War Brutality (Warning Disturbing photographs)

[william.scherk]

[ . . . ] presupposing that the Young Indian was actually reasoning and not playing a show-off game.

I don't presuppose that, though, and I don't believe that was Hill's intention in writing the scene.

I hope to track down the book and read the tale. I had not heard of the book before. The book sounds interesting in itself -- if I understand it correctly, this was Hill's 800 page recreation/retelling/dramatizing of three generations of Lakota culture up until 1835.

ND -- that was a lovely, moving video.

[Summer]

I will not defend myself here. To the person who expressed an interest in my writing and asked about my reasoning, you may contact me through Facebook if you wish to continue this. The information is readily available.

[jriggenbach]

William,

I agree so long as you are presupposing that the Young Indian was actually reasoning and not playing a show-off game.

I don't presuppose that, though, and I don't believe that was Hill's intention in writing the scene.

Michael

I expect Hill wrote the scene because, not being very sophisticated in philosophical matters, she thinks moving the word "not" around in a sentence somehow mysteriously creates some sort of profundity where none existed before. The older Indian reminds me of my father. If I made any statement that began with the words, "I do not think," he would invariably say, "Don't tell me what you do not think; tell me what you do think." So, if I had said, "I do not think Rand makes a good case in her short article on the nature of government," I would rephrase that to "I think Rand does not make a good case in her short article on the nature of government."

See? Did you catch the profundity in that rephrased version? Amazing, isn't it?

JR

[Selene]

Carol:

You are sooooo bad!

Adam

Post Script: Paging Ms. West

Click Here to Hear His call (mp3 audio)

Adam, given the context, I can assure you that the Call of the Loon would have been more appropriate audio.

OK - now this was the first reference to one of my favorite birds, and today, on another thread, you made another reference the loon...towards that end...

Call of the Loon

Common Loon, Flat lake

I saw my first one just at sunrise on a fog cloaked Delaware River in Pennsylvania. Not in their normal range which is further North, but they migrate throughout that area. In the summer, it's voice ranges to "falsetto wails, weird yodeling, maniacal quavering laughter; at night,at night a tremulous ha-oo-oo. In flight a barking kwuk. Loons are usually silent in the winter." From Peterson's Field Guides:Eastern Birds.

very cool website http://soundbible.com/ all kinds of sound clips

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

I understand why you are suspicious of cheap profundity (by BS meter goes off at times, too), but from what I remember of the book, that wasn't it at all.

There is a mentality Hill tried to recreate and present. And she had a consultant, a guardian of a Lakota tribe that was nearing extinction who had all the rituals, stories, songs, etc., in his head (which was the job of guardians).

There is one episode that has always stayed with me. After a long sweat-lodge ordeal, an elder told a younger to start over. So the younger gave everything away--literally everything until he was naked--and started over from zero.

I've actually done this in life, although it was not voluntary and I did get to keep the clothes on my back. I can tell you that the experience of rising from the ashes is something you have to live in order to understand the value it brings to your serenity.

I will try to dig up some stuff on the book for you later. It's had an interesting story. I believe Hill exaggerated a few things and her book got hammered by real Native Americans at the time. It was made into a miniseries called The Mystic Warrior. I haven't seen it, though, so I can't offer an opinion.

Now, after years, it looks like the true value of Hill's book is coming into its own. On a Google search, I saw many flattering things about the work.

I, personally, think it's a very, very good book.

Part of its charm is a linguistic thing--and I'll be frank. I don't know how much of the story is hype and how much is real, but I do know she has a style that helps set a unique colorful tone. According to the story (and if I remember it correctly), after writing the book, she translated the entire thing into Lakota using a bi-lingual dictionary from the early 1800's, then used the same dictionary to translate it back into English.

More later.

Michael

[caroljane]

Carol:

You are sooooo bad!

