Effective Persuasion, Dialogue, and Communication

[Philip Coates]

WSS has made a number of interesting points on other threads that could apply to many of us and to successful communication in many other cases. Are they rigid rules or guidelines? How far should his points be applied? [i've condensed and snipped and excerpted a lot] ==>

• please try to De-Otherize your posts, as this will make your communications more effective.
  
• Please also examine your post for weak or passive constructions ª.
  
• Please try to grasp that your usual Theme (the Other fails to do right) is not always the best way to introduce a topic
  

--if [one] wants to discuss Doing (instead of Musing), we can do it best by featuring stories of folks that got off their flabby-ass butts -- even if we [didn't]

--Our own stories, of course, are the ones we know best. ...put aside the tired passive voice and passive construction...set aside the rampant Otherizing and finger-wagging and pursing of lips...simply tell the story of your life

--Here is a simple rule-of-thumb for strengthening prose constructions. Ask "Who is doing what in this sentence?" If there is no somebody or somebodies named, if the subject of the sentence is a murky THEM, then fix it. Make something happen in the sentence. Similarly, examine a whole paragraph to see if there is any Action.

[Philip Coates]

(That's only an abstract sampling. WSS writes a lot better and more forcefully than that.)

[PDS]

I count WSS as one of the best writers on these pages. And Ghs too, obviously. This could become a really good thread.

[Philip Coates]

Yes he is. However, even though I'd like to see discussion of the points I snipped in post 1 without getting sidtracked on the following, I have to say I'm not a fan of this, well-written and funny though it is:

"Diana, bless her ChurchLady soul, does her picnics and her measles parties and her videos and her exercise tips and her morality-of-feeding wackaloon posturing, and occasionally (though not this year) manages to get a letter to the editor published in suburban coupon-weeklies. She gets to fool herself and her other Church people that she is in the Vanguard and not merely another crazed windbag. She gets to make unbelievably boring, trite, graceless and horrifyingly righteous Youtube videos. She gives 'advice' on how to do everything the Objectivist Way (including cooking yams and whether to eat pickles stem first or not or how to deal with the Evul of Vegetables), but at the same time she lives off her husband's earnings and flails about trying to find a job. Her readership (at Noodlefood) has plunged; the comments have dried up, she gets uglier and more insulated from criticism every week. "

Ridicule and parody are legitimate. It's the kind of exaggerated or unfair nature of the ridicule or its substitution for other more exact and pointed 'takedowns'. This over-the-top style seems have been introduced into the Objectivist movement by Lindsay Perigo with his talk show host, all-about-entertainment, malicious style of unfairness toward his enemies.

Yikes. Almost makes me want to defend Diana {anyone who has been following the movement for several years knows I've been her most persistent critic} from the wholesale exaggeration: Nothing wrong with including other things than philosophy on your blog. She doesn't claim there is an Objectivist Way to cook things. I don['t know if she is "flailing" or failing at finding a job. I don't think that she, her husband, and others in her circle are only publishing in "suburban coupon-weeklies". Her 'tips' are a mixed bag; they're not all trite. And calling her 'ugly' is a bit petty and has little to do with being insulated from criticism.

The following points I simply don't know about their fairness since William doesn't document them and they aren't obvious: "Her readership (at Noodlefood) has plunged; the comments have dried up, she gets..more insulated from criticism every week. "

(I have to admit, though, that I got a huge laugh out of the Church Lady metaphor, somewhat unfair though it was. But then again, I'm a slut for humor. I even found Pompous Pontificator Perigo calling me a Schoolmarm entertaining.)

[PDS]

Phil:

What you just snipped is ridiculously good writing, and most of it is accurate, with the possible exception of her job hunting efforts (I literally just don't know about this). The fact that the parody makes you feel sorry for DH is a tell-tale sign of its effectiveness. It might not be your cup of tea, but it is without a doubt "Effective Persuasion...and Communication," i.e., the title of your thread.

[Xray]

I don't know if she [D. Hsieh] is "flailing" or failing at finding a job.

Just curious: what is Hsieh's original profession?

[Selene]

I don't know if she [D. Hsieh] is "flailing" or failing at finding a job.

Just curious: what is Hsieh's original profession?

I'm Diana Hsieh, a philosopher specializing in practical ethics. I received my Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2009.

[Philip Coates]

> most of it is accurate [PDS]

I marked the points that weren't: there were way too many.

> it is without a doubt "Effective Persuasion...and Communication,".

Actually, I'm glad you claimed that because that part usually isn't in the long run. Snarky, over the top, unfair humor usually only persuades people who were already persuaded in the first place. It makes the target look ridiculous but over time, if the target was unfairly caricatured, in the minds of fair people the exaggeration tends to backfire in the face of reality. Worst of all, it can lead you to question the judgment of the perpetrator. Lindsay Perigo who has done this a lot more frequently and less fairly than William, I don't think has earned great kudos in the Oist movement for this.

There is a big difference between a cutting remark that is clearly meant humorously and one that is expected to be taken seriously. The question with this piece is whether the points I indicated were meant to be taken at face value, especially the non-humorous ones. When I was a teenager I always enjoyed seeing the things MAD magazine satirized. But you're not supposed to think the writer really believes the things are literally true. Same with the "Church Lady" thing. It's an effective exaggeration but with an element of truth. Or when Reagan was satirized as always napping thru meetings - to satirize a top down, you work out the details but stick to the big picture management style.

