Peikoff flip-flops


9thdoctor

Recommended Posts

If I'd been headlining this thread, I wouldn't have said that Peikoff has flip-flopped. I'd have said that he continues to make an ass of himself.

If he had any sense, he'd discontinue these podcasts.

Robert Campbell

Robert,

I thoroughly agree. When I heard Peikoff advocate attending Catholic confirmation services, I decided there was no way this person had anything further to offer me. He has mainly been valuable as a memory bank for his wealth of information about what Ayn Rand did and said. He turned organized regurgitation into a career path. Nothing more was required of him than that. But now we have the embarassing spectacle of Peikoff groupies like Hsieh who look to him for wisdom and guidance, as if Rand had passed him her philosophical torch, which clearly she never did. When he stops being her scribe and tries to occupy her throne, he looks like a jester instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Brant, here you go: cook 'em slowly on medium heat for four minutes, till golden brown. Then turn 'em over and repeat the process on the other side.

Except for the time factor, this is good for doing Phil too, with inflammatory OL rhetoric.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> the term flounce is called for when the case in question is worthy of mockery [ND]

It's not just mockery since it carries more of the connotation that someone is sulking or overreacting or being petulant without actually proving it. It's like you think you are inside that person's head and psychologizing but all you want to do is use a negative word without making an argument. Slanted language often is used as a substitute for argument. It tries to paint someone in a subtly negative shade. (I didn't want to make a big deal of this, calling it a minor point in the first post, but as usual when I make a criticism of someone on this board, no matter how minor, they almost fucking -never- say whoops good point and seem to feel the need to make an all hands on deck, all guns blazing series of responses contesting every point I make. And that's not 'mockery' on my part. Now I suppose someone will make the very stupid comment that I made a fallacy by not going back through five years of posts so I could offer a half dozen examples?)

Using loaded or slanted language is recognized to be a fallacy by logicians if one uses it as a substitute for explaining or making a case. In the case of some people on this board, they use it and mockery constantly but don't do much else. If it weren't you doing it, you'd instantly recognize it in someone else.

But people never seem to want to admit even a small error by themselves, even for an instant. Instead they attack the person who dares to point it out, calling him arrogant or inappropriate or condescending or schoolmarmish. "Who the hell asked you? Shut up. Go away, you annoying SOB." And then they bear a grudge and look for ways to attack that person whenever he posts from that point on. (I've noticed that people who are outraged at my criticism or them will from that point on, even thought they didn't do it before, attack me as if in retaliation on almost every thread where I make comments, claiming to find flaws in it...and also in a tone of ha-ha-ha as if they knew there were something wrong with what they are doing. Now, I know I make mistakes, but not -that- frequently.) It's especially true for highly intelligent people who take great pride in their mind that they take very poorly when they encounter any criticisms that seem to reflect on them in that area.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the point about calling ex-communists flip-floppers, that that is a far more serious or weighty matter -- that's not really the point. It's inappropriate to call someone who changed his view of communism a flip-flopper or to 'mock' him in exactly the same way as someone who changes his mind on the party he supports because you are subtly implying that he didn't do it for what to him were honest and serious reasons. In that sense it's not coming right out and psychologizing but that is the buried implication.

And, yes, in both cases it's a serious or weighty manner since the party in power can have major impacts on the country. This whole thing wouldn't irritate me so much if, for example, someone accused X of flip-flopping on something -truly- minor such as what is his favorite ice cream or actor, although it would be a silly charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, I don't think P's latest podcast on his reasons for choosing the Republicans is unreasonable. It's more a return to reality since the demos are the more imminent threat, as he argues.

So I'm curious why people would fault this podcast for that? I mean if someone returns to a reasonable point of view you give him credit for it. You don't just have a huge belly laugh and say 'flip flopper! flip flopper! Ha. Ha. Ha.

What was unreasonable and silly was his -original- argument that the Repubs. were more of a threat than the Demos. And, yes, I know his original argument was that that was in the long-range. But he was then ignoring short range damage, and now with Obama he has seen (as he admits) how much damage can be done in the short range.

Don't laugh at or mock him as a flip-flopper from his original position, but give the man credit for changing his mind even though he knew he'd be unmercifully ridiculed - as he has been - for it.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everyone should back off, because Phil is trying to make funnies.

The process will be long. Well, it won't be, but it will feel that way. He is on personal quest. At times (most times) it will be unpleasant to behold.

If I were to attempt placing Vegas odds, I'd give it 90/10 that he will not be able to endure this attempt, one reason being that he has already shown more of an interest (as usual, to the point of nausea) in making, er, "corrections" of various sorts, regarding anything anyone else writes, or, for that matter, their general makeup as a human being.

This usually happens immediately. And, as MSK says, he always reverts to Randianese.

It is like being in a classroom and knowing, no matter what you do, that you will be scolded for one reason or another. It also accomplishes a dual purpose in that it allows for Phil-Obfuscation<tm>, which is basically how he breathes; meaning that it is vital to spend more time talking about how other people are talking about what we are trying to talk about rather than talking about it.

