HERESY!!!

[Jonathan]

I recently began visiting ObjectivismOnline.net, and on May 20th I signed up after seeing that my quoting of Rand's views on the handicapped and their kneeling buses had been brought up.

Today I checked in and saw that WSS had posted some thoughts, so I replied:

I am one of those who found the Rand comments on the handicapped to be troubling.

What I found the most troubling was that Rand's comment on "kneeling buses" implies that she was including the physically handicapped among those she believed presented too much of a tragic spectacle for children to deal with. She seemed to be saying that even a child with a brilliant mind should "not be allowed to come near children" if physically disabled enough to require special transportation assistance.

I don't think it's unreasonable for Rand, or anyone else, to question and weigh the benefits and hazards of mainstreaming the severely mentally handicapped, but her comment about kneeling buses comes across as placing her aesthetic concerns above the intellectual development of those who happened to have been born with problems that have nothing to do with their ability to be learn. It sounds as if she was saying that children who are confined to wheelchairs, or are otherwise physically disabled, are monsters who interfere with her ideal concept of "man," and whose presence could be so psychologically disturbing as to cause severe mental and emotional damage in children who are not physically disabled (they "cannot deal" with it).

J

After I posted my comments, I snooped around on the site a little and spotted a thread which contained a review that I had already commented about on Noodlefood, and I decided to cross-post my comment to the OO thread. Here's what I wrote:

Repeating what I posted here:

Provenzo may have tried to come from what he imagines is a "Romantic school vein" in commenting on the Rockwell painting, and good for him, but I doubt that Rand would have agreed that the painting, or much of anything else by Rockwell, fit her view "romanticism" in art. She much more likely would have seen it as representing the average, the everyday, the folks next door -- a humble man doing altruistic work in a rural landscape painted in muddy colors.

---

I think that Rand would have seen Rockwell's art as homespun naturalism, that is, if she wouldn't have immediately dismissed it as illustration and, therefore, non-art.

J

I hit the "add reply" button and my post vanished. So I went to the kneeling buses thread, and, as I had suspected, my response to WSS had been deleted. I've been banned or put on moderation at ObjectivismOnline in the name of protecting Saint Ayn and Holy Objectivism.

Hilarious.

J

Edited June 4, 2008 by Jonathan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I find the idea of not exposing children to mentally deficient people very disturbing in a mind-control kind of way. Children's minds are are to be taught, not molded.

How can you teach a child to respect reality if you deny him exposure to something as real as illness? How can a child know he is healthy if he is never permitted to see the sick?

How can he learn to measure this?

This is one part of Rand's views I resoundingly do not agree with.

Michael

[Mike11]

Sigh.

One of the defenses on OO.net is the following -

Parents should hold off on introducing their children to the idea of a broken man until after they first have a solid grip on the idea of a man. The quote is out of context, because you have not presented it with any understanding of Objectivist epistemology, esp. Rand's approach to concepts and concept formation.

Yep, why be honest and say your just a bigot looking for excuses when you can just as easily hide in the la la land of "proper concept formation"?

[Mike11]

As for being banned, I've been banned no less than 8 times from that board.

I was once that bored, on said board, I hit my head repeatedly against a board, I was so bor---

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I was once that bored, on said board, I hit my head repeatedly against a board, I was so bor---

Joel,

LOLOLOLOL...

I am trying to read in between the boards with that one.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Sigh.

One of the defenses on OO.net is the following -

Parents should hold off on introducing their children to the idea of a broken man until after they first have a solid grip on the idea of a man. The quote is out of context, because you have not presented it with any understanding of Objectivist epistemology, esp. Rand's approach to concepts and concept formation.

Yep, why be honest and say your just a bigot looking for excuses when you can just as easily hide in the la la land of "proper concept formation"?

Yeah.

I had an art teacher who was phocomelic. None of his students, and none of the children in the school who were not his students, were unable to "deal with" his presence. And I'd be willing to bet a pretty large pile of cash that he could do almost everything better than Objectivists who would point to him as an example when teaching children proper epistemology and the concept of "broken man."

In the same school there was also a very friendly and generous quadriplegic man who assisted elementary school teachers. No children were traumatized by him. None went insane from fear. None became confused, depressed, or evil because they hadn't yet had time to get a solid grip on the idea of a "man" before being exposed to him.

