Philip Coates

Good news about my "having an impact" worth the small time investment:

A week and a half after spending literally minutes rebutting Larry Summers' politically correct bromide, I have received 58 'recommends' for my comment**.

You don't see that often in the New York Times reader comments. That's an unusually high number of people taking the trouble to give my writing a thumbs up. And obviously that means a lot of eyeballs read the reader comments:

The former Harvard president and Treasury Secretary made a careless comment and I was able to drive a truck through it. Yes, people do make glib comments like his one-liner but they need to be held accountable for them. And this kind of fashionable remark is particularly widespread - and unchallenged - in today's culture which emphasizes the collective over the individual.

**You can decide for yourself if you think it's well-argued, too short vs. too long, etc.

Subject: Biographical Writing

> I can only say that if you think BB bio was "full of deep insight and very well written" that you need to read some great bio. [sB]

What would be some examples you've read that you would consider better than BB's? What are the greatest ones** you've read?

I'm not asking this skeptically. I would be very interested and especially if you*** could mention what are your standards for what makes a -great- biography. (Bios are one area or genre where I haven't read as much as I should so I'm looking for information*.)

**I hope they are not all political.

***If others are big bio enough readers as well (not all political) to have some basis for comparison....

* My tentative view is that biography is one of the more difficult writing forms.

> Ayn destroyed herself. Whenever I would look into her eyes, even from twenty or thirty feet away, behind the raw intelligence was real pain, little girl type pain. [Adam]

Oh, what cultist nonsense. You're getting an ego boost by pretending you're superior because you can see the "hole in her soul".

And that's leaving aside the arrant psychologizing and the fact that you can't see something that subtle from twenty feet away. Yikes.

By the way, I made a lot of very good points today in my posts. I'm very aware that no one here is going to commend them for being excellent or well thought out. They will -all- be swept aside** and dismissed as "garbage"***.

But, as I just pointed out that's not a reason to avoid making them.

**I would almost enjoy it if someone could argue against them in a thoughtful, non-ad hominem way.

***what was it Jack Nicholson said? You can't handle the truth?

.

.

.

(Ok, I've had enuff of you guys. I'm going to go and read some Shakespeare to prepare for my upcoming seminar.)

((If I were going to be nasty, I'd make a remark about the irony of some of -you guys- calling -me- an "underachiever".... ))

Subject: The Reason for MY Hammering Away at my Opponents

> What does Phil hope to accomplish by discussing his OL woes in one thread after another? [GHS]

You're missing the fact that my last couple posts were defending seymour blogger from the same kinds of attacks that I've been getting. And also when Oists attack the others - like members of the opposing "faction" unfairly, like Sciabarra or Peikoff, or whoever.

And you're rhetorical question "why do you futilely keep defending yourself on thread after thread?" is equally foolish: Well, it's because I'm -attacked- on thread after thread. There is nothing wrong with repeatedly defending yourself when you are repeatedly attacked.

As to your other point: "do you really hope to change minds?" Let me explain it to you this way (something I think you already know but are glossing over):

The point of responding to a smear is -not- that you will convince the attacker. He is too far gone or too corrupt or too blinded by rage ...or whatever the "hole in his soul" might be. It is done for the sake of justice. And "for the record". As a side aspect, not the main reason, other people years later even may read it and take the trouble to trace the whole thing and see "Geez, those guys really treated Coates unfairly. He answered their points but all they did is more ridicule. And notice how they did the same kind of smearing and 'opposition research' the politicos do when someone new like seymour blogger had the temerity to defend him."

But here is the deepest reason: I have zero expectation that anything I say will be listened to, will "win" or get serious attention from the current "in crowd" here. Ultimately the points I'm making have much wider applicability. My points have enromous importance and have applicability to much that is wrong in the world and the lack of thought, respect, benevolence with which people treat other people and the ideas they offer. There is an issue of thinking and debating and criticizing rationally and responsiblity vs.irrationality and with psychologizing, smears, ad hominems, side issues, demagoguery, etc. And demonizing as Michael laughably just did with me a couple posts ago.

That's a wider topic I will write on. I've taken lots of notes from these OL and SoloP and Noodlefood "food fights" starting with Sciabarra and "factionalism' and so on and this material (with the names changed) will work its way in.