Or Sarah Palin for her anti-intellectual folksy forms of expression. By overstating something (while not expecting to be taken literally), you can underscore a point that might not be gotten unless put in stark relief. It stepped over the line with the "I can see Russia from my room" because she never said that or anything that foolish. Yes, she was no intellectual heavyweight but the satire went "over the top" in a perigoonish way into a smear.

[Philip Coates]

Snarky, over the top, unfair humor**

** It can be a delicate line to walk and your partisans or people who agree with you are not likely to be particularly sensitive to it, especially if you are skewering someone they detest or have contempt for. I doubt if many politically-active liberals are going to find the extreme parodies of conservatives like Palin, Reagan, etc. to have been unfair. Or anything less than hilarious and "fair game".

[william.scherk]

The subject header is deceptive: the truncated quote (without link) is from a long polemic addressed to the person who started this thread.

Diana Hsieh is an attractive woman, by any standard -- fit, healthy (except for a thyroid condition in remission that sometimes stills her energy, she is remarkably physical), with shiny hair, shiny eyes, and well-defined purpose. I loathe her self-delusion and her cultism and her righteousness in same measure as I loathe the same thing in other profoundly deluded religious people). When I described her, in my overwrought diatribe, as offering advice on whether to eat the stem end of the pickle first, this was intended as screaming satire, not reportage (I referenced her moronic anti-science groupthink exercise in eating disorder Paleo-Nutcase Dieters Of Objectivism.

I also referenced her pay-per-lash self-torture videos, wherein she rants at the screen implacable for up to a freaking hour (and Youtube spanked me very very severely for copyright violation when I uploaded a spoof using her own voice, I might add). You, Phil, wouldn't have a fucking clue about the references, since you are more at home in the garage of self-regard that you are in the Fact Check Suite.

She and her husband have a unified budget, I presume. However they manage that is none of my business and I wholly invented that detail for savage effect. I do not give a shit if she is looking for a job or not. She has no need of a job, it seems, as she nickle and dimes her stunned acolytes with her various shills and self-promotions. Good on her for her enterprise. Glad she got off her ass and got things done. Gawd love her for that. Otherwise, I think she is poison for Objectivism because of her hysterical intellectual sectarianism, and her hypocrisy and authoritarianism. Her politics and her personal values, some of them, make my skin crawl. I cannot praise her in any but generic terms. I am glad she is not a citizen of my country, and that she is unlikely to ever come across the border. What she did to Sciabarra, to my eyes, is shameful and destructive and puts her ever in the Crazed Cultish Monster cage.

That her blog is in decline, I should think is obvious. Does anyone read it anymore from this readership, beside me? Does anyone attempt to comment who hasn't already been banned or pre-banned? Can anyone cite a single post from the last year while that raised anything but a yawn? Anyone?

Anyway, I did check Alexa rankings. The most signal decline or signal of the irrelevant (to Objectivism) nature of Noodlefood is the ratio of ranking to page-views times times spent per page. I have noted this before in a comparison of the major sites that I can't be bothered to look up at the moment (will insert later). As I think MSK noted (will check), the quality of the engagement and depth of engagement of OL readership in comparison to Noodlefood is stark. Off the top of my head, in rough terms, the average OL reader spends close to one half hour per visit as measure by Alexa. On Noodlefood, by contrast, the visitor drops in and drops out. Her numbers here have plunged since her Vow Of Silence and Hypocrisy on the Peikoff-McClaskey Affair in this measure. Since she decided to go mute on moral issues of import to the Sanctorum and Monastery offices, readership slipped and fell and could not get up.

More importantly, as I think MSK mentioned in a different take on the data last year, her Bounce Rate is low and sinking nothing to write home about. This is the measure of what a reader does when he or she lands on a site. In OL's case (off the top of my head) the bounce rate is an extremely low 20-odd percent. That means four out of five visitors stay and read. In Diana's case, her bounce rate is roughly 75 percent.

Moreover, if you look deeper into the patterns and numbers of search terms that led to Noodlefood, in comparison to OL, you can quickly appreciate why readers of OL hang around and dig deep: nobody gets a Google hit for Noodlefood if they want to read something about Objectivism in particular. OL rules in this measure, across the board, and the obvious reason is apparent when you (like insanely obsessive and nutty me) examine live visit logs (those who understand this know how to get to the link. Hint: 'last click'). On OL, a visitor can come from a search for a particular aspect or event or shibboleth of Objectivism and fall deeply into an impassioned three hour ramble through the marvelous encyclopedia in disguise that has been (self-) assembled by the community.

Think of Corners of Insight. Think of some nutty Stephen Boydstun fan. Do a search pretending to look for a Boydstun article or notion or citation, or notable theoretician of Objectivism. Fall into the many-layered splendour of the Palace Of Boydstun here on OL then, imagine yourself that nutty fan luxuriating for hours ... the visit logs do not lie about OL 'guests' and members habits. This place is an enormous place full of immense amounts of intellectual labour, and some of the best writers in the community. Do your own internal OL search and get lost yourself.

So, there is that.

