Angry Adam Reed Leaves SLOP

[Victor Pross]

"Civil society is built on cooperation and trade, which require at minimum the possibility of trust among men. At this point I cannot reasonably trust any man who trusts Linsay Perigo, in this or anything else."

Adam Reed

http://www.solopassion.com/node/1745 [read the whole story here]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

(sigh)

Let's stop talking about Solo for a while. OK?

(Not as OL policy, but as common sense.)

Michael

[Guest Damage Inc.]

(sigh)

Let's stop talking about Solo for a while. OK?

(Not as OL policy, but as common sense.)

Michael

Michael, is what Adam Reed said, true?

"Still, I'm rather proud of the fact that I never lost my grasp of political principles and historical precedent. I also confirmed my evaluation of MSK and his clique as enemies of principles qua principles. MSK was particularly adept at manipulating everyone's understandable revulsion at Peron's doings into a totalitarian repudiation of principles and logic, and substituting, in place of principles, a pragmatic calculation of short range interests. MSK went so far as to endorse, in post 44, the prosecution and imprisonment of Capone by the Feds for tax evasion. What that precedent did to individual rights of all generations of Americans up to our own was, according to MSK, less important than that Al Capone's immediate neighbors and competitors were safer, for a few years, while the capo di capi was in prison."

http://www.solopassion.com/node/1739

[Victor Pross]

Look at the treatment this intelligent gentleman is getting at the hands of SLOPPERS.

Yeah, yeah, Damage, rise up and be heard--defend the mob.

[Victor Pross]

Let's stop talking about Solo for a while. OK?

(Not as OL policy, but as common sense.)

Michael,

Sorry, but this SLOP post bothers me because of all those who posted there, I liked Mr. Reed.

Victor

Edited October 15, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wayne,

Despite getting awfully tired of food fights (and irritated with them), I am actually glad you brought this up. I will ignore the insinuation, which is beneath you, and concentrate on the substance.

I am not pleased with myself for the whole way I behaved on the Peron issue on the now defunct SoloHQ and that was not my finest hour. I lost objectivity by being seduced into a tribal emotionalism back then that resulted in me chiming in unjustly with the persecution of Peron. He makes an interesting moral dilemma for me because there are many issues about him that I strongly do not like. I will have to make a statement clarifying all this sooner or later, but I will save that for another time. Leave it to say now that I agree that the NZ government (as it it presently constituted) has the right to conduct their immigration affairs according to the standards they set, and I agree that my behavior against Peron was unfair. However, I do not agree with the legality of child pornography or pedophilia. Also, I prefer not to judge what the other people did back then. I only want to put my own house in order.

About the Capone issue, Adam forced the interpretation of my statements for reasons of his own. The whole problem arises when you discuss what is proper for a corrupt government to do with a high-profile criminal, especially if that criminal has been one of the major corrupting factors. Principles alone don't go far against machine guns and the repression and threat have to be eliminated if peaceful civilization is to return. All governments have good guys and bad guys in them. In the case of Capone, he was hidden behind a mountain of technicalities and strong-arm tactics that ham-strung the good guys and protected the bad guys. So yes, in that context, I think what they did by using tax laws was proper.

By doing that, they were also able to start concentrating on cleaning up the corrupt officials. The downside is that it set a horrible legal precedent. Let's call it an emergency situation where the correct part of government law enforcement and courts had lost their validity through massive corruption.

In no instance do I think that a rationally constituted and functioning government should use tax laws to fight crime. I am against most all tax laws, anyway.

The reason all that was brought up was that I was mentioning how governments deal with high-profile citizens they consider criminal when there is no legislation available or when the laws have become unenforceable through corruption. I was speaking of exceptions, not rules.

Michael

[Jonathan]

One thing that never seemed to get discussed seriously on SOLO back during the Peron ordeal (unless I missed it) was what should be the age of consent according to Objectivist principles. I don't know where those who were the loudest during the Peron discussion stand on the issue. Do Perigo, Cresswell and the rest of the Sub Optimal Little Ogres agree with Bill Dwyer (the person who is responsible for bringing the Peron issue to the attention of the Objectivist online community) that it might not be unreasonable to establish the age of consent at puberty, or do they think that Dwyer, and anyone who shares his views, is a pervert? I haven't seen any typical "KASS" temper tantrums about Dwyer's views, so am I safe in assuming that the Sub Optimal Little Ogres believe that it might be acceptable for a 50 year old to have consensual sex with, say, a 12 year old?