So, I, for one, am more interested in watching his Comedic Stylings<tm>, such as they are.

rde

If it is not Phil, it is Not.

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't laugh at or mock him as a flip-flopper from his original position, but give the man credit for changing his mind even though he knew he'd be unmercifully ridiculed - as he has been - for it.

Ah, the uber-fuckup of communicating: issuing threats. So, what if someone does? Do we have to go to detention? I suggest if you harvest any offenders that you challenge them to naked, Greco-Roman-style wrestling at next light.

This will give you something to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I'm now done listening to "It." As much as I could stomach. I like how he talked about how they were destroying the country "faster than he expected" (ed: undefined coughing and stuttering).

It's the reason you don't hang around old man barbershops: you have to listen to them while you are in a chair and one of them has a razor near your throat.

Embarrassing, indeed.

rde

Today's word is "Yikes."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say thumbs up to term "flip flops". Especially in a political context, which Peikoff's statements apply to, the term "flip flop" has a meaning, almost as a pun, that makes it something more than mere snark.

Also, the podcast on whether gays can be "true Objectivists" is rather interesting, if for no other reason than how LP defines who an Objectivist truly is. Anybody else catch the irony in his stated definition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I'm waiting for Hsieh's flip-flop...

It may take some time for the new Hymnal to arrive, but once it does…anyone want to take odds on whether she sings from it? Any enterprising bookies out there? Imagine the odds for the following Objectivist subculture parlay: Hsieh disagrees (contradicts Peikoff), + Speicher disagrees (contradicts her 2006 position), + the Ayn Rand Archives replies to Robert Campbell’s information requests, + Perigo writes something laudatory about a “headbanger”.

The odds for the Powerball Jackpot are so much better.

So far there’s no one here to even play devil’s advocate and defend Peikoff on this point, so I don’t see this thread going very far in any event.

By the way, I don't think P's latest podcast on his reasons for choosing the Republicans is unreasonable. It's more a return to reality since the demos are the more imminent threat, as he argues.

Are you willing to defend his reasoning? Not just the conclusion about how to vote in November, I mean how he gets there while doubling down on his DIM inspired 2006 papal bull*. If you want to debate it, someone needs to transcribe his statement and post it here, I can’t until the weekend. C’mon Phil, work those fingers!

*Uh-oh, was that slanted? Am I again guilty of smuggling, this time using a religious metaphor of all the possible blasphemous methods? I wouldn't want to cleverly manipulate and control any of those feeble minds who read my posts, it's just not proper netiquette. popeky2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Are you willing to defend his reasoning? [ND]

Do I want to debate it, transcribe it? Nah. It's pretty simple: 1. His 2006 reasoning was bad - I and others made endless posts on why it was bad, so I don't want to waste my time on repetition. (BTW, laughing doctor, did I mention I hate repetition on the internet? Boy oh boy, do I hate to repeat myself or say the same thing more than once.) 2. His 2010 reasoning - the part of it where he says you have to weigh long range threats and short range and vote against whichever is most dangerous - makes perfect sense.

Would I stand by every point in the podcast?

Nah. But basic idea is right. And demos with the acceleration to dictatorship and shredding all kinds of liberties, constant new assaults on our freedoms does make the Republican religionist kind of tame. Plus with the Tea Party movement, they've shouldered the Christian right and the George Bush appeasers and me-tooers into the background. At least for the time being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to make one more point about 'lodaded' terms like flip-flop. Sometimes its not unfair to say someone flip-flops or is a flip-flopper. That's true when there's a public record or a track record to support it, as in politics. When someone seems to have no principle and changes with every political wind, then the connotation is fair. It's not fair with Peikoff, if you follow his track record across the decades.

We'll see if Diana can be called a flip-flopper as the election gets closer. If she seems to follow Peikoff without offering plausible reasons, then that would be some evidence for that.

Once again, though, these things are really serious and one needs to take responsibility for their language and accusations. Implicit or explicit.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not fair with Peikoff, if you follow his track record across the decades.

How about some proof for this assertion? C’mon, mount a defense.

Let’s see now: sad sack, incompetent dunce, ignorant fool, cowardly, chicken…damn the most cogent one’s are taken…Aha! GHS hasn’t yet called you a braying ass, that one’s mine! Phil, you’re a…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not fair with Peikoff, if you follow his track record across the decades.

How about some proof for this assertion? C'mon, mount a defense.

Let's see now: sad sack, incompetent dunce, ignorant fool, cowardly, chicken…damn the most cogent one's are taken…Aha! GHS hasn't yet called you a braying ass, that one's mine! Phil, you're a…

Peikoff used to be better.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me too. I used to be smart. And thin. :unsure:

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the difference between a flip-flop and an alteration of one's opinion or judgment?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the difference between a flip-flop and an alteration of one's opinion or judgment?