I do want to point out that I don't think that the regulars here are usually -deliberately- trying to smear their opponents, whether it be me or Peikoff or Diana H or David Kelley or whoever.

It's not that they are saying "let's see, what can I come up with that's a deliberate distortion or that I know to be a distraction from the issues". It's that they sometimes tend to be I'm gonna let my hair down range-of-the-moment impulsive "emotionalists": "aha! this will be funny. I can get his goat or humiliate her with this caricature."***

They don't believe that rationality requires them to think through carefully the appropriateness, fairness, precise accuracy of a "slam". That's why I find so much of what they post to be disgusting. I try** (except when I'm responding to an insult in kin) to bend over backwards to be scrupulously fair, not to distort someone's record.

**I would not be at all surprised if one of our resident sleazesters will now try to dredge through everything I've ever posted to find a time when I was unfair.

***In fact, the welcoming atmosphere for this sort of thing is what -attracts- them in some cases to this list.

(Note from MSK: I peeled this pearl of wisdom off from another thread.)

Subject: Character Assassination

I don't think the regulars here really get the concept of smearing and would honestly be shocked to think they could -ever- be guilty of it.

Here's another example of smearing: You and ND on this list (and one other who I forget) have often expressed admiration for stream of consciousness or postmodern fiction writers (and in your case deconstructionist thinkers, philosophers). Suppose I wanted to attack you or ND and lessen other readers' opinion of you and I was unscrupulous in my methods: I would quote some of Rand's devastating passages or other thinkers' rebuttals of Foucault or James Joyce or some other 'bad guy'.

The reason trying to hang their worst ideas around your neck is because you didn't necessarily express agreement with -those- ideas. Almost every thinker who has written a lot has good points and a benevolent or charitable view is that -those- are the views you might like.

Again, there is a parallel to modern sleazy politics. The politics of personal destruction (often done by the Left against conservatives, but I'm sure the opposite is true) is: i) find some thinker your opponent expressed some liking for. ii) find some outrageous statement by that thinker - or rip one out of context. iii) lynch your opponent with that.

"So you admire Columbus and Aristotle and Rand? Well, the first was a genocidal monster, the second believed in slavery, and the third advocated rape and admired a serial killer. -- So what does that tells about whether we should listen to you?"

By the way, seymourblogger, part of the "smearing" here, is that once people don't like what you said and begin to resent you for your views, they will go back and scour your record and look for anything they don't like you may have said in the past** or for any inconsistencies or if you worded something more strongly or too loosely anywhere at any time and if it's different, they won't allow that you may have changed your view or been imprecise, they will call you a hypocrite.

**Michael just did that on this thread with your posts on other sites. WSS has done that with me as I recall.

It's sleazy 'emotionalist' behavior because it is a departure from focusing on and trying to understand what someone is saying now. It's very reminiscent of the dirtiest phenomenon in public life - poliitical campaigns and "opposition research" where you look for skeletons in the closet to discredit someone or assassinate their character

> I'm sorry I don't like your writing. What's wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with it. Or with the way you expressed it.

Where Michael got outraged is that you didn't even finish it. But that's actually useful information if someone can't even finish your writing, it could be that it doesn't grab you or is turgid, etc. Your reaction was an honest one and you got jumped on for it by MSK. With Brant and Carol piling on. (Not very friendly to a newcomer who you'd normally take more time to 'greet' with contempt, psychologizing, and insults.)

And the worst insult of all: "you're just like Phil."I know you're new here, but the *last thing you want here is to be compared to me*. I'm the resident poster boy for a whining, arrogant baby who just wants attention, who knows nothing about any subject he posts on, who is incredibly self-centered, who is patronizing and superior, who is too lazy to provide encyclopedic backup and - above all - unwilling to learn from the superior knowledge of the patient, well-meaning, wise elder statesmen who post regularly here. -- Did I miss any of my faults???

On top of which, I'm told that it's too often "all about me" when I post and simultaneously that my best posts are when I talk about myself and my past history with school, Objectivist leaders, etc.