J

[Victor Pross]

MSK WROTE: "I am not pleased with myself for the whole way I behaved on the Peron issue on the now defunct SoloHQ and that was not my finest hour. I lost objectivity by being seduced into a tribal emotionalism back then that resulted in me chiming in unjustly with the persecution of Peron."

Wayne,

You seem to still be painting MSK as an caricature who is up to no good in the Objectivist world, or the world in general, a ridiculous and childish notion—not even worthy of a black-hat-for-bad-guys and white-hat-for-good-guys Roy Roger's flick. I don’t think that way anymore. You see, I grew up.

During my time here at OL, I have budded heads with him, but I have changed my views of him greatly --coming out of my own “tribal emotionalism.”

He makes mistakes, I make mistakes, we all make mistakes—and, yes, I know you might argue with this one: even you make mistakes.

As you can see, however, MSK owns up to what he sees as his mistakes, and this is not the first time. He is willing to be honest with himself and others. That’s called integrity—the much lauded word in Objectivism. MSK is a straight shooter and I respect him for it. I admire that. You see, I’ll take one MSK to a hundred Perigos any day of the week. Yes, I mean it.

Victor

Edited October 15, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Mikee]

Victor,

"MSK is a straight shooter and I respect him for it. I admire that. You see, I’ll take one MSK to a hundred Perigos any day of the week."

I agree. Though I'm astonished to see how far I've come in the last two years with respect to Linz. This last bit with Adam Reed is just one more example. Adam's "Lessons learned:.." article if anything was complimentary to Lindsay. And his attempt to enumerate the "lessons learned" was simply trying to create something positive out of a perceived debacle. Seems rational to me. Look what he gets for his trouble. I especially like this part from Adam's article: "The subordination of reason to faith or passion is the primary source of the greatest evils in the world." Maybe THAT's what bugged them so much.

Michael,

Thanks for explaining the context of your Peron remarks. Makes sense to me. There are no objectivist or libertarian utopia's in the world but people still have to live. Twenty years of a Capone off the streets gives a generation of kids a chance to grow up without bullets flying past them in the context of "crime pays".

I think if everyone's context were understood then there would be no need for fireworks. Then again, it's so much fun to choose up sides and let fly...

[Barbara Branden]

Victor, PLEASE stop your incessant posting of material from Solo and your equally-incessant sniping at SOLO people. One of the reasons many of us left SOLO is that we were sick to death of what was happening there. Why in the world do you insist on constantly bringing it to us here? Michael has several times politely asked you to stop; he and Kat created Objectivist Living as a haven from such people, not as a place to which to import their material.

Barbara

[Victor Pross]

Barbara,

Sure, I understand your point. I agree, no more...perhaps only in caricature for a laugh.

Victor

ps

Don't forget to vote on the John and Yoko painting.

[Dragonfly]

I disagree! I really enjoy reading and talking about the wreckage at Solo, how they tear at each other, it's great fun, I can't get enough of it! :devil: Can't we get here some smokers' corner to that purpose, that can be avoided by the health freaks on this list?

[Robert Campbell]

Dragonfly,

But it is really news when Perigo and company drive another regular contributor away?

Robert Campbell

[Dragonfly]

But it is really news when Perigo and company drive another regular contributor away?

For starters, it's interesting to know who the latest victim is, and what the "arguments" this time are and it's pleasant to have all your prejudices confirmed again. I admit, this is a morbid fascination, but some people watch horror or disaster movies for amusement, I watch Solo for the same reason.

[Brant Gaede]

I don't like Adam Reed, but he caught Linz with his pants down and wouldn't let him pull them back up. In regard to health food and fast food, I firmly occupy the wishy-washy in-between.

--Brant

[Roger Bissell]

I really enjoy reading and talking about the wreckage at Solo, how they tear at each other, it's great fun, I can't get enough of it! :devil: Can't we get here some smokers' corner to that purpose, that can be avoided by the health freaks on this list?

And Robert Campbell comments:

But it is really news when Perigo and company drive another regular contributor away?

Well, of course, it's news! However, I do sympathize with Michael and Barbara and those who think there is too much general focus on the evils perpetrated by -- and occurring to -- the...well, you know who I mean.