Adam

Post Script: Paging Ms. West

Click Here to Hear His call (mp3 audio)

Adam, given the context, I can assure you that the Call of the Loon would have been more appropriate audio.

OK - now this was the first reference to one of my favorite birds, and today, on another thread, you made another reference the loon...towards that end...

Call of the Loon

Common Loon, Flat lake

I saw my first one just at sunrise on a fog cloaked Delaware River in Pennsylvania. Not in their normal range which is further North, but they migrate throughout that area. In the summer, it's voice ranges to "falsetto wails, weird yodeling, maniacal quavering laughter; at night,at night a tremulous ha-oo-oo. In flight a barking kwuk. Loons are usually silent in the winter." From Peterson's Field Guides:Eastern Birds.

very cool website http://soundbible.com/ all kinds of sound clips

Adam, I have mastered the weird yodelling and the barking kwuk, and as to maniacal quavering laughter speak for yourself. I haven't forgotten your cackles in the horrid void. I am in therapy about the winter silence, and will just say in valedictory,

ha-ooo-ooo

Carol

one of your best, love it

[caroljane]

Just noticed the thread title and how it has drifted from war and dreadful death to commonality and weird funny life.

[Selene]

Just noticed the thread title and how it has drifted from war and dreadful death to commonality and weird funny life.

Yes, but it drifted so civilly ...I wonder why?

[9thdoctor]

Yes, but it drifted so civilly ...I wonder why?

Uh-oh, please don't make this thread all about Phil!

[Mike11]

And in a completely ..... ironic ..... turn of events I have been invited into the webspace of the only people on OO I could stand and they know who I am.

If I don't get banned from their hobbit hole it could actually be .... gasp...

Productive for all concerned.

The .... irony.

[caroljane]

And in a completely ..... ironic ..... turn of events I have been invited into the webspace of the only people on OO I could stand and they know who I am.

If I don't get banned from their hobbit hole it could actually be .... gasp...

Productive for all concerned.

The .... irony.

Soar on wings of rationality, Joel, and scuttle furtively as needed.

Hope this does not mean you migrate from the OL habitat permanently. As you know, global warming is an evul myth.

Ha-ooo-oo,

Carol

[Mike11]

Not a chance Daunce.

This place has some cool people, so does OO.

If only I could get half a dozen of each in the same chat window - that would be awesome.

[9thdoctor]

If only I could get half a dozen of each in the same chat window - that would be awesome.

They could come here, but I suppose the no Branden bashing rule is too much for OO denizens to tolerate.

[Mike11]

If only I could get half a dozen of each in the same chat window - that would be awesome.

They could come here, but I suppose the no Branden bashing rule is too much for OO denizens to tolerate.

This place has such a rule? I must have violated it in a hundred of my 500 posts.

[9thdoctor]

If only I could get half a dozen of each in the same chat window - that would be awesome.

They could come here, but I suppose the no Branden bashing rule is too much for OO denizens to tolerate.

This place has such a rule? I must have violated it in a hundred of my 500 posts.

Now I’m curious, if I were to sign on over there, particularly as Ninth Doctor (same picture, same attitude), wouldn’t I get booted? I see that Dennis Hardin is posting there now, and he’s written as much if not more anti-Peikoff material than I have. I’m not sure what his status is with Comrade Sonia, and she’s one of the admins, right? If I were to create a thread like DH’s “Peikoff: The Great Pretender” over there, they would cast out on ear and set dogs on, correct? What if I started posting links to threads on OL that are relevant to something being discussed? Or quoted a Branden without including an anathema?

[9thdoctor]

Now I’m curious, if I were to sign on over there, particularly as Ninth Doctor (same picture, same attitude), wouldn’t I get booted?

I decided to give it a shot. The forum guidelines read like HBL’s loyalty oath, only omitting the words loyalty and oath. Ugh.

http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=21721&view=findpost&p=274787

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This place has such a rule? I must have violated it in a hundred of my 500 posts.

