The OL "tribe" and the Tribal Mindset

[Brant Gaede]

Ellen, it's important that you consult with several eye doctors.

Diabetes?

--Brant

No. Slow onset macular degeneration.

Thanks for the good advice. I've already followed it.

Ellen

Might be a zinc deficiency then.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Stuttle,

Actually, my comments are more than a psychological profile. They are identifications of patterns of your behavior. (Still, psychology-wise, nothing from you about vanity? Heh...)

That's a "have you stopped beating your wife?" kind of poser, Michael.

Stuttle,

No it isn't. There's no trick involved.

It's very easy to say, "You are wrong. I am not vain."

Where's the trick poser (or trick question/problem for us lowbrows) in that? Here's the answer. There isn't any.

It's merely the psychological part of your oversimplified term, "psychological profile." I noticed that you did not address the true psychological part (vanity as your motive), but instead focused on the pattern of behavior part, yet called the whole shebang psychological. I found that glitch odd in someone of your obvious intellectual superiority.

John Dailey would probably agree with your opinion.

His post you quote -- I'm amused to notice -- was addressed to Robert Campbell.

Re Mindy's getting quite wrong what I was saying, the curious, if there are any, might want to read Brant's response to her, and mine titled "How the hell, Mindy?" -- link to the latter.

Mindy stopped posting at that time. Her reply to Brant, shortly after the post you linked, might have been her last to date on SOLO.

I gather from your insinuation that you are so innately superior to these befuddled human creatures that their observations are worthless...

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Well, you can say one thing for her, she just doesn't seem to ever quit.

I remember, many, many years ago, when I was first writing on the boards, getting an email from her. I guess at that time it was good to hear from anyone, because mostly they were all self-consumed pricks. It was a nice letter, sort of inquisitive, as I recall.

I never kept up the correspondence with her, and that is either my own fault, or choice. Maybe it was in fact choice by then; I had early in learned that by and large (at least at that time, and, from what I see today to be still extant) that it was toxic for a man to engage with anyone in the movement.

And that has always been my problem. In fact, I find it problematic, generally, with "the movement," although new folks have come on the scene that afforded relief.

She persists, but I see no heart to it, only the same anal detail to circling petty details that were always there in the first place.

It makes me wonder what she would do it she lost her Internet connection. What purpose would she find? How would she occupy herself?

The Hell of it is that it still works, case-in-point being how many posts this one here alone generated. Weird social metaphysics. Weird trying-to-figure-out why she, and others that have so long been around this thing do what they do.

Tiresome, yet perplexing enough to bring even those that have come into, through experiences like mine, understanding of how it works with these ones.

Clearly, a tiresome battle. A purposeless battle, methinks.

I just wish they'd all stop doing that.

rde

Edited March 29, 2010 by Rich Engle

[Robert Campbell]

Rich,

I'm done trying to figure it out.

Robert Campbell

[Rich Engle]

Yeah, I know, Bob. Any more of this and I'm going to have to break into the ether supply.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I remember, many, many years ago, when I was first writing on the boards, getting an email from her. I guess at that time it was good to hear from anyone, because mostly they were all self-consumed pricks. It was a nice letter, sort of inquisitive, as I recall.

I never kept up the correspondence with her, and that is either my own fault, or choice. Maybe it was in fact choice by then; I had early in learned that by and large (at least at that time, and, from what I see today to be still extant) that it was toxic for a man to engage with anyone in the movement.

I think you're mixing me up with someone else.

For one thing, at the time when I first read any posts of yours "on the boards" -- Fall, 2004, on NB's discussion list -- you'd already been posting there for a long while and according to your own account of your posting history had been posting elsewhere before.

I sent you one email to which I received no answer, inquiring if you were the Rich who had been part of a group who had dinner together the day after the 1999 IOS/TOC Summer Seminar.

Some while later you sent me a note inquiring about a Jungian meeting I'd mentioned, your wife being interested by the subject, which pertained to some Native American healing rituals. I sent you a description of the talk, for which you thanked me.

I've never been "in the movement."

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

It's very easy to say, "You are wrong. I am not vain."

And if I did, what would you conclude?

Ellen

PS to Brant: I take mega-zinc in case it helps.

[Brant Gaede]

It's very easy to say, "You are wrong. I am not vain."

And if I did, what would you conclude?

Ellen

PS to Brant: I take mega-zinc in case it helps.