Here's my modest proposal:

We already have in "The Outer Limits" a forum called "Rants," for venting about...well, you know who I mean (as well as other aggravations). How about another forum called "Gloats," or "Told You So," or "Why Am I Not Surprised?" where those who wish to engage in "schadenfreude" (did I spell that correctly?) can post and discuss such items as "Angry Adam Reed Leaves SLOP"? You know, keep it out of the "Living Room," but still provide a place for it here on OL?

How about it, Michael and Kat?

REB

[Victor Pross]

Schadenfreude--the German word for taking pleasure in the suffering of others. Very charming. You know, I should have put this in the "Outer Limits", good point.

[Bidinotto]

Dragonfly (and any others To Whom It May Concern):

Don't you get it? ATTENTION is what they crave, and you are feeding that craving. Each new post about them grants them a new lease on life: fodder for many new threads, and -- more importantly -- something new that they can all unite and rally against.

I've been saying for the past year that if everyone simply stopped paying attention to the fulminations of that tiny and ever-dwindling clique of anger-worshippers, they would turn on each other and self-destruct. And, predictably, it's been happening.

But every time you post about their antics, either here or there, you provide them an "enemy" against whom they can unite and rally. That unity keeps them from imploding -- which, in turn, allows them to continue to mar Objectivism's public image.

Is that what you want?

What would Roark do?

[Victor Pross]

Mr. Bidinotto,

Question, would you say that my caricaturing does them well--am I "feeding them life" by exposing some form of ugliness in a dark rendering?

My caricatures, you know, have been known to cause people --the ones on the outside looking in--to pause and think. That's my claim to fame.

What would Roark do? He would blow them ski high!

Victor

[Dragonfly]

Robert, there is attention and attention. They want to be taken seriously, and therefore I think you're remarks should be addressed for example to Phil Coates, who still actively participates on their forum (as did Robert Campbell until recently, who was wise enough to leave, however), trying to reason with them, with the predictable result that he's become their whipping boy. The only normal person who really is effective on that forum is George Smith, who can keep his cool and thereby squashes them with great ease when they try to attack him, which is really fun to watch. Just refusing to take them seriously and laughing at them is not the kind of attention they crave, so I see no harm in doing that. And I'm not interested in what Roark would do, as I'm not Roark and I don't care to parrot Roark.

One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. H.L. Mencken.

[Bidinotto]

Roark would only blow sky-high those who seized his property.

As for malignant guttersnipes, he would simply say, "But I don't think of you."

Sometimes I wonder who most craves attention and wishes to goad people into reacting: the guttersnipes, in their angry obsession with "exposing evil" -- or their critics, in their equal obsession with the guttersnipes.

I wonder, in short, if this is a symbiotic emotional relationship.

[Victor Pross]

Sir,

I'm an artist---"showing" comes with the job description. Good lord, man, what is art about? Once you answer that question, I'm guilty as charged. But I have much more to show than "evil exposed"--much more. No, it's not symbiotic relationship any more than a mugger and the mugged.

Victor

[Dragonfly]

We already have in "The Outer Limits" a forum called "Rants," for venting about...well, you know who I mean (as well as other aggravations). How about another forum called "Gloats," or "Told You So," or "Why Am I Not Surprised?" where those who wish to engage in "schadenfreude" (did I spell that correctly?) can post and discuss such items as "Angry Adam Reed Leaves SLOP"? You know, keep it out of the "Living Room," but still provide a place for it here on OL?

I'd suggest "Unsanitary backyard" with the subtitle "Enter at your own risk" and put it at the bottom of the list, then no one has to complain about unwanted content on the forum, the remaining part of which may be kept spic-and-span.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

My response to this is that I have yet to find an Objectivist forum where I couldn't find reasonable posts and people. I engage those people wherever I find them and also engage antagonists in the spirit of clarifying disagreement. I, as any Objectivist, should be able to trust that his own words are his. Mere existence or participation on a forum only means that one has at least found a minority of people there with which a fruitful discussion can be had. Objectivism will find its way to a greater audience only when its major practitioners remove the hayseeds from their teeth and relegate personality issues in the movement to the sidelines.

Jim

[Mikee]

The worthy topic in this thread is Adam Reed. I have always found Adam Reed worth reading, whether I agree with him on a particular or not. I consider this thread primarily about him, secondarily about solop. I find him an interesting intelligent serious minded and moral individual who I've learned things from. I hope to see more of him.