Aside from people I've known personally, I wonder how Objectivist zealots, using the power of proper Objectivist epistemology, would categorize someone like athlete/model/actress Aimee Mullins (who, incidentally, appeared as the Cheetah Lady in the part of Matthew Barney's Cremaster Cycle that Michael Newberry actually saw). "Broken" is the last word I'd think of to describe her. "Intelligent," "confident," "driven" and "babelicious," yes. But "broken"? No.

J

[Barbara Branden]

Jonathan, Rand must have changed her view of what children should be allowed to see and to know about. Sometime in the early 1950s, I visited my home town and I spent time with a four-year-old nephew. On a drive, we passed a mental institution, (then called an "insane asylum") and he asked what the place was. My instant reaction was that I didn't want him to know about the phenomenon of mental illness, that it might frighten him, and so, to protect him, I passed off his question with something innocuous.

But I wasn't comfortable with my response, and when I was back in Los Angeles, I mentioned the incident to Rand. She said -- and she was quite right -- that I had made a mistake in not answering the boy truthfully. She said that children should not be shielded from reality, and that if he was old enough to ask the question, he was old enough to receive a truthful answer (which, of course, didn't have to be put in terrifying terms).

I realize this isn't quite the same as a physical deformity, but, remembering the conversation, I'm certain Rand's answer in the latter case would have been the same -- that is, that children should not be shielded from reality. This doesn't mean that we ought to take four-year-olds to hospital operating rooms to witness surgery; but it does mean that we should be truthful with them, not attempt to hide facts from them, and not pretend that reality is always pretty. Besides, children tend to be realists, and are much more resilient and much more accepting of facts -- pleasant and unpleasant -- than many adults give them credit for.

Barbara

[studiodekadent]

I've been banned or put on moderation at ObjectivismOnline in the name of protecting Saint Ayn and Holy Objectivism.

Ahh yes, ObjectivismOnline...

Better known as Rationalist Randroid Central. Its unfortunate that some people treat Objectivism as a religion, they give the real Objectivists a bad name.

[dan_edge]

Jonathan,

I can't speak for the Moderators at Objectivism Online, but I don't blame them for banning you. Of the 3 initial posts you made on Objectivism Online, all were criticisms of Rand. It appeared that your only purpose in commenting on their forum was to bash Rand, goad others that you have predetermined to be rationalistic Rand-worshippers, then stomp off afterwards, decrying the injustice of your banishment. Based on your comments here, I'd say that the Objectivism Online Moderators were spot-on in their judgment of your motives.

This was a self-fulfilling prophecy, Jonathan. You went to Objectivism Online looking for trouble, and found it.

If you find it unpalatable that others would question your motives like that, then what does it say about you to make a blanket statement about these folks "protecting Saint Ayn and Holy Objectivism?" You've been making very public claims like that for a long time. When you talk trash about people, they're not going to want you on their forum.

Though I don't contribute much, I like the crowd at Objectivism Online. And when you make accusations like the ones above, I take it personally. I'm the kind of person you're talking about. Me and my friends. It's not like you hurt my feelings, but I hope you see how offensive your comments come off.

--Dan Edge, Proud Defender of Saint Ayn and Holy Objectivism

P.S. Check out my blog for evidence of my fanatic rationalism! - http://danedgeofreason.blogspot.com/

[Mike11]

Dan's right.

You walk into a place for people who like calling themselves the "Proud Defender of Saint Ayn and Holy Objectivism", you get cultist idiots.

What did you expect?

There is no intelligence there, just posturing egomaniacs.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dan,

I just took a look at your blog and was pleased to see how it has grown. I just skimmed, so I can't really say anything specific. (I will go back later and read a couple of things that caught my eye.)

But what brought me a smile was the entry on your marriage. Kelly looks like a marvelous person and you both look so happy together. May you both find deep joy and eternal connection in each other. I wish you both the very best life has to offer.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Dan's right.

You walk into a place for people who like calling themselves the "Proud Defender of Saint Ayn and Holy Objectivism", you get cultist idiots.

What did you expect?

There is no intelligence there, just posturing egomaniacs.

I just looked at Dan's last year of posting here and I don't see any egomania.

Dan, the guy in front of the tank in 1989 was IDed and sent to prison. I don't have a record of his name or know what subsequently happened to him.

--Brant

Edited June 4, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

Thank you for the anecdote. I am glad to see that Rand thought that way.