"The Dominating Discourse determines what you can say, where you can say it, when you can say it, how you can say it, who is to say it, and why you can say it. Anything outside that falls into the run off by the side of the road. ..Rand getting turned down by 13 publishers on Fountainhead...Why? Because Fountainhead was out of the DD of best selling books." [Post 36]

Good example. The dominating discourse of the 40's, just like the 30's was collectivism and conformism (e.g., "the Organization Man"), not independence and individualism. It's always uncomfortable to swim against the tide, to argue against or stand against your peers or your peeps. Anyone who thinks that groupthink doesn't occur in an Objectivist website like OL or elsewhere or among the ortho wing or the reformer wing is dangerously naive.

Today in a different world, the idea that you should be independent like Roark no longer seems shocking. Maybe "The Fountainhead" helped create that world?

(I prefer the term groupthink to dominating discourse or even to 'secondhandedness'. But the three concepts overlap - they don't name exactly the same thing.)

Phil whining again:

You know, it's hard to keep up with the nonsense: I was going to refute something clownishly silly from 24 hours ago, but there has been more nonsense in the last 12.

You dudes are working me too hard for the amount you're paying me.

SOB!!!

Subject: "Dominating Discourse" - Pay Attention, Or I'll Rap Your Knuckles

> If I understand correctly, she was saying that discussing certain ideas gets her run off of different sites because they infringe something she calls a dominating discourse of the site. [MSK]

No, it seems that a group tends to move toward a consensus and ideas outside of that dominating discourse or "groupthink" tend to be instantly discounted rather than being considered. She sees that among OL regulars and in many other places. It would be true on Noodlefood, SoloP, etc. (Alternatively, sometimes a DD gets people shunned, sometimes ignored, sometimes insulted or made fun of.) Your comment that a DD always gets you run off is an oversimplification or an extreme case. She didn't say that happens -everywhere- did she?

> Incidentally, dominating discourse seems to be another term for censorship.

Again, you're oversimplifying to an extreme example. You do that a lot.

> Let's start with you defining "dominating discourse." [Adam]

Adam, you have an irritating way of asking someone to explain something that they already explained quite clearly enough for the average English reader. I assume that is because you didn't read carefully enough in the first place. Sort of a mental laziness you share with MSK, ND, Brant...and sometimes even the often more conscientious WSS and George. (Who am I forgetting? Ah yes! "La Precisonist" Stuttle. She wants footnotes and page references and quote functions as a reward for her insults. To top which she doesn't necessarily provide them herself.)

> Dayaamm, I'm a gossip

I don't think that comes as big news to anyone, Michael

> a Dominating Discourse here [sB]

You can rely on them not to see it. Sometimes it takes someone outside or with a fresh perspective to point out the obvious. But then you'll get Willy's predictable comeback: Have you read at least ten thousand posts? Have you been a member for years? Do you have footnotes?

And her's my favorite for sleazy by William in #25: Maybe you're a troll?

Disgusting. He even put trolling in capital letters.

> I've -never- gotten so unremittingly hostile (let alone often quite personal and vicious) a response as I have on several Objectivist boards. Why so strong a reaction out of all proportion to the cause? [Post 1]

I should have qualified this:

So strong a reaction -before- I became hostile and insulting myself, hostility from early on when I was polite in making my points and a lot less adamant and not hectoring. At this point, I'm regularly just returning insult for insult.

Something seymourblogger just posted about NBI days made me realize something. I've wondered why when I post something critical, even if it's midly so and polite (like I think we shouldn't be so politics heavy and why a whole thread on a political event overseas), I get a very hostile response. Four or five people jump in and participate. And it's normally the same four of five. And if I persist it very often involves character and honesty and 'hypocrisy' attacks. I've always been the same kind of person - high school, college, companies I worked for, normal people I've hung out with. Willing to observe a criticism or offer advice. Not shy or a wallflower in that respect. Yet I've -never- gotten so unremittingly hostile (let alone often quite personal and vicious) a response as I have on several Objectivist boards.

Why so strong a reaction out of all proportion to the cause?

I suspect that the very people who attack me the most vehemently were often silent and acquiescent back in their NBI or Peikoff days (depending how old they are.) Now, it's as if you went through years of Catholic school and bowed your head and didn't talk back to the authority figures and now someone pops up on a discussion board and defends any kind of order, strict rules, grammar, etc.

Don't give me no stinkin' badges. From some deep level of your subconscious the displaced feelings of frustration, guilt, resentment well up. You get a chance finally to project onto that person all the authoritarianism, all the strict rules that you resented.

