provenly, a gluttonous prissy fucqstick with a head full of bad wires, and you can find those just about anywhere. He could have latched onto anything or anyone other than Rand, and in essence would still be doing the same things, just to a different audience. I have never once seen him write anything that was expansive, much less innovative. He is a social metaphysicist, of the late chronic stages variety.

If you watch him over the years (and I do it less and less because it is like rubbernecking the same car wreck over and over again), his material (particularly when attacking) is hackneyed, repetitive.

His "essay" on music was Velveeta; it belies the fact that he is no more than a very narrow-minded listener, and, worse yet, one who incorporates weird moralizations into his takes on artists (or entire genres of musical art) of which he clearly knows squat. When he takes examples, they are of the most extreme and worn-out variety. About the best he comes up with is that Mario Lanza makes his dick hard, so therefore it is amongst the best music on the planet. I think the worst thing that could ever happen to a modern, working performer would be to garner a favorable review from him. He knows next to nothing as to the full range of musical aesthetic, and even less in the technical areas; apparently he thinks himself savant when he asks trivia questions about where movements came from. Mostly, I think of him as a movement, just not the musical kind.

I am sure this approach extends beyond music, he just tends to hover over those things about which he displays the least understanding.

He is not even a good flamer or troll, which would have been an apt trade for him on the Web--an apt blue collar job for a barely mediocre talent like that. What little I have heard/been able to stomach of his radio show makes daily talk shows look strangely attractive, were one confronted with such a sad choice between the two.

He creates his own non-issues so he has something to run with, and projects this amazingly shrill, pseudo picture of righteousness and moral outrage. I would hate to be one of his new pets, what with all the passive-aggressive b.s. that goes on with him.

In the end something not-so-good will happen to him, and he will evaporate. Hopefully.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Ruth]

It's really not even cultish behavior, though that has been examined (and I do believe there are cult of personality Rand folks, but they are insignificant). I'm not even sure it is tribal, because it does not have enough basic drive to it to really qualify as that.I agree with that.

It's really too bad that Perigo has become what he is (and he never used to be like this - I have the first Free Radical to prove it), because there's genuine joy that he is missing. Not the faux joy of mean-spirited sneering, but the real joy of seeing someone else achieving and finding happiness. Let's face it: You can't enjoy your own victimhood unless everyone else is at least as miserable as you are.

This attitude, which is childish in the extreme, is supported by a carefully constructed online environment of sychophantic commenters.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't want to start a new topic with this because it does not deserve it, but I do want to comment on something about Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo. For the first time I am starting to wonder about his sanity. Seriously.

Take a look at the following post from SLOP:

I expect the "never-blow-your-top" anals like Babs the Omelette-Spitter and her supporters will be wetting their PC knickers over Glenn Beck's exasperation with one of his callers.

The post continues in this vein. If you go to the link, you arrive at the blog of somebody called Peggy Wang who laughed at a video of Glenn Beck and her readers mocked him. None of this has anything at all to do with Barbara Branden.

Even regulars on SLOP have commented about Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo's obsessive anxiety over Barbara Branden and his compulsion to make constant disparaging remarks about her in places where they make no sense. (What on earth is an "omelette-spitter"? That sounds serious...)

It must be the Jovian rational fire raging in his bowels...

Anyway, rejection hurts. Some people don't handle it well. It pushes them over the edge into a private hell.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Yeah, that was unusually weird, even for Mr. Perigo.

The Glenn Beck segment was pretty typical of him. There's been a theatrical element to radio call-in shows, all the way back to Alex "The Man You Love to Hate" Bennett. I get tired of it after a while, but I know it's a performance, and I'm sure everyone else who tunes in knows it is too.

I happened to be watching Beck's TV show a couple of days later and his TV self (wearing a suit) pretended to interview his radio self (wearing sweats and a backwards baseball cap) about the episode. That's about how seriously it needed to be taken.

It's Mr. Perigo who has a "derangement syndrome." Sheer narcissistic rage is what it looks like.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't know where to put this, so here seems as good a place as any. After all, this is a thread about tribal mentality.

It seems that I am being discussed a bit on SLOP. Several people make terrible statements about me, but that's not a bad thing coming from folks of poor character. When a creep or bonehead says good things about you, what does that mean?

Once in a while a post comes up that displays a tribal mentality in a very subtle manner. Here is part of a post from a person named Mindy:

... I have posted at OL, and engaged MSK and others in lengthy debate. I condemn MSK because he does not assume the responsibility to define his terms. His intellectual standards are quite low. Also, his knowledge of philosophy, and of Objectivism are insufficient to back up the substance of his posts, though he is a clever person. Others on OL, who I know know better and hold, privately, higher standards, stay quiet in the face of MSK's, and others', blatant violations of basic intellectual standards.

Let's look at the facts.