As for the "ugly" comment, I did not intentionally stress her looks, which are unremarkable (though I think George wrote something frightened about her overbite and his nether regions, I may disremember). There is something palpably ugly about her to my sense of life (I am a Canuck), but it has nothing to do with her overbite or unfortunate horse-style haircuts.

I am sure I missed something, and I will perhaps come back and add that when I put the URLs in later, but I want to stress again that I did lurch into Satire, Polemic, Jeremiad, Coffee Jag, Keyboard-Pounding Overkill in the post referenced. Surely no one is going to pick through that wreckage for accuracy and sense of proportion and fair-play (well, dumb question, since you already answered a few accuracy questions and seem a little upset about this test of your probity, William!)?

Oh dear. See what happens to a man when he Lets Himself Go, Phil? Sheesh. I shoulda known. Words have consequences. Questions will be raised. Challenges to probity sting. Some questions need answers. I am hoist, dang it all, by my own petard.

And Phil, you stupid fuck, the single most popular (judging by fan mail) post I have ever wrote on any Objectivist forum was at the tail end of Diana's Mertz Seafood's fatal alliance with Lindsay Perigod. If you could get your head out of your ass and think, you might remember that you praised that Over The Top Rant for the very same qualities you now tut over. My fucking jayzuss gawd in hebbin above, are you that thick? This was Empress of Evul or something ... it took Diana to pieces for a good cause, and you liked it for its unsavoury atmospherics and gruesome hyperbole, you hypocritical slut.

Edited January 20, 2012 by william.scherk

[Ellen Stuttle]

[Diana's] numbers here have plunged since her Vow Of Silence and Hypocrisy on the Peikoff-McClaskey Affair in this measure. Since she decided to go mute on moral issues of import to the Sanctorum and Monastery offices, readership slipped and fell and could not get up.

Do you have any assessment of why? Was it because she didn't speak out pro-McCaskey or because she didn't defend Peikoff?

Ellen

[william.scherk]

[Diana's] numbers here have plunged since her Vow Of Silence and Hypocrisy on the Peikoff-McClaskey Affair in this measure. Since she decided to go mute on moral issues of import to the Sanctorum and Monastery offices, readership slipped and fell and could not get up.

Do you have any assessment of why? Was it because she didn't speak out pro-McCaskey or because she didn't defend Peikoff?

Ellen

Oddly enough, I take her at her word,. more or less. I probably misremember, but as best I can recall without looking, she plainly said it was something like 'unhealthy' to continue, once Peikoff had let out his response. She fairly honestly reported, I think, the exchanges she had with her interlocutors, at the time.

That said, I don't know if my perception is accurate or not. It is kind of like questioning a politician. The line or 'line' is quite considered and designed for the public, and may be mostly, or wholly "True" in the political sense. A good politician will speak those words with conviction, will act out his or her sincerity, will wring rhetoric's neck to be properly viewed in terms of probity.

My gut feeling is that a consensus emerged among the dismayed (as she clearly was) but loyal; shut the fuck up for the sake of The Church. So, I think she was sincere and truthful (in the exact same way Gingrich is when talking about the gap between what his married penis has done and what he thinks Obamaliberalmonsters want other peoples' married penises to do).

It is not hypocrisy, just politics, maybe? What do you think of the motivation, probity (if not the practical outcomes for her blog readership)?

Oh, wait, on second read I see I misread your question. Argh.

I meant that there were eighty-response long furious and well-read threads while she weighed the evidences, before her decision to shut down discussion. When those open threads ended, the tang and lure of free discussion moved on elsewhere, and thus Noodlefood slumbers on irrelevant and bland. It is a heartless world, the internets. If there is no bang, there is little buck.

It was a moment akin to a moment of the misnomer Arab Spring: would the carapace of lies and delusion and authoritarianism and corruption fall off? Would the Shah be toppled? Would Mubarak be humbled, would Assad reform, would Truth Be Told and Glasnost prevail?

If it bleeds, it leads. The mummery and muted deathwatch on Peikoff is not particularly exciting, in that sense. I would be interested in your impressions and gut feelings ...

[william.scherk]

Snarky, over the top, unfair humor usually only persuades people who were already persuaded in the first place. It makes the target look ridiculous but over time, if the target was unfairly caricatured, in the minds of fair people the exaggeration tends to backfire in the face of reality. Worst of all, it can lead you to question the judgment of the perpetrator. Lindsay Perigo who has done this a lot more frequently and less fairly than William, I don't think has earned great kudos in the Oist movement for this.

There is a big difference between a cutting remark that is clearly meant humorously and one that is expected to be taken seriously.

Does your sphincter tighten in pleasure when you issue such portents, Mrs Grundy? I see on the blackboard, tightly lined and crabbed, the dicta TEACHER SAYS THEYRE IS AS BIG DIFFERENCE.

I see on the blackboard that there is an assignment. Tell the DIfference between THINGS I LIKE NOW and THINGS THAT ARE BAD. Okay, I am done. The difference is WHOSE OX IS BEING GORED.

I peeked in your desk for the answers when I snuck in the school last night, Mrs Grundy. I have seen the Ample And Grey porn in the locked drawer. I know you, bitch. So, if you try to tell me that NO, it has nothing to do with oxes, I will press 9 on my cellphone and Principal Proctor will recieve at text message. You know what text message, since by now you have found the little sticky note where your stun gun usually is. That's right. You will be stricken from the Schoolmarm Register.