So what if she was a bit inconsistent in her statements at other times about this? We all do that on off days. (But I still find those off day statements somewhat jarring.)

Michael

[dan_edge]

Brant,

I read that there have been conflicting reports about the Unknown Rebel, and that it hasn't been confirmed what happened to him. But I think I got that info from Wikipedia, so take that for what it's worth.

Joel,

Your denunciations only feed my fanaticism. Huzzah! :super:

--Dan Edge

[Dragonfly]

I can't speak for the Moderators at Objectivism Online, but I don't blame them for banning you. Of the 3 initial posts you made on Objectivism Online, all were criticisms of Rand.

Ooh, imagine posting criticisms of Rand on OO, scandalous!

But wait, let's have a closer look first. The first post was only a comment on a thread started by Greebo, which referred to Jonathan's comment on ARCHN (which BTW didn't contain any explicit criticism of Rand, only a literal quote from Rand herself). In that comment on OO Jonathan gave only factual information, without any criticism, it was just a clarification of the context of the quote in the post by Greebo.

Now Jonathan's second post might be seen as critical of Rand. But it is ludicrous to call it "Rand bashing", he expressed his disagreements with her statements very politely and reasonably. Apparently any remark that might be found to be critical of a particular viewpoint of Rand is a big taboo on OO.

Jonathan's third post (that Rand probably would have dismissed Rockwell's art as naturalism or as illlustration) didn't contain any explicit criticism of Rand either.

Therefore the accusation that Jonathan's 3 posts on OO were criticisms of Rand is completely unwarranted, let alone that they contained any "Rand bashing".

It appeared that your only purpose in commenting on their forum was to bash Rand, goad others that you have predetermined to be rationalistic Rand-worshippers, then stomp off afterwards, decrying the injustice of your banishment. Based on your comments here, I'd say that the Objectivism Online Moderators were spot-on in their judgment of your motives.

That is typical Objectivist psychologizing, never mind the actual arguments, they just know that Jonathan had evil intentions. And the fact that Jonathan is pissed off by the completely unreasonable banishment by the OO moderator is used as an argument that the banishment was justified. That must be Objectivist logic...

[william.scherk]

I recently began visiting ObjectivismOnline.net, and on May 20th I signed up after seeing that my quoting of Rand's views on the handicapped and their kneeling buses had been brought up.

Today I checked in and saw that WSS had posted some thoughts, so I replied:

I am one of those who found the Rand comments on the handicapped to be troubling.

What I found the most troubling was that Rand's comment on "kneeling buses" implies that she was including the physically handicapped among those she believed presented too much of a tragic spectacle for children to deal with. She seemed to be saying that even a child with a brilliant mind should "not be allowed to come near children" if physically disabled enough to require special transportation assistance.

I don't think it's unreasonable for Rand, or anyone else, to question and weigh the benefits and hazards of mainstreaming the severely mentally handicapped, but her comment about kneeling buses comes across as placing her aesthetic concerns above the intellectual development of those who happened to have been born with problems that have nothing to do with their ability to be learn. It sounds as if she was saying that children who are confined to wheelchairs, or are otherwise physically disabled, are monsters who interfere with her ideal concept of "man," and whose presence could be so psychologically disturbing as to cause severe mental and emotional damage in children who are not physically disabled (they "cannot deal" with it)

Up until the last sentence, there is nothing in your comments to warrant moderation, to my mind. Dan Edge has looked deeply into your soul, however, and I think the moderators at OO also have second sight. So your complaints about being banned are just the anguish of a Rand-diminisher who has been uncloaked!

Seriously, OO has a fairly tight set of rules, including "This forum will not tolerate rude or insulting comments about Ayn Rand, her philosophy of Objectivism, the Ayn Rand Institute, the representatives and supporters of the Institute, or the adherents of the philosophy."

Over at SOLO, in the interminable thread on PARC, chapter 4, discussion has lurched into the presumed openness there, with a side track into varied personages who have departed for one reason or another. I am being gnashed at for bringing up the SOLO party line as laid down by the Emperor.

It's funny to compare the varied lists for their in/out group fastidiousness, and for the tone and range of discussion. I find OO posters perhaps unconsciously reproduce a waspish tone. The Rand and the Handicapped thread is patrolled, as all threads there are patrolled, by an assiduous attention to the mythos of Rand.