1. We actually did discuss a few things, but I don't remember anything with me resembling "lengthy debate." While it is true that she did make 251 posts here on OL as of today, most of them were not with me. In our last posts to each other, she objected to me claiming that Rand made a few dogmatic statements, like Rand's stated premise that sensations are not stored in memory. I think the word "dogmatic" rubbed her the wrong way, but in light of the total lack of evidence or source of any kind to back that premise up, I can't think of a better term. Anyway, our interaction is here online if anyone wants to check and see if it fits their idea of "lengthy debate." Let's just chalk that one up to rhetorical excess.

2. I don't define terms? After all those discussions I have made about differentia and genus, that statement is quite comical. I suspect it is a deliberate lie, though. In our last exchange, I was the one to ask her for definitions and if anyone wants to read from that point on, they can see that I checked and discussed one she alluded to (a dictionary definition at that).

3. Now the payoff: she claims I don't know much about Objectivism and additionally have low intellectual standards.

Well, I guess I am not going to sleep tonight. Dayaamm! Woe is me...

But the reason I am discussing this is: How is this tribal?

It starts with the "Rand did no wrong" premise, which is something I have noticed time and time again in this person's posts. She is intelligent, but I suspect her own understanding of Objectivism is predicated on the fundamental premises as dogma, not as observations. I have seen her get into all kinds of tangles in a quite hostile "defend Rand" mode against people she perceives as enemies. One of these episodes even blew up all out of proportion on RoR and she ended up being restricted over there (which doesn't mean much, but that is another issue). From her posting behavior, I observe that checking Rand's premises is tantamount to heresy.

You can't have a decent tribe without having a god or goddess to bow to. The personality cult leaders can come and go, but the god or goddess must remain unchallenged to a deeply convinced tribalist. The very notion of tribe rests on it.

Defending the Rand goddess is Ms. Mindy's self-apponted role online. She's not very good at it, either (despite her intelligence), and that must be frustrating. To be good at it, you have to control others and those darn independent thinking suckers just won't stop thinking for themselves and obey her.

I am not surprised that she feels most at home in the SLOP environment where those who do check premises are grossly insulted over and over. If you can't silence someone, at least you can punish him. OL is devoted to checking premises and stimulating independent thinking, not indoctrinating people or worshipping gods or goddesses.

Frankly, I am proud of the fact that many of the preacher types stay silent here. Folks of good will get a chance to work out their thinking, whether right or wrong, without a lot of yelling and peer pressure. If they are to be swayed, it has to be by reasoned discussion, not by ganging up on someone, flame wars, rhetorical games or gaming the system.

(Boy, do tribalists hate that, too! )

Underneath it all, a tribalist is a bully. An individual thinker who is not afraid of being bullied will always be hated by such a person. I bear the hatred levied at me by such tribe members as a badge of honor.

Michael

[Christopher]

Nice post Michael. I empathize with the fact that you must occasionally receive unwarranted criticisms for your very positive and growth-oriented role here in OL.

Being an Objectivist is meaningless, ultimately. Being an independent thinker with a focus on valuing the individual is everything. The title of one's beliefs and the membership to a "group" in order to express one's beliefs are irrelevant at best. I've met Orthodox Christians who better represent independent thinking and valuation than some so-called Objectivists. There's a reason... humans are not what they think and say they are, they are what they do. And that's another beautiful concept from Objectivism.

[anonrobt]

Nice post Michael. I empathize with the fact that you must occasionally receive unwarranted criticisms for your very positive and growth-oriented role here in OL.

Being an Objectivist is meaningless, ultimately. Being an independent thinker with a focus on valuing the individual is everything. The title of one's beliefs and the membership to a "group" in order to express one's beliefs are irrelevant at best. I've met Orthodox Christians who better represent independent thinking and valuation than some so-called Objectivists. There's a reason... humans are not what they think and say they are, they are what they do. And that's another beautiful concept from Objectivism.

If 'evil is as evil does', then so must be good...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Heavens! I am being talked about on RoR! See starting here.

It's bad enough to be called a Chavez lover (which is an outright lie), they don't spell my name correctly in post after post.

Dayaamm!

Folks, it's not Michael Stewart Kelly.

It's:

Michael Stuart Kelly

Oh, the outrage!

The sheer outrage!

(trembling and tasting bile...)

Michael

[Selene]

You are lucky its not Mikhail Stewart...

next they will say you have a hairpiece covering a port wine spot on your skull...

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just saw the weirdest thing on SLOP. Amidst the standard vitriol, there is this odd statement in a post by one "Kasper":

It's funny how dissent is so intolerated by the OL folk. The moment I signed up I had a Warning email from MSK informing me that I'd better conduct myself in a friendly manner or else.

This is the standard tribal thinking, so there is nothing really to comment on from this perspective. But the idea that I sent this young man a warning email the moment he signed up is really, really odd. I simply don't do that.

I may have responded to an email this child may have sent me. I just don't recall. And he must be using another name over here because his moniker is not in the database. (EDIT: I just found it. Now I shall look for emails and private messages.)

At any rate, that is not my manner of expression. When I want to warn posters about bad behavior, I say it in public. I've always done that. Even with Pross (and we emailed a lot back and forth back then).