Joel,

You are not a snarky O-Land fundy scapegoating the Brandens for everything wrong in the world.

You are more of an equal-opportunity hater.

(Just joking... )

Disagreeing with Barbara or Nathaniel within the context of a normal intellectual or historical discussion is no problem for me. Neither is keeping the unpleasant historical stuff factual and within bounds of reasonable discussion. Nobody needs to fake reality here. But the nasty fundy anti-Branden propaganda stuff, and the outright hateful stuff is a problem.

For example, NB said he lied to Ayn Rand during a period of time when he was her boyfriend. So, now, decades later, after someone has called him a liar 50 bazillion times and does nothing but keep repeating that over and over in a moral condemnatory tone, it's pretty obvious that the issue is not NB cheating on Rand ages ago. It's a fanatic looking for a form to spit in his face with regularity.

That's sick and I'm just not going to condone it.

I love Barbara and I love NB. (Her a little more, as I am closer to her.)

I don't like it when people spit on those I love. Those spiteful little souls can do that elsewhere if that's their neurosis. Not here.

Michael

[Dante]

Now I’m curious, if I were to sign on over there, particularly as Ninth Doctor (same picture, same attitude), wouldn’t I get booted? I see that Dennis Hardin is posting there now, and he’s written as much if not more anti-Peikoff material than I have. I’m not sure what his status is with Comrade Sonia, and she’s one of the admins, right? If I were to create a thread like DH’s “Peikoff: The Great Pretender” over there, they would cast out on ear and set dogs on, correct?

It depends entirely on whether your posts therein consisted of factual arguments or of insults. It is not uncommon for Peikoff to be criticized on OO.net, despite your preconceptions (the McCaskey affair comes to mind); the forum rules which you note "read like HBL’s loyalty oath, only omitting the words loyalty and oath," actually only prohibit insults and rudeness concerning ARI and its representatives.

[Mike11]

There are maybe 15 people on that forum worth talking to, the rest are roidish pin heads.

I assume that their learned reading disability would prevent this majority from understanding most of what you say which would give you more time until your ban.

Any thread which even implies Peikoff is less than a god will result in instant termination.

If you refuse to wear kiddie gloves or post only things the majority would find safe I give you 5 posts, 10 max.

[Mike11]

It would be an interesting experiment to post the great pretender thread on OO with 2 or 3 OL people to present the case.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Joel Mac Donald

[9thdoctor]

the forum rules which you note "read like HBL’s loyalty oath, only omitting the words loyalty and oath," actually only prohibit insults and rudeness concerning ARI and its representatives.

Welcome to OL.

Here's a side by side comparison:

http://www.hblist.com/policies.htm

I do not make full agreement with Objectivism a condition of joining my list. However, I do exclude anyone who is sanctioning or supporting the enemies of Ayn Rand and Objectivism. "Enemies" include: "libertarians," moral agnostics or "tolerationists," anarchists, and those whom Ayn Rand condemned morally or who have written books or articles attacking Ayn Rand.

http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

Participants agree not use the website to spread ideas contrary to Objectivism. Examples include religion, communism, "moral tolerationism," and libertarianism. Honest questions about such subjects are permitted.

"Tolerationism" is, of course, a euphemism for the Atlas Society and anyone who associates with David Kelley. And libertarianism is what? Whosoever Peter Schwartz ever came to dislike? Registered members of the Libertarian party? Scholars of the Cato and LvM institutes?

You permit "honest questions"; questions as opposed to what? Factual statements? Or is this a little game where you're allowed to build a reasoned case so long as you phrase it as a question?

[Jonathan]

It depends entirely on whether your posts therein consisted of factual arguments or of insults.

That may be true of how you try to moderate, but it is definitely not true of some of your fellow moderators.

There seems to be a lot of selectivity in applying the rules. If the moderators like a poster and the positions he takes -- if the poster is seen as being very pro-Objectivist -- then he can pretty much be as rude and insulting as he likes to those whom the moderators dislike or see as an enemy of Objectivism (or "false friend" or whatever).