[Mike11]

At the risk of being thought of in an even worse light I am happy to post from my --

OO.Net Quotes List!

That's right! We at JMD Industries, a subsidiary of TrollCorp , have compiled a list which illustrate the evasion, malice, elitism, war mongering, and Galt C&*# worship that is OO.Net.

In no particular order -

1)

You are just here to argue with those who sympathize with Objectivist views on foreign policy.

In this post OO.Net foreign affairs juggernaut "DarkWaters" soundly defeats prominent internet Objectivist "MyNameIsVlad" (whose real name may shock and amaze you) through insinuating everything and nothing - rather like the media attack on Rearden Steal, wouldn't you say?

2)

The following light bathroom humor I made up.

Why do you choose to focus on such things?

Ayn Rand portrayed the ideal man in the leading characters of her novels. Howard Roark, John Galt, and Dagny Taggart are examples.

Do you believe that an ideal man would spend time in his life creating "bathroom humor"? If so, why?

If not, then why do you? Or do you see a flaw in Ayn Rand's philosophy that led her to portray ideal men the way she did?

This post, written by that great Rand Roid "Burgess Laughlin" has it all. The worship of Rand's 1 dimensional cut-outs as perfect role models, the fact that someone disagrees in some trivial way with these cut outs and last, but sweetest, the veiled implication of the possibility of disagreement with Rand - one last chance to save oneself through confession.... or else.

3)

One of my favoritist Objectivists in the whole wide world, a douche bag named "Inspector" deserves a whole section but I'm only going to provide one quote from his profile and one from a thread.

On his profile Inspector proudly proclaims -

I consider myself an Objectivist; That is, I have personally evaluated Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand and, to my knowledge, I agree with it completely.

Here is a list of books on Objectivism that I have read:

Altas Shrugged

The Fountainhead

Anthem

We the Living

For the New Intellectual

Philosophy: Who needs it

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

The Virtue of Selfishness

Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

The Romantic Manifesto

The Voice of Reason

Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand

The Ominous Parallels

The Ayn Rand Lexicon

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

The Capitalist Manifesto

The Art of Nonfiction

That,my friends, is a Loyalty oath to end all loyalty oaths. Why do I say loyalty oath and not just an innocent list of his Roidian credentials? Because he needs the argument from authority at all times. Here is a partial example of his stool pigeon/cry baby mentality, mixed with a little ignorance replying to the claim that Greece ruled not because of superior philosophy (Egadz!) but this insignificant thing called metal working -

I think this well sums up your position. It certainly explains why you don't agree that Greece was the greatest ancient civilization. It is, of course, a complete rejection of the Objectivist theory of history. I disagree with you, and agree with the Objectivist theory of history.

...

Luckily for me, the rules of the board specify that nobody is allowed to use this board to advocate anti-Objectivist positions.

In many ways Inspector is the previous DarkWaters quote writ large - hiding behind "sympathy" for the "Objectivist views" (which, thank you ARI, now encompasses a wide array of stupid), appealing to the board authority (you can see him pissing himself over someone being "anti-objectivist" here), and being a generally uneducated loud mouth idiot.

[BAMF]

The mods (and some posters) on OO.net can be harsh, that's true. (I actually don't know how I've yet to be banned myself). Even so, I think it's a bit childish to run off to another forum complaining about it. Who gives a shit? So you got banned, and obviously you don't think that place is worth your time, so why not leave it at that?

At first glance it may not seem like it, but there are PLENTY of wonderful people over there on OO.net.

J, if you want a more friendly tone, you should enter OO.net chat sometime.

EDIT: Joel, way to pick the biggest jerks on the board. There are numerous other posters that are really kind, intelligent people, but I guess I'll leave it up to the wise ones to go look for themselves.

Nice to see you actually using your real name for once (if that is, in fact, your real name *raises eyebrow*.)

Edited June 4, 2008 by Kori

[Mike11]

The mods (and some posters) on OO.net can be harsh, that's true. (I actually don't know how I've yet to be banned myself). Even so, I think it's a bit childish to run off to another forum complaining about it. Who gives a shit? So you got banned, and obviously you don't think that place is worth your time, so why not leave it at that?

At first glance it may not seem like it, but there are PLENTY of wonderful people over there on OO.net.

J, if you want a more friendly tone, you should enter OO.net chat sometime.

Yes, like Dwayne, and Kane!

No, seriously there are some good ones. The forum itself however is absolute crap from beginning to end.