I am not surprised that outright lying in the manner this kid did is part of the mindset the younger folks learn from their tribe. I guess they think that when you don't have good arguments to attack someone with, making up stuff will do.

(SECOND EDIT: I did a search in my private messages and email and I have nothing on record to or from this child. According to my records, he joined OL on August 10, 2008. He has not made any posts, opened any threads or participated in any other manner than joining.)

(THIRD EDIT: This is the last comment I want to make on this particular topic. I don't even want to do it now, but I am doing it once more because it is so weird. The child mentioned in this post repeated the allegation that he received a warning from me when he signed up to OL: "As I've said I was given a warning how to conduct myself the second I got a log in."

I wonder what a person thinks he is gaining with this kind of lie. This kid won't be able to produce any email or message from me as nothing like that exists. Maybe he could try to forge one, but IP records, etc., would make short work of that. There is nothing to gain one way or another by lying here. It's just "lie qua lie" without a purpose or payoff. What an odd way to present yourself to the public...

Is he maybe imagining that the automated welcome message provided by the forum software right after the email of a registering member is verified by the program—by the email owner clicking a verification link automatically sent to him by email when he first signs up—is a warning of some kind that "he'd better conduct himself in a friendly manner or else"? If so, I would be interested in reading the text this child finds so threatening.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It just gets weirder and weirder. Now Ted Keer has chimed in on SLOP:

Given Michael's obsessive monitoring of this site, I am quite sure he was aware of who Kaspar is when he registered on OL and his denial that he corresponded with you to provide such a warning is hard to believe.

Michael does, quite selectively, edit and delete material which he finds offensive.

In find this lack of integrity disappointing in light of Ted's blog, but he does have a bit of a behind-the-scenes control-freak streak (which is one of the reasons he was restricted on Wikipedia).

1. For the record, I do know who this child Kaspar is and who he was last year (at a rather large distance), but I was unaware that he had registered for membership at OL last year. Kat gets the automatic email notifications of new members. We rarely discuss them.

2. Actually my logs will show that I do not "quite selectively, edit and delete material which I find offensive." Further for the record, I would edit hate-speech should someone go on a hate-preach spree, etc., and even the standard blasts against the character of the Brandens that was in vogue by the tribal haters when PARC came out, but not without public warning first. If anyone want to corroborate this, it is fairly easy. The site is easily searchable.

For normal junk (after it becomes hopeless), I just throw it into the Garbage Pile. Maybe the existence of the Garbage Pile has escaped Mr. Keer's notice. I made the Garbage Pile precisely so I would not have to edit garbage and could leave it up as proof that the author had written the garbage.

One thing's for sure. I certainly do not "quite selectively, edit and delete material which Keer finds offensive." And boy does he want me to, too. He wrote to me recently demanding that I remove his name from a post by Jeff Riggenbach. I wrote back that I cannot prohibit other people from using his name (nor would I ever wish to). Earlier he had demanded that I moderate Jeff. I wrote back that I vastly prefer nurture to clobber and that Jeff has great value if he opens up. (Incidentally, some recent posts by him are pure intellectual pleasure.)

I don't have on file any communication between the child and me, but I do have on file these private message exchanges between Keer and me.

I suspect Keer's behavior at Wikipedia regarding the backstage editing of other people's contributions and demands for the editors to restrict them was in a similar vein to what he has been doing with me, which led to Wikipedia TOS violations and his restrictions there.

Keer recently called me a "Chavez lover" on another forum. Now he is doing this. He knows what he is doing and so do I. And he knows that it is dishonest. That's good enough for me. I judge that he is being dishonest on purpose.

And, for God's sake, he has constantly spelled my name wrong (writing "Stewart" instead of "Stuart"). But that part is just sloppiness.

He still has a great blog, though. In my opinion, he would do far better to build rather than try to control access to the Internet at other people's sites of people he disagrees with—and try to control the content of their writing "quite selectively."

On an epistemological note, notice that there are speculations and fuzzy thinking in these people. There are no facts to speak of like quotes that can be checked, etc. Nor will there ever be on this issue. But these are the kinds of people who rise up against Jim Peron and other scapegoats (usually Muslims, anarcho-capitalists, religious folks in general, etc.), demanding that we hate their scapegoats and take action against them, and that we take their opinions, poor speculations, hate-speech and lies as fact.

I reject this epistemology. I reject their tribalist categories and scapegoatism. If you cannot convince by ideas, then you are incompetent at reason. Trying to convince by scapegoating is not only cowardice at root, it is a declaration of intellectual incompetence.

To add icing to the cake, it's tribal.

In light of any doubt, one must look to facts before evaluating. This is how I use my mind in general and this is how I understand Objectivism.

But I do categorize people. One of my primary categories is a dichotomy: people of good character and people of bad character, i.e., people who think for themselves and bullies who want to control others. You can find both everywhere, from the most irrational radical religious camps to Objectivists and people interested in it. But on OL, I try to keep the bullying down. That pisses the bullies off.

Good.

Michael