Just don't take too much, but I assume you researched the hell out of it.

--Brant

[Rich Engle]

Um, no, I'm not confusing you, Ellen! You pretty much reiterated what I said. As far as using "movement," fine, then I will clarify: anyone that has been hanging out on the Objectivist boards for a long time. Geez.

rde

It's a movement, alright.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And if I did, what would you conclude?

Stuttle,

Are you now trying to toy with me?

It's sooooooo amusing... (ooh ho ho... that's rich, that's rich...)

Back here in the real world, what would I conclude? Well, let's look at it. How do we conclude things, especially things about other people? What do we look at? Let's see. There's:

1. What the person says,

2. What the person does, and

3. What others say about the person.

Unthinking or busy people rely heavily on what others say about someone. We all have to up to a point because there are far too many people in the world to keep up with. But when I start suspecting that the information I am getting is flawed, and I see good innocent productive people being smeared, I start looking at the source of where the smears are coming from. I start looking at what that person says, what that person does and what other people say about that person. And I take a fresh look at that person's target.

When I discover discrepancies between what is said and what is done, I judge the deed as the better indication of character. A person bent on projecting a false image can sometimes get away from such common sense by using the big lie technique. But this doesn't work on your level with an audience the size of OL when someone like me--or some other posters--point it out.

I can't help but notice that you refuse to deal with the issue of your own vanity when it is brought up. Not even to object to the accusation. And you continue acting in a vain manner throughout all you say. That speaks volumes to me, far more than your attempted put-downs. I believe this speaks in the same manner to most of the readers, too.

Sometimes a person does not dignify an accusation with a response, like what the Brandens did against the trash Perigo and Valliant tried to smear them with. But in that case, the person also does not talk to his or her accuser. So that cannot by your case on the vanity thing. Here you are yakking it up with me.

In your defense, I hold that you have a right to your own vanity, that you can choose to be as obnoxious as you wish. and that it's your business. Not mine.

I wouldn't normally talk about it, but I have other values involved: productive people I admire and their reputation with the public who reads your crap. You want to trash them. I won't let you. And the playing field is the arena of public opinion. The audience who reads this.

The only reason I am even talking with you right now is certainly not to stroke your vanity, although I am totally aware that you take it this way. I do this because I am minimizing your attempts at toxic influence with... let's say... hints at certain unpleasantries... all with measured "vagueness" and a snobbish demeanor...

I prefer clarity. I believe readers do, too, when they can get it. Hell, many good people even read Perigo. I believe one of the reasons is that, although he's evil in his bullying and lying, but he's about as clear as you can get expression-wise. Speaking of this, I am totally amused by your following comment.

(Did I say "amused"? Wow, that felt good. It gave me a rush. I otta try more of this snob thing...)

PS on Linz's epithets: You consider such depictions as "Saddamite" and "Pomo-wanker," etc., precise? I don't.

Should you seek ever clarity on what Saddamite means, try to defend Saddam Hussein to Perigo in any manner or even imply that the USA should not have invaded Iraq. Nothing vague there. The clarity will pour over you like a bucket of shit being dumped on your head.

As to the other term, try to defend abstract art, say Jackson Pollock, to Perigo. Frankly, I know he thinks you are what he calls a pomo-wanker in some of your artistic tastes. Not all, though. He approves of some of your musical tastes and he soaks it up when you take his musical tastes and jargon (i.e., things like "value swoon") seriously.

He just won't say you're a pomo-wanker right now because he needs you to defend PARC. But if you push him, he will. Try it. You might get a surprising dose of very unvague clarity.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Um, no, I'm not confusing you, Ellen! You pretty much reiterated what I said.

Rich,

Stuttle has been doing a lot of this recently. She will repeat what someone says with different words as if she is correcting that person.

It's a really weird habit. It makes her seem disoriented.

(If I detect that this is from illness, I will back off.)

Michael

[Rich Engle]

MSK,

Yeah. I was expecting it. I mean, what I said was more than close enough for where it was put. The next thing you know, I'd end up being asked whether 5 years constitutes "many," or some such poo-poo. I remembered it close enough. And the heck of it is I was saying I recalled the exchange as being pretty nice. Not so much of that going anymore, it appears.

r

[Robert Campbell]

Not so much of that going anymore, it appears.

Nope.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just when I think the evil of the spiteful tribal mindset in the Objectivist subcommunity has been amply illustrated by the monkeyshines on SLOP, Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo manages to outdo himself.