[BAMF]

^I'd have to agree with you most on that point. The forum is pretty hostile from what I can gather. I don't visit it very often anymore.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I suppose I have to say something to avoid any misunderstanding. Well, here it is.

Each person is stating his own thoughts, not any group policies or attitudes.

As for myself, I hardly think about OO. They do their thing and they are up front about it. From what little I have read, I am not much interested in their approach.

I wish them well from a distance.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

I suppose I have to say something to avoid any misunderstanding. Well, here it is.

Each person is stating his own thoughts, not any group policies or attitudes.

As for myself, I hardly think about OO. They do their thing and they are up front about it. From what little I have read, I am not much interested in their approach.

I wish them well from a distance.

Michael

I got into an argument there with a moderator who insisted she was perfectly rational in her decision to remain morbidly obese.

I was banned in record time!

Bob

[Mike11]

...

Not wanting to attack the Roids too much for one day.

...

Edited June 4, 2008 by Joel Mac Donald

[Mike11]

The mods (and some posters) on OO.net can be harsh, that's true. (I actually don't know how I've yet to be banned myself). Even so, I think it's a bit childish to run off to another forum complaining about it. Who gives a shit? So you got banned, and obviously you don't think that place is worth your time, so why not leave it at that?

At first glance it may not seem like it, but there are PLENTY of wonderful people over there on OO.net.

J, if you want a more friendly tone, you should enter OO.net chat sometime.

EDIT: Joel, way to pick the biggest jerks on the board. There are numerous other posters that are really kind, intelligent people, but I guess I'll leave it up to the wise ones to go look for themselves.

Nice to see you actually using your real name for once (if that is, in fact, your real name *raises eyebrow*.)

There are good posters, this is true. West, Aleph, Athena, Moose, Moebius, Sophia, John McVey, Mammon, a few others. But they tend not to dominate the discussions, except Moose who seems to have Moose-like endurance. A number of others simply left - Stephen Speicher, Free Capitalist, Alon, Ifa was gone for a while, Hal was banned for saying private roads make no sense, and others. Many can be found on 4aynrandfans.com which has itself similarly faced major issues after an exciting founding. The mods tend toward the extreme, the idiots will put up an endless string of nonsense that gives them the final word as well as the bulk of talk time and a strict Rand Worship is in effect.

In such an environment the knowledgeable are always on the defensive against the ignorant, the benevolent against the hateful, the unorthodox against the Roid majority.

I freely admit of course to not belonging in either group. My last few months there were spent getting others to leave. I was a smart as the good posters but as annoying as Kane, on crack. I thought of it like a drug avoidance program, "Don't by crack off them, look at me!" Its not Objectivist, sure, it wasn't even dignified but I counted some success.

Me and another guy did that. He's still at it, I burned out. Have they figured out who maintains the ED Randroid page yet? Maybe a certain person from .... ?

Anyway, yes, this IS my real name.

Edited June 4, 2008 by Joel Mac Donald

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, Rand must have changed her view of what children should be allowed to see and to know about. Sometime in the early 1950s, I visited my home town and I spent time with a four-year-old nephew. On a drive, we passed a mental institution, (then called an "insane asylum") and he asked what the place was. My instant reaction was that I didn't want him to know about the phenomenon of mental illness, that it might frighten him, and so, to protect him, I passed off his question with something innocuous.

But I wasn't comfortable with my response, and when I was back in Los Angeles, I mentioned the incident to Rand. She said -- and she was quite right -- that I had made a mistake in not answering the boy truthfully. She said that children should not be shielded from reality, and that if he was old enough to ask the question, he was old enough to receive a truthful answer (which, of course, didn't have to be put in terrifying terms).

I realize this isn't quite the same as a physical deformity, but, remembering the conversation, I'm certain Rand's answer in the latter case would have been the same -- that is, that children should not be shielded from reality. This doesn't mean that we ought to take four-year-olds to hospital operating rooms to witness surgery; but it does mean that we should be truthful with them, not attempt to hide facts from them, and not pretend that reality is always pretty. Besides, children tend to be realists, and are much more resilient and much more accepting of facts -- pleasant and unpleasant -- than many adults give them credit for.

Barbara

Thanks for your post, Barbara. When I read it, I was thinking, "Now that sounds like the Rand that I've always admired."

J

Edited June 5, 2008 by Jonathan