It is not uncommon for Peikoff to be criticized on OO.net, despite your preconceptions (the McCaskey affair comes to mind);

Actually, it is pretty uncommon, and the freedom to criticize Peikoff depends on the issue. And when. I've gotten the impression that OO's moderators are deferential to Comrade Sonia more than to anyone else, so, when she expresses disagreement with Peikoff, it appears that the moderators then take that as a signal that it's okay to allow others to do somewhat of the same. But prior to that, I've been moderated for being critical of Peikoff's ideas (or so I've assumed -- one can never tell since the moderators are often non-responsive or downright abusive when you ask them why you're being moderated).

One thing that is not tolerated, in my experience, is challenging certain accusations made against the Brandens, especially ones made by Comrade Sonia. Moderators have deleted my posts in which I merely asked her and others to provide evidence for the false claims that they were making. My posts contained no insults or other violations of the site's rules.

the forum rules which you note "read like HBL’s loyalty oath, only omitting the words loyalty and oath," actually only prohibit insults and rudeness concerning ARI and its representatives.

Some of the rudest behavior I've ever seen in online forums has come from OO's moderators. They can really be snarky shitbags who like to throw gasoline on the fire. And I'm not alone in seeing it. I've had some private exchanges with others who were moderated or banned there, and the contrast of the behavior of the moderators and those whom they were taking action against is shocking. I've seen copies of their private messages in which the poster is very politely and respectfully asking a moderator to explain which rules or guidelines have been violated, and the moderator responds with nothing but sarcastic taunts and insults. In all such cases, I've seen nothing in the original posts which were deleted that violated the forum's rules. They only contained politely worded "dissenting" opinions (I'm using scare quotes here because sometimes on OO one can present and support Rand's views, and actually quote her, and still be accused by moderators of opposing her and of being anti-Objectivist).

I've often gotten the sense that there are too many moderators there, that some of them are too young, uninformed and angry, and that no one is really aware of who is doing what -- that no one in charge is checking on the moderators' behavior.

J

Edited April 29, 2011 by Jonathan

[Jonathan]

Does anyone know who owns OO? What are the real names of the owners and moderators? I guess I haven't checked in a while, but last time I looked, there seemed to be a lot of anonymity among those in authority there. What's up with that? Are they embarrassed to be associated with Objectivism?

J

[Mike11]

Does anyone know who owns OO? What are the real names of the owners and moderators? I guess I haven't checked in a while, but last time I looked, there seemed to be a lot of anonymity among those in authority there. What's up with that? Are they embarrassed to be associated with Objectivism?

J

Last time I checked, David Vecksler ran the outfit.

You know part of OO's problem is they have never had a significant number of non ARI Objectivists on the site. If this thread leads to an invasion of informed opinion and good sense it would go a long way over there.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dante,

Welcome to OL.

Just for your information, each person on OL speaks for himself or herself.

As a forum owner, I have no beef with OO. Some of the posters here do, though, and they express it.

I personally think you folks are good kids trying to make sense of things in the best manner you see fit.

I don't use your approach, but I have no issue with you doing your own thing with it, either.

You didn't ask, but I will give some unsolicited advice. I believe that if you trusted Ayn Rand's ideas to stand on their own merit against criticism rather than trying to control the message through moderation, you would find out that most of them do quite well. (I'm not talking about hecklers, but actual discussion.) The trick is to focus on the reader's experience and allow readers to come to their own conclusions, not on trying to convince or control the person criticizing Rand or her ideas.

But that's my opinion. You have your own path.

A very wise person once told me that the bad guys can take everything you have from you except for one thing--what you will live through in the future. That is all yours and belongs to no one else. That thought makes me want to get it right, since I only have one future. I believe you guys are not so different in that respect.

I wish you all well.

Michael