Anyway, Grundy, since I got the assignment correct, may I be unchained and allowed to write my own question on the board for you? Consider your answer carefully while I unchain the rest of the class.

-- Here is that Universe of Evul post. Apparently I am still using the exact same tools in the exact same manner. It is the same old shit, WSS on warp speed, with digressions. Some like it, some don't. You, Grundy, being a self-absorbed bitch, don't. Or, er, as we shall find out, It all depends on whose ox is being gored.

I have enjoyed the Mertz-Wissler sideshow very much. It occurred to me that I needn't observe the existence of the Iron Curtain between SOLOPassionofbitchingendlesslyaboutpeoplewhodon'tgiveashitaboutyouroryouropinions, and RebirthoftheSanerLargerpieceofthepiethatLinzwastoostupidtonoticewasbeingdivviedup . . . and so thought to link and post some lighthearted banter from the Dark side of the Universe.

The undeniably evil RoRers gave me atlas points before I had even closed the editing window, so that should indicate the depths of their hideous mendacity and depraved sense of life.

Linz, I salute you. You rose from the unfunny and untrue accusation of being a drunken raging maniac to preside over the funniest, most entertaining corner of the objectivist universe. And lately, of course, your triumph in attracting Empress Diana to converse with actual mortals (the glorious Holly excepted). Please make her Empress to your Emperor, so she can delete people's accounts arbitrarily until there is no one left but you, her, Casey and a bottle of fine Australian.

She is possibly the funniest, go out on the porch and throw up a good dinner funniest of any person who styles themselves an O'ist. If only she could take over from Peikoff as Pope. She is also living proof that people with Asperger spectrum disorder can make fine rulers of all that moves.

From boo! hiss! RoR, post 30, in the dreary but evil thread 'Why doesn't Diana like me?':

Philip Coates comments on La Mertz over on her popular blog, with some cogent observations. Of course, Diana is also now active on Linz's site.

I read Noodlefood with a grim fascination. As a person who is not just yet quite ready to call himself an objectivist, I find I can't look away. La Mertz's factionalism exemplifies one of the 'ick factors' that keeps me from donning the robes . . .

My fascination turns to appreciation when I turn my dial to 'entertainment.' Then I imagine La Mertz as Empress of the Objectivist Universe, atop the castle ramparts pouring boiling oil on the evil TOC army below, and later, after reviewing the records of that days beheadings, slinking into bed with his Majesty Linz, and whispering "KASS me, you radical.'

At the moment she has got herself in a stew of quite amusing contradictions over at SOLOPassionofbitchingaboutBarbaraBranden, where her toadies gush and Valliant and his demented wife continue to examine the sheets of Ayn Rands 1968 bed for stains of evil.

La Mertz finds herself an able match in the quick-witted Shayne Wissler, but cannot acknowledge this because she has only the one eye in the middle of her forehead -- the one and only eye in the kingdom that Sees all, Knows All.

I'll tell ya, if she ran for meter-maid in my town, I would move to Costa Rica in fear she would take power and start killing people.

As it is, she has her universe, her castle, her king, her fellow maniacs and enough rectitude to fill the Bay of Fundy.

There is nothing like Valliant lapdog Casey Snarky-Face battling Evul and making friends with maniacs to remind me that objectivism is fun and getting funner! And Snarky-face probably hasn't had as much fun since he played Joe McCarthy's grinning stooge in his Grade Four drama fest.

Oi.

WSS

[Edit 1] removed redundant 'grimly fascinating' in favour of ' I can't look away.'

(Note to self: Always read Jenna's posts before hitting the button: she expressed my feelings without any of the snarl and narstiness. If I wasn't gay I would ask to bear her children and clean her cabin)

-- I salute Phil for his patience . . . as a professional educator, it must be hard to deal with dumbass sophomores who think they can beard the bear. I utterly disagree with Trager's misreading of "analysis" as "judgement" and his consequent descent into the swamps of Lower Semantica, but I must be fair:

Phil, Galt love you, I admire your stance and your persistence and the essential wisdom of all your posts (which I read carefully), but a prideful lecturing tone gets in the way sometimes, brother. You can be mistaken for a huffy, angry and arrogant teacher with little human touch on some rare occasions.

If I was your student, and was treated that way, I would write "Wonderful, wonderful educator, my favourite lecturer. Would attend his seminar even if held in a Bombay meat market's offal depot during communal rioting. Hat too tight. Needs to get laid. More than once."

- would someone please give the squabbler Orbit Davison a dang Atlas Point or two? I hate the frigging things, but he hasn't had one since gawd created the heavens (a mere 6000 years ago). Please have a bowel movement, Orbit. You are about to burst.[/Edit 1]

[Edit 2] just getting around to reading all the responses to this cross-posting. I had suspected that the difference between RoR's reaction and SOLOP's reaction would be negligible.

I was wrong.