Before I get to it, though, first here are some thoughts.

Let's get the cavaet out of the way. Not all tribal thinking is spiteful. I am only addressing the spiteful kind, especially the spiteful kind sometimes seen in the Objectivist subcommunity.

Now for the meat. One of the main differences between a tribalist and a person who thinks for himself is in their respective attitudes toward other people's thinking.

The tribalist does not trust other people to think for themselves and come to rational conclusions, or at least conclusions that agree with his. He tries to bully people, intimidate them, lie to them, present weird rationalizations to cover up unpleasant obvious facts, etc. He basically tries to control others. And if he can't get agreement, he seeks to silence people and get a passive attitude from them (cowing from being bullied). If they won't jump on board, the bully thinks at least they should not make waves.

The person who thinks for himself will present his best case to other people, but once it is presented, it becomes hands off. The reader gets to decide what to do with it in the reader's own mind from that point on. I'm not talking about further discussion, even engaging in passionate disagreement. I'm talking about the author name-calling, drumming up peer-pressure and a whole range of dirty tricks to get the reader silenced and compliant. The independent thinker doesn't do that and doesn't condone it. He seeks persuasion, not obedience.

But the tribalist's attitude and will to control others cuts deeper, and that's what the new example on SLOP illustrates so well.

There is something down at the bottom in human nature that seeks to identify enemies so that the fight-flight hormones can be triggered. It's a survival mechanism and well documented in science. Vicious tribalists know this, even without the science. They use it. That's what scapegoating is all about. If they can get people to agree on a common enemy, they can ramp up the emotional charge by a variety of dirty tricks until they have an outright lynch mob hellbent on murder. A crowd of people with their minds emotionally hijacked by their brain stem--called the reptilian brain--is not a pleasant sight to behold. These people will end up doing violence--actual violence--irrespective of any philosophy they may hold.

So how do you get people lathered up like that? One of the dirty tricks is to keep repeating the same old charges agaisnt a scapegoat, regardless of how often they have been clarified, refuted, or whatever. Keep repeating the poison over and over. It doesn't have to be rational.

Drip. Drip. Drip. Drip. Drip.

To cite an old saying, "The drop wears down the stone, not by strength, but by constant falling."

The brain stem is not conceptual, although it receives messages in "brain-speak" from the neo-cortex (the conceptual part).

So what if you are dripping spiteful messages on the reptilian brain that way? Dripping them on to the neo-cortex, which then drips them in "brain-speak" on to the fight-flight mechanism?

If a person has accepted--on the surface--that a scapegoat is a true enemy, but if the person is generally rational and there is no real risk involved, he concludes that the alleged enemy presents no risk. He may dislike the scapegoat, but after that registers, he does not feel much one way or another. Thus any denunciations, warnings, etc., from others about the scapegoat stay in his neo-cortex and don't go down to the brain stem all that much.

But constant dripping actually does push messages of hatred and fear down from the neo-cortex. And once a person is softened up, meaning that his reptilian brain senses a threat from the scapegoat but is being held in check, the person is ripe to be set off on a rampage by a trigger that releases the fear and hatred for expression and action.

There are several ways to trigger this response, but one way is really vile. It is to put a new spin on an old drip. And here we get to the actual example I mentioned.

Let's start with Stuttle, the spinner. She recently did some logic twisting and speculating that trumps even Valliant's boneheaded blather. She pushed spin to the limit and I can hear the tires screeching. Rubber is burning...

Here's the issue. When Rand announced the break with the Brandens in "To Whom It May Concern," Rand made some serious accusations based on some quite vague abstractions. The Brandens countered with their own defenses and made their own accusations.

One of the ugliest parts was that Rand did not say that she had been having an affair with NB. NB ended his part as follows:

... Miss Rand has given me the right to name that which I infinitely would have preferred to leave unnamed, out of respect for her privacy. I am obliged to report what was in that written paper of mine, in the name of justice and of self-defense.

That written statement was an effort, not to terminate my relationship with Miss Rand, but to save it, in some mutually acceptable form.

It was a tortured, awkward, excruciatingly embarrassed attempt to make clear to her why I felt that an age distance between us of twenty-five years constituted an insuperable barrier, for me, to a romantic relationship.

Here's Stuttle's new spin. She thinks that if NB had stated clearly that he and Rand were having a sexual relationship, Rand would not have been seen in the world at large as a cougar.