And perhaps in some cases, you may have felt squelched, felt that you should have politely questioned Rand, Peikoff, the 'in crowd', Objectivism earlier on.

> If Phil persists in his stupidity, I will open a new thread devoted only to old OWL-list posts by him [WSS]

No you won't -- I don't thnk you still have them in any organized fashion. Nor do I remember you as a member. You must have been a silent owl.

Subject: Respect for Facts, Getting them Straight in Argument

> Have you noticed that these are the same people you have engaged on several other forums over the years, actually for more than a decade? [MSK]

Michael, it's amazing how intellectually sloppy you are: Different people not the same ones at SoloP like Fred Stitt, Linz, Diana, and the four or five grad students in philosophy and a bunch of New Zealanders. Different people again at RoR (Bill Dwyer, Robert Malcolm Ed Thompson, Steve Wolfer, and many more.) Another whole group of people at OWL and Alantis.

Other than the SoloP group, the regulars at the other three sites were more civil, more thoughtful and more interested in ideas than ND, J, Brant, and Adam (in topics other than politics that is). And no I wasn't "kicked out" of any of those three forums:

Another example of what Rand would call "intellectual hooliganism". But I'd just call the sloppiness and disregard for facts oy you and the other most frequent posters here.

I took a few minutes to correct two of your misstatements - same people & kicked out. But will you acknowledge and say 'whoops'? Or just shift to another line of attack? Or just try to find a 'yes but' loophole? (There was also the silly statement by someone that I had never published...but why add more factual errors...)

> unable to secure trade routes or commerce beyond its borders. [Dennis, post 1]

Anarcho-libertarians don't seem to grasp that protecting trade routes and helping trading partners protect themselves are part of national defense.

(And, no, I don't want to debate this again.)

> they're not entitled to violate my rights, such as by reposting video segments from my webcast without my permission.

Diana doesn't seem to have heard of 'fair use' which allows one to publish limited excerpts for critical or analytical or 'review' purposes as opposed to trying to resell or make money off someone else's work.

From post #3:

I hope people will give some detail on current (and recent!) reading - what value it has (or had) or why they like it. I realize I made a mistake in titling the thread current reading because often if you are in the middle or an early chapter you can't evaluate or provide feedback yet. Let me revise the thread purpose and theme: "Current or Recent Reading -- Things of Some Value and Why".

(Is there anything you've completed recently that you got benefit or entertainment from?) We had another thread on movies but, alas, people tended to not give any explanation....was more like a bunch of one-line each bullets or a laundry list.

> her Do NOT Look Me In The Eyes [WSS]

> Is that an exact quote - did she -say- that? Where exactly?

STILL WAITING for an answer.

Or for a retraction of a 'smear'.

Well, I go away for most of the day and I'm impressed by the enormous variety of responses to my last post(s) : they range from dumb to really dumb. (There was one that was intelligent but mistaken.)

This is what those 7k unique visitors and bots see when they visit...and go away without wanting to join up and post. That's why OL seems to be fairly widely laughed at. Yes, there are good posts as Daunce points out, but the Snark Pack - J, ES, ND, B, etc. - tend to drown them out by taking elephant turds in the middle of the room.

Oh, I forgot to mention there -are- good threads on OL.

But most of them seem to have been started by me.

They also think that calling someone a "schoolmarm" for offering criticism or suggestions for change or improvement is the kind of clownlike name-calling that an eight year old (or in some cases a Toohey) would do.

You guys are lucky if the worst thing you are widely thought of as being is clowns.

Subject: Who is being laughed at?

> your audience thinks you're a clown to laugh at [MSK]

Someone is being widely viewed as laughable. That's certainly true, but it is within the 'regulars' on OL.

Not all of them but my "foils" - a pitifully small group - about six or seven people. Those who have more discernment have left. Don't make the mistake of considering Brant, ND, Ellen, J., and maybe three others as "the audience".

Any wider audience insofar as they notice thinks the OL regulars are largely 'clowns'. And they laugh at you and how you dodge and try to sidestep the really good advice I give. Some of the emails I get offlist say things like "Phil, you make sense but you're casting pearls before swine with those people."

The comments I get are that I'm making intellectual mincemeat out of you guys. Just like I did the Wolfpack defending Diana and attacking Sciabarra.