The pro-Mertz on RoR gave wise and spirited defences of her, her blog, her output, and her general value . . . whereas here at SOLOP, not only did the joke (explicitly laid out for the autistic, below **) fail for all but Diana herself, but the implicit invitation to self-criticism was ignored. The most balanced, benevolent and reasonable responses, and expressions of respect were on RoR (from Diana's interlocutors such asPhil Coates, William Scott Dwyer, etc., as well as a rebuke by the editor . . ). I wasn't sure which way it would go. Now, Snark Doggy Dawg here will never disappoint me because my standards are so low, but jeez, what a weak and disjointed response: "keep day job drunk crazy man rant go bowling more please non-DC wackjob."

(The 10/10 answer to Ms Munk's question †† at bottom.)

Your regular Saturday Night Drunk Rant™, amended on Saturday, April 1st.

WSS

-- brought to you by objectivists, "Serving novice objectivists since 19 -- . . . wait a minute, we don't serve novices -- get off my property or I'll blow your brains out!"

___________________________________________________

** -- just because you didn't understand it when you skimmed it, no, that doesn't mean it's incomprehensible: schisms are not really funny -- but those who pillory Diana Mertz Hsieh for her orthodoxy should play fair and discuss here, in SOLOP, where she is open to polite exchanges. Let us not beard each other.

My joke was an astringent for those with Grand Guignol rhetoric, which those in leadership here, Linz and Diana included, are *not* selling tickets to. I was spoofing those who think La Mertz is a histrionic authoritarian with Asperger's. For heaven's sake you first-time readers . . . give it another go, huh?

†† "Ask the person."]

[william.scherk]

Well, guess who this is and what he is responding to, and what connection this has to what Mrs Grundy has now written on the blackboard, NOT AS I DO, AS I SAY.

Whose OX is being gored? For fuck sakes, Phil, get off the horse, you cannot ride at the moment, let others lead the donkey-train for a while ...

> Phil...I admire your stance... but a prideful lecturing tone gets in the way sometimes, brother. You can be mistaken for a huffy, angry and arrogant teacher with little human touch on some rare occasions. [WSS]

Ha! Ha! You have a point there!! I sometimes post when I'm pissed off, disgusted, exhausted, etc...then I delete the obscenities...but the tone sometimes still lingers!

I'll try to do better, since I don't like my own sort of arrogance when I see it in OTHER PEOPLE :-)

> Needs to get laid. More than once.

Good point. If I had a girlfriend, I'd spend less time on these goddamn posts. (And I wouldn't let things get under my skin!)

----Thanx for bringing me back down to earth...in a humorous and amusing way!----

Yes, this was the last time that my attacks on Mrs Grundy bore live young. A tiny little spawn was brought forth, a chastened, friendly Phil. Without bones, of course, without a lesson plan, this little precious wormy thing died in the nursery.

It was a special time ...

[Xray]

I'm Diana Hsieh, a philosopher specializing in practical ethics. I received my Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2009.

What is Hsieh's age? Late forties would be my guess.

[Brant Gaede]

I'm Diana Hsieh, a philosopher specializing in practical ethics. I received my Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2009.

What is Hsieh's age? Late forties would be my guess.

Late 20s would be closer.

--Brant

[PDS]

Snarky, over the top, unfair humor usually only persuades people who were already persuaded in the first place. It makes the target look ridiculous but over time, if the target was unfairly caricatured, in the minds of fair people the exaggeration tends to backfire in the face of reality. Worst of all, it can lead you to question the judgment of the perpetrator. Lindsay Perigo who has done this a lot more frequently and less fairly than William, I don't think has earned great kudos in the Oist movement for this.

There is a big difference between a cutting remark that is clearly meant humorously and one that is expected to be taken seriously.

Does your sphincter tighten in pleasure when you issue such portents, Mrs Grundy? I see on the blackboard, tightly lined and crabbed, the dicta TEACHER SAYS THEYRE IS AS BIG DIFFERENCE.

I see on the blackboard that there is an assignment. Tell the DIfference between THINGS I LIKE NOW and THINGS THAT ARE BAD. Okay, I am done. The difference is WHOSE OX IS BEING GORED.

I peeked in your desk for the answers when I snuck in the school last night, Mrs Grundy. I have seen the Ample And Grey porn in the locked drawer. I know you, bitch. So, if you try to tell me that NO, it has nothing to do with oxes, I will press 9 on my cellphone and Principal Proctor will recieve at text message. You know what text message, since by now you have found the little sticky note where your stun gun usually is. That's right. You will be stricken from the Schoolmarm Register.

Anyway, Grundy, since I got the assignment correct, may I be unchained and allowed to write my own question on the board for you? Consider your answer carefully while I unchain the rest of the class.

-- Here is that Universe of Evul post. Apparently I am still using the exact same tools in the exact same manner. It is the same old shit, WSS on warp speed, with digressions. Some like it, some don't. You, Grundy, being a self-absorbed bitch, don't. Or, er, as we shall find out, It all depends on whose ox is being gored.

I have enjoyed the Mertz-Wissler sideshow very much. It occurred to me that I needn't observe the existence of the Iron Curtain between SOLOPassionofbitchingendlesslyaboutpeoplewhodon'tgiveashitaboutyouroryouropinions, and RebirthoftheSanerLargerpieceofthepiethatLinzwastoostupidtonoticewasbeingdivviedup . . . and so thought to link and post some lighthearted banter from the Dark side of the Universe.

The undeniably evil RoRers gave me atlas points before I had even closed the editing window, so that should indicate the depths of their hideous mendacity and depraved sense of life.