Ba'al Chatzaf

flip-flop -- an abrupt change, as to an opposite opinion (2nd meaning here)

If somebody said "I like eating fish more than I used to", calling it a "flip-flop" would be a poor fit.

Saying "Peikoff flip-flops" in the title of this thread was entirely appropriate. "Peikoff did an about-face" would have also fit. Ninth Doctor did not say that Peikoff is an habitual flip-flopper like many politicians. Yet that seems to be how Phil Coates interpretated it.

Edited by Merlin Jetton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't laugh at or mock him as a flip-flopper from his original position, but give the man credit for changing his mind even though he knew he'd be unmercifully ridiculed - as he has been - for it.

You got to be kidding, Master Coates. Although my hands are scarred by multiple knuckle-raps from your correction baton, I still respect you and urge you once again to go out and get laid or something.

The teaching must stop at dusk and the loving begin.

Your Friend on the Internets,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> flip-flop -- an abrupt change, as to an opposite opinion [MJ]

Merlin, if I called you a flip-flopper in regard to your views or Peikoff or something else, would you take offense at the implication or would you say, "Oh well, Phil, is just saying that my change was abrupt or opposed to my previous belief. No sweat." Or would you resent it feel you had to defend yourself against any implication?

If there were no negative implication and all that was communicated was the dictionary meaning you cited, you would not react that way.

And when opponents criticize politicians who want to win their primaries of being flip-floppers, do you really think there is no negative subtext there at all?

Remember John Kerry and the flip-flops being waved in the air?

,,,,,

As in most dictionaries, the meaning you cited above is the denotation. Dictionaries don't give all the connotations or implications. And so your summary or common thread doesn't give all the shadings of the word, as I was talking about the emotional loading or connotation.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> What is the difference between a flip-flop and an alteration of one's opinion or judgment?

Baal, see the post I just made in reply to Merlin. Also:

1. I think I covered that in posts #2, #6, #8.

2. A flip-flop has the connotation of something done out of expedience, lack of principle, or at least with lack of reasoning offerred. The shortest statement of -when- and -why- its slanted and inappropriates was in #9: "It's not wrong to use emotional appeal or connotation...The problem is when it's (i) a primary or (ii) done all the time as a characteristic or dominant mode, or (iii) to the exclusion of offering good solid evidence or argument."

3. I also gave another example of a very similar case of slanted or loaded language (unless used to accompany an argument, which it usually hasn't been), accusing someone who leaves an Oist website (which you like, not one you don't like) of being a "flouncer". This is a Perigo-ism, and that alone might suggest caution in adopting it:

"> the term flounce is called for when the case in question is worthy of mockery [ND]

It's not just mockery since it carries more of the connotation that someone is sulking or overreacting or being petulant without actually proving it. It's like you think you are inside that person's head and psychologizing..." [Post #29]

4. In post #38, I gave an example of cases where it -is- appropriate to call someone a flip-flopper. And how those cases differ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Ninth Doctor did not say that Peikoff is an habitual flip-flopper like many politicians.

Doesn't have to be habitual. When you accuses someone of flip-flopping on an important issue it has a negative connotation, even if they did it only once or you don't know how often or if it's a chronic thing.

E.g., Churchill flip-flopped on his opposition to communism vs. Churchill reconsidered [implying thought] his opposition to communism.

Could be just sloppy language on ND's part, and if it were just once, I probably wouldn't even have made a comment. But he's continuously snarky with regard to P or people he wants to 'mock', so I rather doubt it. And that's why I called him on it this time to remind thoughtful people of this kind of thing. It's by no means the case that ND is the only one who does that sort of thing on this board. Or on others. Not even in the league of Mr. Lindsay Perigo.

However, there is fairly constant, sloppy, mocking-without-content, snarky, and evidence free language from two or three "frequent flyers" on these lists. (Adam Selene was probably the worst recently on 'this'- list. But he flared like a supernova, posting at inordinate length every five minutes on everything for months, and now seems to have vanished.)

,,,,,,

On the whole, however, this is a much better list than SoloPassion. By the way, however, Lindsay Perigo is perhaps the *worst* at doing this kind of thing. More than any other person in the last half-decade, he is probably responsible for the use of this kind of undercutting, for constant mockery as an intellectual style creeping into 'internet Objectivism'. And for substituting zingers for reasoned argument.

What's ironic is that often the very people who most dislike Perigo's views are quickest to imitate his style.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The term flip-flop is quite appropriate in Peikoff's case, because of the fanaticism of his earlier viewpoint. After all he claimed then that if you abstained from voting or voted Republican, you didn't understand Objectivism, making it in effect a Papal Bull. I don't think Rand ever gave political advice in such a fanatical manner, no matter how strongly she urged to vote a certain way. Therefore Peikoff cuts a rather foolish figure when he comes a short time later with the opposite advice. Flip-flop indeed!

Link to comment
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