Wouldn't it be nice if the tribalists could control other people's perception of their gods that easily? But let's leave aside the surface desire to control the minds of others that honks through Stuttle's weird assertion. To make sure I am not exaggerating, here's what she wrote (from here):

Suppose that he [NB] had written the final phrase with either of the bracketed insertions thus:

"...why I felt that an age distance between us of twenty-five years constituted an insuperable barrier, for me, to [the continuance of] a romantic relationship."

alternately:

"...to [the resumption of] a romantic relationship."

The picture of Rand's behavior would have been altered to having a plausibly reasonable basis instead of making her look like a foolish old woman "coming on" with unwelcome advances to a much younger man and then breaking with him when the advances were rebuffed.

The fact that Rand was, in reality, a cougar coming on with unwelcome advances to a younger man--hell, with unwelcome demands--is kinda brushed aside. Whether an affair had been going on or not, her advances were unwelcome by NB at that point. And she wrote a bunch of stuff published in PARC for the precise purpose of trying to find out why they were unwelcome.

I really don't know how people in the Objectivist world thought back then. I have a pretty good idea about the fundies from their words and behavior ever since (i.e., "NB is the source of all evil, Barbara is the devil's assistant, and Rand was a victim of their evil"). As to the others, I can only go by my own thinking and that of a few people I know and have read. Not one of them I know of considered Rand a "foolish old woman." Neither did I (nor do I). Rand's enemies, of course did and do. But they think she was foolish irrespective of anything she said or did.

I also imagine that, back then, many people came to a much different conclusion that what Stuttle said. Given the way NB framed it, "an age distance between us of twenty-five years constituted an insuperable barrier, for me, to a romantic relationship," and given Rand's well known thin skin and overkill when disagreed with, and given Rand's propensity to find hidden meanings in unusual events and statements, I can easily see many people thinking this was an abstract thought-experiment gone wrong. I can easily see myself thinking that back then.

And then there is the fact that Rand's affair with NB has been public knowledge for decades, so people have known for a fact--for decades--that she was a cougar.

Well, so much for the merits of Stuttle's weird assertion. Now on to the trigger.

What's the drip here? Try this: The Brandens are to blame for the poor opinion the public has of Rand's affair with NB. And this: Rand was an innocent victim of evil NB.

This has been dripping for years. PARC triggered a splash for a while, since it appeared to put a new spin on the old drip. But that has pretty much dried up since PARC had been so thoroughly discredited through the exposure of shoddy scholarship and boneheaded logic.

But the original drip goes on from vicious tribalists. In conversations. In emails. In online posts. In articles.

Drip, drip, drip, drip, drip.

Now Stuttle's spin: Evil old NB further victimized Rand by not revealing the affair when she did not reveal it. That proves the Brandens are to blame for the poor opinion the public has of Rand's affair with NB.

Uh oh...

That was a good spin. Explosion time.

Here comes the reptillian brain, almost immediately afterward:

I don't know...

... what's so hard or undesirable about calling Branden what he is: a psychopath and a skunk. Of course he deliberately created the wrong impression about The Affair, alluding to something he was honor-bound to keep secret while making it sound like a case of a dirty predatory old woman coming on to him. This "dirty old woman" whom he'd been having an affair with for years and assured repeatedly that he'd fancy her at any age come what may. This "dirty old woman" from whom he sought and by whom he was granted endless therapy about his phony "sex problem." Dirty rotten lying bastard. Soul of a rapist indeed. I doubt that he ever loved Rand at all. I doubt that he's capable of love. I think he knew exactly what he was doing in the back of that car, and there was not an ounce of sincerity in any of it. The creature is charmingly, chillingly amoral. It took Rand 13 years to realise it. That's a worry!

That, I submit, is the real purpose of PARC.

To elicit that reaction.

And to elicit that kind of explosion in a mob.

Since PARC fizzled, Stuttle is stepping up to the plate.

Spin some spiteful drip and things go boom.

That doesn't really work well anymore with mobs about the Brandens, but Stuttle got Perigo to go boom. I wonder if she sees that as an encouraging sign.

And I wonder if Perigo has any notion that he has been manipulated. I doubt it since he lusts about trying to do that to others. Often a person hellbent on doing evil to others is oblivious to when it is done to him.