Linz, I salute you. You rose from the unfunny and untrue accusation of being a drunken raging maniac to preside over the funniest, most entertaining corner of the objectivist universe. And lately, of course, your triumph in attracting Empress Diana to converse with actual mortals (the glorious Holly excepted). Please make her Empress to your Emperor, so she can delete people's accounts arbitrarily until there is no one left but you, her, Casey and a bottle of fine Australian.

She is possibly the funniest, go out on the porch and throw up a good dinner funniest of any person who styles themselves an O'ist. If only she could take over from Peikoff as Pope. She is also living proof that people with Asperger spectrum disorder can make fine rulers of all that moves.

From boo! hiss! RoR, post 30, in the dreary but evil thread 'Why doesn't Diana like me?':

Philip Coates comments on La Mertz over on her popular blog, with some cogent observations. Of course, Diana is also now active on Linz's site.

I read Noodlefood with a grim fascination. As a person who is not just yet quite ready to call himself an objectivist, I find I can't look away. La Mertz's factionalism exemplifies one of the 'ick factors' that keeps me from donning the robes . . .

My fascination turns to appreciation when I turn my dial to 'entertainment.' Then I imagine La Mertz as Empress of the Objectivist Universe, atop the castle ramparts pouring boiling oil on the evil TOC army below, and later, after reviewing the records of that days beheadings, slinking into bed with his Majesty Linz, and whispering "KASS me, you radical.'

At the moment she has got herself in a stew of quite amusing contradictions over at SOLOPassionofbitchingaboutBarbaraBranden, where her toadies gush and Valliant and his demented wife continue to examine the sheets of Ayn Rands 1968 bed for stains of evil.

La Mertz finds herself an able match in the quick-witted Shayne Wissler, but cannot acknowledge this because she has only the one eye in the middle of her forehead -- the one and only eye in the kingdom that Sees all, Knows All.

I'll tell ya, if she ran for meter-maid in my town, I would move to Costa Rica in fear she would take power and start killing people.

As it is, she has her universe, her castle, her king, her fellow maniacs and enough rectitude to fill the Bay of Fundy.

There is nothing like Valliant lapdog Casey Snarky-Face battling Evul and making friends with maniacs to remind me that objectivism is fun and getting funner! And Snarky-face probably hasn't had as much fun since he played Joe McCarthy's grinning stooge in his Grade Four drama fest.

Oi.

WSS

[Edit 1] removed redundant 'grimly fascinating' in favour of ' I can't look away.'

(Note to self: Always read Jenna's posts before hitting the button: she expressed my feelings without any of the snarl and narstiness. If I wasn't gay I would ask to bear her children and clean her cabin)

-- I salute Phil for his patience . . . as a professional educator, it must be hard to deal with dumbass sophomores who think they can beard the bear. I utterly disagree with Trager's misreading of "analysis" as "judgement" and his consequent descent into the swamps of Lower Semantica, but I must be fair:

Phil, Galt love you, I admire your stance and your persistence and the essential wisdom of all your posts (which I read carefully), but a prideful lecturing tone gets in the way sometimes, brother. You can be mistaken for a huffy, angry and arrogant teacher with little human touch on some rare occasions.

If I was your student, and was treated that way, I would write "Wonderful, wonderful educator, my favourite lecturer. Would attend his seminar even if held in a Bombay meat market's offal depot during communal rioting. Hat too tight. Needs to get laid. More than once."

- would someone please give the squabbler Orbit Davison a dang Atlas Point or two? I hate the frigging things, but he hasn't had one since gawd created the heavens (a mere 6000 years ago). Please have a bowel movement, Orbit. You are about to burst.[/Edit 1]

[Edit 2] just getting around to reading all the responses to this cross-posting. I had suspected that the difference between RoR's reaction and SOLOP's reaction would be negligible.

I was wrong.

The pro-Mertz on RoR gave wise and spirited defences of her, her blog, her output, and her general value . . . whereas here at SOLOP, not only did the joke (explicitly laid out for the autistic, below **) fail for all but Diana herself, but the implicit invitation to self-criticism was ignored. The most balanced, benevolent and reasonable responses, and expressions of respect were on RoR (from Diana's interlocutors such asPhil Coates, William Scott Dwyer, etc., as well as a rebuke by the editor . . ). I wasn't sure which way it would go. Now, Snark Doggy Dawg here will never disappoint me because my standards are so low, but jeez, what a weak and disjointed response: "keep day job drunk crazy man rant go bowling more please non-DC wackjob."

(The 10/10 answer to Ms Munk's question †† at bottom.)

Your regular Saturday Night Drunk Rant™, amended on Saturday, April 1st.

WSS

-- brought to you by objectivists, "Serving novice objectivists since 19 -- . . . wait a minute, we don't serve novices -- get off my property or I'll blow your brains out!"

___________________________________________________

** -- just because you didn't understand it when you skimmed it, no, that doesn't mean it's incomprehensible: schisms are not really funny -- but those who pillory Diana Mertz Hsieh for her orthodoxy should play fair and discuss here, in SOLOP, where she is open to polite exchanges. Let us not beard each other.

