Statement of Policy -- October 12, 2011

[Jonathan]

In case you're curious about the bloody details, here is the offending post: http://www.objectivi...indpost&p=69924

You can scroll backward from it, if you are also curious about the sarcasm and snarkiness I'm referring to.

Roger,

Having dealt with your hypocritical snarkiness/thin-skinnedness again this past week, I was curious enough to take a few moments to look through the thread that you linked to above. I'm not sure which posts you think contain examples of vicious sarcasm and snarkiness. Was it the one where you implied that Bob (Ba'al) -- a person who, as I understand it, has had a professional career working with very advanced logic and mathematics (the subjects being discussed on the thread) -- wasn't "living in reality" and was guilty of "intellectual fraud and/or incompetence"?

Or were you referring only to Bob's reply to your snarkiness, in which he said, "Get a refund from the school that taught you your math and logic. They have failed you"?

You seem to be completely blind to your own behavior, and you seem to have a need to be respected as an authority on a variety of subjects, including some about which you know very little. You seem to get very, very upset when people who know much more than you do about a subject challenge your opinions. Why is that?

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... unpleasant, sarcastic interaction with a bright person who stubbornly twists what I say, rather than trying to understand it.

Roger,

This is probably the most common logical and social error in our subcommunity. I know I have tired of saying, "That's not what I meant" to people on their own crusade so much they can't or don't want to properly understand.

One of the reasons I started my human nature studies was to try to understand why so many good people do this. After all, when you take it to the extreme (in the cases where people honestly don't see what they are doing), wars get fought because they use this way of thinking.

This appears to be more rampant in Objectivist and libertarian circles than in other communities. But I am only talking about what I have seen, so there may be more benign communities on our side and more snarky ones out there based on other ideas. (Actually, come to think of it, political commentary wherever opposites have access to commenting seems to go this route a lot.)

I know I am fine when someone says, "I don't agree with you."

I'm even fine when he says (after verifying that he got the idea right), "I think you are foolish to hold that idea. My idea is different."

But it galls me when a person totally mucks up what I said or wrote, attributes me with an idea I don't hold, goes after that idea now falsely attributed to me like he is trying to trounce an enemy, then crows victory in snarky terms.

You wonder, would you like to live next door to such a person?

I am at the stage where I am weary of encountering this, but I also have to admit that I have fallen into doing it at times in my past. Nowadays, I police myself and seek far more to share thoughts and banter than try to win arguments.

Apropos, there is a wonderful book I read recently called The Nibble Theory and the Kernel of Power by Kaleel Jamison. Her idea (with really cute graphics) is that we are all growing and getting bigger. Although our bodies decline, our minds can keep growing and getting bigger until the end of our lives. And we strongly feel the urge to get bigger all the time.

Some people like to take nibbles out of others because this makes the other smaller and they can thus feel bigger. But the real deal is to interact with others in such a manner that both get bigger at the same time.

I like this image a lot.

Here is how this applies to a discussion.

If someone says something you don't like, the nibbler will look for a weak point, refute it and mock it and strut around with an air of superiority.

The person who is growth-growth will almost always start with this question: "If I understand you correctly, you are saying XXXXXXXX. Do I have that right?" And after verifying, goes on to present his agreements and disagreements according to his best thinking.

Granted, sometimes you have to dig in and make a hostile stand, but from what I have seen, those times are much rarer than people imagine.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Subject: The Mudslinger

Roger, J. loves to go on the attack, to trawl through past threads looking for a weapon with which to attack those who have disagreed with him. For some mud to sling. It's sort of like character assassination in the political realm: Oooh, the Republican candidate for governor in California once hired a maid who was an illegal. And didn't rat her out. Let's make that the subject of conversation for the next three months so she can't get elected over Jerry Brown.

J. would love nothing better than to have you go back and defend your past posting behavior. (And make that the topic of discussion.)

I wouldn't do it. My observation of him over time is he's basically a troll.

And a quite malicious one at that.

[Brant Gaede]

Subject: The Mudslinger

Roger, J. loves to go on the attack, to trawl through past threads looking for a weapon with which to attack those who have disagreed with him. For some mud to sling. It's sort of like character assassination in the political realm: Oooh, the Republican candidate for governor in California once hired a maid who was an illegal. And didn't rat her out. Let's make that the subject of conversation for the next three months so she can't get elected over Jerry Brown.

J. would love nothing better than to have you go back and defend your past posting behavior. (And make that the topic of discussion.)

I wouldn't do it. My observation of him over time is he's basically a troll.

And a quite malicious one at that.

Gee. And I thought he had a real good memory stuffed with advanced evaluative referenced concepts.