My joke was an astringent for those with Grand Guignol rhetoric, which those in leadership here, Linz and Diana included, are *not* selling tickets to. I was spoofing those who think La Mertz is a histrionic authoritarian with Asperger's. For heaven's sake you first-time readers . . . give it another go, huh?

†† "Ask the person."]

If PJ O'Rourke were an Objectivist, he would be blushing right now, or should be.

I think Scherk should get his own corner too.

Best line on this thread so far: "Think of some nutty Stephen Boydstrom fan." Do I have to?

[Xray]

I'm Diana Hsieh, a philosopher specializing in practical ethics. I received my Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2009.

What is Hsieh's age? Late forties would be my guess.

Late 20s would be closer.

--Brant

Are you kidding?

(But then I must admit I have never been good at age-guessing ...)

[caroljane]

If PJ O'Rourke were an Objectivist, he would be blushing right now, or should be.

I think Scherk should get his own corner too.

Best line on this thread so far: "Think of some nutty Stephen Boydstrom fan." Do I have to?

I like the "Valliant and his demented wife" line too. Ou sont les bedsheets d'antan?

Magister Scherk does have a corner, it is his splendidly furnished blog here where he sits at his ease and gives audience to favoured courtiers.

[PDS]

If PJ O'Rourke were an Objectivist, he would be blushing right now, or should be.

I think Scherk should get his own corner too.

Best line on this thread so far: "Think of some nutty Stephen Boydstrom fan." Do I have to?

I like the "Valliant and his demented wife" line too. Ou sont les bedsheets d'antan?

Magister Scherk does have a corner, it is his splendidly furnished blog here where he sits at his ease and gives audience to favoured courtiers.

I shall check it out. The world has been passing me by, it seems.

[caroljane]

If PJ O'Rourke were an Objectivist, he would be blushing right now, or should be.

I think Scherk should get his own corner too.

Best line on this thread so far: "Think of some nutty Stephen Boydstrom fan." Do I have to?

I like the "Valliant and his demented wife" line too. Ou sont les bedsheets d'antan?

Magister Scherk does have a corner, it is his splendidly furnished blog here where he sits at his ease and gives audience to favoured courtiers.

I shall check it out. The world has been passing me by, it seems.

Mais non, you have been passing it by, on your way to work like the rest of us. Stopping to smell les fleurs d umal et vertu is what we do here in Mike's Diner, with its intriguing corners and alcoves.

[Ellen Stuttle]

[Diana's] numbers here have plunged since her Vow Of Silence and Hypocrisy on the Peikoff-McClaskey Affair in this measure. Since she decided to go mute on moral issues of import to the Sanctorum and Monastery offices, readership slipped and fell and could not get up.

Do you have any assessment of why?  Was it because she didn't speak out pro-McCaskey or because she didn't defend Peikoff?

Ellen

[....]

Oh, wait, on second read I see I misread your question. Argh.

I meant that there were eighty-response long furious and well-read threads while she weighed the evidences, before her decision to shut down discussion.  When those open threads ended, the tang and lure of free discussion moved on elsewhere, and thus Noodlefood slumbers on irrelevant and bland. It is a heartless world, the internets. If there is no bang, there is little buck.

It was a moment akin to a moment of the misnomer Arab Spring: would the carapace of lies and delusion and authoritarianism and corruption fall off? Would the Shah be toppled? Would Mubarak be humbled, would Assad reform, would Truth Be Told and Glasnost prevail?

Yeah, you did misread my question at first. Your answer still doesn't get at what I was wondering about, but maybe I misunderstood your comment. I took you to be saying not merely that attention to Noodlefood had faded after the stretch where there was debate on the McCaskey/Peikoff issue but that Noodlefood had lost former regular participants. I was wondering if you had a feeling about which side in the dispute the regulars favored.

If it bleeds, it leads. The mummery and muted deathwatch on Peikoff is not particularly exciting, in that sense. I would be interested in your impressions and gut feelings ...

I'm not sure what you're interested in "impressions and gut feelings" about. My sense of things is that ARI people are biding their time and keeping quiet what with Peikoff's having made clear that he won't put up with any intellectual challenge but that there's some significant looking forward to his being gone. One change I'm hoping to see when Peikoff is no longer with us is a sidelining of Harriman.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

What is Hsieh's age? Late forties would be my guess.

Late thirties to early forties is mine. I think she was in her mid-to-late twenties in 1997-98 when I had a bit of correspondence with her while she was still running NB's web site.

Ellen

[william.scherk]

[Diana's] numbers here have plunged since her Vow Of Silence and Hypocrisy on the Peikoff-McClaskey Affair in this measure. Since she decided to go mute on moral issues of import to the Sanctorum and Monastery offices, readership slipped and fell and could not get up.

Do you have any assessment of why? Was it because she didn't speak out pro-McCaskey or because she didn't defend Peikoff?

Ellen

Oh, wait, on second read I see I misread your question. Argh.

I meant that there were eighty-response long furious and well-read threads while she weighed the evidences, before her decision to shut down discussion. When those open threads ended, the tang and lure of free discussion moved on elsewhere, and thus Noodlefood slumbers on irrelevant and bland. It is a heartless world, the internets. If there is no bang, there is little buck.

It was a moment akin to a moment of the misnomer Arab Spring: would the carapace of lies and delusion and authoritarianism and corruption fall off? Would the Shah be toppled? Would Mubarak be humbled, would Assad reform, would Truth Be Told and Glasnost prevail?