While you're wrong about him, that's okay; being wrong is your default and now I'm beginning to think it's you who is malicious. I guess I didn't think of this before because I really didn't think about you and your very bad behavior. I was glad when you left and the way you came back makes you a hypocrite.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Brain-Dead Conformist Solidarity

Thank you, Brant, for responding with your usual pack-animal stupidity. You will probably be supported by your "brain brothers" on this list, piling on, who will express agreement and backing.

My guess would be ND and Adam.

[Brant Gaede]

Subject: Brain-Dead Conformist Solidarity

Thank you, Brant, for responding with your usual pack-animal stupidity. You will probably be supported by your "brain brothers" on this list, piling on, who will express agreement and backing.

My guess would be ND and Adam.

I ripped you to pieces, Phil, posted it and then deleted it.

--Brant

[Roger Bissell]

Subject: Brain-Dead Conformist Solidarity

Thank you, Brant, for responding with your usual pack-animal stupidity. You will probably be supported by your "brain brothers" on this list, piling on, who will express agreement and backing.

My guess would be ND and Adam.

I ripped you to pieces, Phil, posted it and then deleted it.

--Brant

He ate it up, and spit it out.

He did it...hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

(With a tip of the hat to Frank Sinatra.)

REB

[Roger Bissell]

In case you're curious about the bloody details, here is the offending post: http://www.objectivi...indpost&p=69924

You can scroll backward from it, if you are also curious about the sarcasm and snarkiness I'm referring to.

Roger,

Having dealt with your hypocritical snarkiness/thin-skinnedness again this past week, I was curious enough to take a few moments to look through the thread that you linked to above. I'm not sure which posts you think contain examples of vicious sarcasm and snarkiness.

I specifically referred to Thom's post. I guess I needed to specify that I was asking Dennis to scroll backward to ~Thom's~ previous posts for examples of the sarcasm and snarkiness I was talking about. (Dennis, are you following any of this -- since you asked??)

I'm not going to assemble a list for you of specific comments by Thom that I found perverse and destructive to the discussion. You are perfectly capable of doing it yourself, if that is your true interest.

Also, I did not use the word "vicious" that you quoted me as saying. Perhaps that error is somehow (inversely?) related to your inability to see plain examples of what I'm referring to in Thom's posts.

Was it the one where you implied that Bob (Ba'al) -- a person who, as I understand it, has had a professional career working with very advanced logic and mathematics (the subjects being discussed on the thread) -- wasn't "living in reality" and was guilty of "intellectual fraud and/or incompetence"? Or were you referring only to Bob's reply to your snarkiness, in which he said, "Get a refund from the school that taught you your math and logic. They have failed you"?

No, and no. Generally speaking, I find Ba'al's/Bob's (Beelzebub's?) posts amusing or provocative. He is nowhere near being on my short list of nasty or perverse respondents here on OL.

Any comment I made about a given professional's connection with reality was to underscore the point that the "ivory tower" mentality and "The Emperor's New Clothes" attitude seems to pervade the arts ~and~ the sciences, including philosophy. Mathematicians and theoretical physicists seem to think their models, to be useful and valid, need bear no demonstrable connection to reality. Artists seem to think the alleged connection of their creations to reality need not be demonstrable to intelligent laymen.

Not all scientists, artists, or philosophers are guilty of this, of course. But maybe the shoe fits! All are invited to try it on for size--ugly stepsisters and Cinderellas alike.

You seem to be completely blind to your own behavior, and you seem to have a need to be respected as an authority on a variety of subjects, including some about which you know very little. You seem to get very, very upset when people who know much more than you do about a subject challenge your opinions. Why is that?

To put it in terms Ba'al might prefer: why do I "seem" to "be" x or "seem" to "have a need to be" Y or "seem" to "get very, very" z?

You tell me. My best "hypocritical, think-skinned, snarky" guess is: appearance is not always reality. Sometimes, it is a refracted image that the name-caller is projecting on the name-callee.

Also, "upset" rather more fits what "seems" to be the emotion driving ~your~ obsessive, repetitive attacks on ~me~.

But I could be wrong. So, try this little experiment. Say your second sentence again, with one ~fewer~ "very," and see if that drives up your frustration level. If it does, then say it a third time, with one or two ~more~ "very"s. If that makes you feel better, then I'd say you've found an important clue in finding the answer to your questions.

REB

P.S. -- Phil, I'm sure you're right, that it is a real mistake to engage in any kind of discussion with Jonathan, but perhaps others enjoy the spectacle of seeing a "schoolmarmish shitbag" and a "snarky, thin-skinned hypocrite" standing up to a "malicious troll." :-) Not that they will bother to tell ~us~.