Yeah, you did misread my question at first. Your answer still doesn't get at what I was wondering about, but maybe I misunderstood your comment. I took you to be saying not merely that attention to Noodlefood had faded after the stretch where there was debate on the McCaskey/Peikoff issue but that Noodlefood had lost former regular participants. I was wondering if you had a feeling about which side in the dispute the regulars favored.

Yes. My feeling is the regulars overwhelming support the inner-reform (Young Turk) of ARI wing. In practical terms, though, the last event in the reform was OK Shut Up for now -- since everyone agreed to not Go There for now and foreseeable, audience shrinks just by virtue of this new climate. Which begs the question in turn of course. Can Diana influence Climate -- and if yes, then by how much and where and who will get swamped and who burnt and so on.

I should mention in fairness that Diana has written a couple of times at least that, frankly, her interests and energy are moving in different places besides the blog per se (but bear in mind that I looked at traffic to the entire Hsieh.com empire, not just the blog). I think she may have noted fewer numbers of posts, but also noted she is fine with that. So, in some important measure Diana herself has turned some of the knobs down herself. Noodlefood is not a central discussion forum now. She may retain the right to pulpit the next time something happens in the hierarchy.

If and when the Pope dies and all wait for the white puff of smoke or the black puff of smoke, no doubt whatsoever in my mind that DIana will be jostling with everyone else.

Back to Tahrir Square, and that brave voice, Diana Hsieh, figger? Me, I do not think so. She really did fence and sign her property, and it said, Agree or STFU or be Shot.

Good point and I agree that a new ARI should give thanksbyebye to Harriman, but as you may have noted I am bitter and cynical on these and other issues. I do not think he will even be asked to move out of the Palace marketing area. Why should ARI de-corrupt itself? Why would anyone want to be contaminated by sweeping or touching old shit? I see only further corruption and cultism in ARI.

Edited January 21, 2012 by william.scherk

[caroljane]

[Diana's] numbers here have plunged since her Vow Of Silence and Hypocrisy on the Peikoff-McClaskey Affair in this measure. Since she decided to go mute on moral issues of import to the Sanctorum and Monastery offices, readership slipped and fell and could not get up.

Do you have any assessment of why? Was it because she didn't speak out pro-McCaskey or because she didn't defend Peikoff?

Ellen

Oh, wait, on second read I see I misread your question. Argh.

I meant that there were eighty-response long furious and well-read threads while she weighed the evidences, before her decision to shut down discussion. When those open threads ended, the tang and lure of free discussion moved on elsewhere, and thus Noodlefood slumbers on irrelevant and bland. It is a heartless world, the internets. If there is no bang, there is little buck.

It was a moment akin to a moment of the misnomer Arab Spring: would the carapace of lies and delusion and authoritarianism and corruption fall off? Would the Shah be toppled? Would Mubarak be humbled, would Assad reform, would Truth Be Told and Glasnost prevail?

Yeah, you did misread my question at first. Your answer still doesn't get at what I was wondering about, but maybe I misunderstood your comment. I took you to be saying not merely that attention to Noodlefood had faded after the stretch where there was debate on the McCaskey/Peikoff issue but that Noodlefood had lost former regular participants. I was wondering if you had a feeling about which side in the dispute the regulars favored.

Yes. My feeling is the regulars overwhelming support the inner-reform (Young Turk) of ARI wing. In practical terms, though, the last event in the reform was OK Shut Up for now -- since everyone agreed to not Go There for now and foreseeable, audience shrinks just by virtue of this new climate. Which begs the question in turn of course. Can Diana influence Climate -- and if yes, then by how much and where and who will get swamped and who burnt and so on.

I should mention in fairness that Diana has written a couple of times at least that, frankly, her interests and energy are moving in different places besides the blog per se (but bear in mind that I looked at traffic to the entire Hsieh.com empire, not just the blog). I think she may have noted fewer numbers of posts, but also noted she is fine with that. So, in some important measure Diana herself has turned some of the knobs down herself. Noodlefood is not a central discussion forum now. She may retain the right to pulpit the next time something happens in the hierarchy.

If and when the Pope dies and all wait for the white puff of smoke or the black puff of smoke, no doubt whatsoever in my mind that DIana will be jostling with everyone else.

Back to Tahrir Square, and that brave voice, Diana Hsieh, figger? Me, I do not think so. She really did fence and sign her property, and it said, Agree or STFU or be Shot.

Good point and I agree that a new ARI should give thanksbyebye to Harriman, but as you may have noted I am bitter and cynical on these and other issues. I do not think he will even be asked to move out of the Palace marketing area. Why should ARI de-corrupt itself? Why would anyone want to be contaminated by sweeping or touching old shit? I see only further corruption and cultism in ARI.

The Pope Leonard moniker really does fit. I just read somewhere else (old thread on Valliant) his letter (if it was not a parody) to Wikipedia demanding something because the Head Honcho should listen to "someone of my credentials". And he signed it Executor. Like the Phil Schoolmarm trope, at first I thought these were just tired catchphrases, but I now see them as shorthand for essentialism in identification which exists here on OL, better than anywhere else I have seen that discusses these matters.