[Jonathan]

I specifically referred to Thom's post. I guess I needed to specify that I was asking Dennis to scroll backward to ~Thom's~ previous posts for examples of the sarcasm and snarkiness I was talking about. (Dennis, are you following any of this -- since you asked??)

I read through Thom's previous posts on that thread and saw no sarcasm or snarkiness. All I saw was polite disagreement from him, and sometimes the two of you talking past each other.

I'm not going to assemble a list for you of specific comments by Thom that I found perverse and destructive to the discussion. You are perfectly capable of doing it yourself, if that is your true interest.

Well, since I'm not looking at life through the weepy, distorted lens of Objecti-Bissellian thin-skinned hyper-sensitivity, and since you're unwilling to provide actual evidence of your claims (other than demanding that readers go through dozens of long posts and try to guess at which comments might offend you), I guess I and others here will never know what's got you so worked up.

Also, I did not use the word "vicious" that you quoted me as saying. Perhaps that error is somehow (inversely?) related to your inability to see plain examples of what I'm referring to in Thom's posts.

Don't lie. It's pathetic. I did not quote you as using the word "vicious." Your imagining that I quoted you as saying "vicious" appears to be similar to your imagining that Thom was sarcastic and snarky.

No, and no. Generally speaking, I find Ba'al's/Bob's (Beelzebub's?) posts amusing or provocative. He is nowhere near being on my short list of nasty or perverse respondents here on OL.

Wow. "Nasty and perverse." Heh. You're so lacking in proportion!

Artists seem to think the alleged connection of their creations to reality need not be demonstrable to intelligent laymen.

What is the definition of "intelligent laymen"? Are you attempting once again to smuggle in your own aesthetic limitations as the universal standard? Are you basically saying that anything that Roger Bissell understands or finds aesthetically stimulating and meaningful is "demonstrable to intelligent laymen," but anything that Roger Bissell does not respond to or find meaningful is not "demonstrable to intelligent laymen," even though there are millions of intelligent laymen who easily grasp and respond to works of art which you do not?

As I've said in many discussions with you and other Objectivists who share your ivory tower views, intelligent laymen, including Objectivists, can't connect works of music, architecture and dance to reality. I've personally questioned them, and tested their abilities many times over the past decade. Unlike you, I don't just make arbitrary assertions about what "intelligent layman" can or cannot understand based on nothing but my own biases, limitations and resentments. Fans of abstract art are much better at objectively describing and demonstrating the experiences and meanings they get out of abstract art than Objectivists are at doing the same with music, architecture and dance. And not only that, but fans of abstract art are better at demonstrating the content of abstract art than Objectivists are at demonstrating the content of some realistic paintings.

Why do you refuse to address the issue of aesthetic ineptitude in those who insist on telling everyone else what is or is not art? Wouldn't rational scientists, artists and philosopher acknowledge the possibility that when exploring the nature of visual art, they may need to take their own limitations into consideration, and that they are not necessarily being "insulted" and "attacked" when questioned or challenged by those who have significantly more advanced visual/spatial abilities?

Not all scientists, artists, or philosophers are guilty of this, of course. But maybe the shoe fits! All are invited to try it on for size--ugly stepsisters and Cinderellas alike.

It's time to stop bluffing, Roger. Where is your evidence that, without having access to any "outside considerations," intelligent laymen will be able to identify subjects and meanings in all art forms which Objectivism accept as valid, where they will not be able to identify subjects and meanings in all art forms which Objectivism asserts are not valid art forms? Where is your proof?

To put it in terms Ba'al might prefer: why do I "seem" to "be" x or "seem" to "have a need to be" Y or "seem" to "get very, very" z?

You tell me. My best "hypocritical, think-skinned, snarky" guess is: appearance is not always reality. Sometimes, it is a refracted image that the name-caller is projecting on the name-callee.

Hey, I'm not the one whining that others aren't respecting me as much as they respect Sciabarra, Branden and Kelley when they challenge me to support my assertions. I'm not the one dishing out insults and then whining that others are insulting me.

Also, "upset" rather more fits what "seems" to be the emotion driving ~your~ obsessive, repetitive attacks on ~me~.

Seriously? You feel attacked? I've simply pointed out here that I didn't see anything in the thread that you linked to which falls under your description of sarcasm and snarkiness, other than your bitchy little comments to Bob, and his response. And my doing so is an "attack" in your mind? My, what a delicate little princess!

P.S. -- Phil, I'm sure you're right, that it is a real mistake to engage in any kind of discussion with Jonathan, but perhaps others enjoy the spectacle of seeing a "schoolmarmish shitbag" and a "snarky, thin-skinned hypocrite" standing up to a "malicious troll." :-) Not that they will bother to tell ~us~.

I think it probably is a mistake for you to engage in discussions with me, what with your obsession with deserving respect and your taking everything as a personal insult. Looking back on some of our previous discussions, it's really amazing how much substance of mine you've apparently missed due to your interpreting everything as an "attack." The sad thing is that I'm actually quite friendly and sympathetic to your viewpoints. I can't image how foolish, hypocritical, weak and whiny you'd look going up against intelligent criticism from full-fledged opponents of your views!

J

[Dennis Hardin]

There is no Objectivist movement, that was 1960s' stuff,

--Brant

Dude! (I never call anyone "Dude," but somehow it seems appropriate here)--

I cannot figure out where you are coming from with this sort of bizarre comment.

I have to classify this as a form of Objectivist cynicism. . .

[Dennis Hardin]

I specifically referred to Thom's post. I guess I needed to specify that I was asking Dennis to scroll backward to ~Thom's~ previous posts for examples of the sarcasm and snarkiness I was talking about. (Dennis, are you following any of this -- since you asked??)

.

REB

Roger,

I happened to catch my name.

I'm sorry, but the thread is just too long for me to follow at this time.

[Brant Gaede]

There is no Objectivist movement, that was 1960s' stuff,

--Brant

Dude! (I never call anyone "Dude," but somehow it seems appropriate here)--

I cannot figure out where you are coming from with this sort of bizarre comment.

I have to classify this as a form of Objectivist cynicism. . .

Okay. There is an Objectivist movement, it's just not moving.

--Brant

I try to avoid arguments with people who know more than I do

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I posted this cartoon on OL a long time ago and the author of it showed up and posted on that thread.

If anyone wants to dig it up, it's there.

Michael

EDIT: It wasn't me who posted the cartoon, but I did post a few others by the author. Here is my post (from 2006) and his (from 2008):

I came across the site of Bob the Angry Flower, which is where this comic comes from. Go to Archive if you want to see more comics. Many of them are not very funny, but some of them gave me a quite a chuckle. Here are three I liked for personal reasons.

Have you ever used Norton Anti-Virus? If you have, then you will most likely understand the following sentiment:

We have had several discussions about reductionism on OL. The following comic reminded me of how I felt at times during them.

The finally there was the issue of cartoon boobs.

That's enough for now. Back to writing.

Michael

Er, hello. I'm Stephen Notley, cartoonist of the "Atlas Shrugged 2: One Hour Later" cartoon. I discovered this thread on the Internets and I registered and logged in to say a couple of things.

1) I had not read the book. I'd read a proposed screenplay based on the book. I'm *now* reading the book, which caused me to go on the wee Googling trip that brought me here.

2) I am a socialist.

3) No, really. But my definition of socialism is: Human efforts are put to best use in societies. More specifically, I do not subscribe to the battle between labor and capital over who made the wealth as though we were contending over the results of a zero-sum game. I believe that social behavior has a *multiplicative effect* on production rather than an additive effect. That is, when labor and capital work together, they create more than the sum of their individual separate efforts. Capitalists and laborers both, if forced to work without society, will spend their lives on subsistence. If they work together they will create wealth in abundance, more than what both of them together put in.

Everyone gets more out of society than they put in. Take the wealthiest, a Bill Gates. He spends 8, 9, 10 or more hours a day of meetings, decisions, at this point in his career likely few technological contributions, but perhaps some. He gets back food, clothing, shelter, transportation, entertainment, the whole panopoly of human creation. Now take the poorest, some bum on the street. He spends 8, 9, 10 or more hours a day putting in virtually nothing except the service of extorting money through guilt from people on the street. And even he gets food, clothing, shelter, transportation, entertainment, a much smaller slice but still far more than he contributes towards the whole panopoly of human creation. We *all* get more out of it than we put in. It's multiplicative.

So, given that hooking ourselves into a social system allows us to generate vastly greater wealth than what we'd make alone, how shall we divide the spoils? There is an adversarial relationship between labor and capital, just as there is an adversarial relationship between the defense and the prosecution in a court of law. But both sets of adversaries, while competitors, are also partners in a system with a greater purpose. For defense and prosecution, the purpose is justice. For labor and capital, the purpose is wealth. The system relies on balance between the adversaries. That sounds wishy-washy librul, but it simply means that any powers, rights and privileges accorded to one side of the equation must also be accorded to the other. Seeking the ascendancy of one over the other is asking for a big ol' disaster in the face, it seems to me.