Anyway, folks. That's one of the dangers in the tribal mindset. Spin some spiteful drip and the tribe goes boom.

I could not find a better illustration even if I looked for it on the rest of SLOP.

Now think about this.

The drip-spin-boom trick doesn't work on a person who truly thinks for himself--who holds a true independent volition. So is it any wonder that a tribalist--underneath it all--does not want you to think for yourself?

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Even Ms. Stuttle must have realized how deathly afraid Ayn Rand was of any public revelation of her affair with Nathaniel Branden.

But how can a dose of sober realism compare to the illicit thrill of drip-spin-boom?

Robert Campbell

[Jonathan]

Even Ms. Stuttle must have realized how deathly afraid Ayn Rand was of any public revelation of her affair with Nathaniel Branden.

If Rand had felt that Branden's statement was unfair, and that it gave people the false impression that she had been a foolish old woman who had made unwelcome advances toward a younger man, she could have responded just as publicly as she had made her initial accusations against Branden. She had plenty of time and opportunities to set the record straight.

So I agree with Robert that Rand was probably terrified of what the public reaction would have been. I think Branden's phrasing of his statement was a bit of a pulled punch. It gave Rand a little smack upside the head, and it was a taste of the much bigger smacking which was to come if she wanted a war, but also left her with the choice of whether or not she wanted it. I think she felt that it was safer to remain silent and pretend that she was not dignifying Branden's statement with a response. Being seen as a possible flirt was better than admitting that she had actually bedded a younger, married man over a period of years.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a "KASS" quote by a former US President showing what is at the root in a tribal mindset. And it fits the Objectivist personality cult subculture to a tee. As the SLOP motto goes, "To thine own self be true."

From President Lyndon Baines Johnson on discussing a prospective assistant. As quoted by David Halberstam in The Best and the Brightest. (Given in the Google books version of The Oxford dictionary of quotations here.)

I don't want loyalty. I want loyalty. I want him to kiss my ass in Macy's window at high noon and tell me it smells like roses. I want his pecker in my pocket.

For these folks, A is not just A. A better be a goddam loyal A or it is not A at all.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't agree with or sanction the censorship behind the following thread that I just saw on Solo Passion:

First They Came for the Objectivists ...

From that thread:

I just had a Skype call from young Kasper from an internet kiosk at Melbourne Airport. He told me he tried to log on to SOLO but was denied access because, said the message on the screen, SOLO is "an extremist site." At first I laughed my tits off. Then the implications sank in...

As it should.

If you run a hate site and publicly preach things like murder, you will get the attention of government authorities almost anywhere on earth. Cause and effect.

I personally judge Lindsay Perigo to be a liar and a hater (practicing a "hate qua hate" form of bigotry), but I stand for his right to spew his bile and nonsense on his own site. It is accessed voluntarily and people can read that crap if they want to. They can also click off the site voluntarily if they want to.

I also believe that kind of site is useful. Identifying the crap on it like bigotry preached in the name of Objectivism, how bullying can be disguised by principles, etc., and discrediting it is a form of mental exercise. It helps keep the moral muscle in tone.

I know why authorities keep an eye on hate sites, though. All you need is one loon to take the hate stuff seriously and the world goes boom somewhere.

So I really don't like it when murder is preached on Solo Passion, especially seeing how they do it in the name of Objectivism and I inhabit that subcommunity. But I dislike government censorship even more.

What's the choice? How do you choose what to support? I only see two choices here and both are bad:

1. The possibility of some deranged person reading deranged rhetoric--like some of the stuff on SLOP--and using this as his/her basis to kill innocent people, or

2. Government censorship, which always--in the end--results in some politicians sending innocent people to their deaths.

That's a hell of a choice.

But I'll take my chances with the nutcases (and do what I can to discredit them). At least there's not enough of them--and they are not organized enough--to wage wars.

On the positive side, Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo now has his dream fulfilled. He has always wanted to be a martyr to show everyone what rotten bastards they are. Everyone but him, of course. (Like I said, promoting hatred as a value in itself, i.e., hate qua hate). Well, maybe here's his chance.

Despite the revulsion and contempt I hold of Perigo, and my rejection of his practice of hatred as a form of enjoyment, I support his right to free speech.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Despite the revulsion and contempt I hold of Perigo, and my rejection of his practice of hatred as a form of enjoyment, I support his right to free speech.

Now hang on, are we sure this is government censorship, not a private restriction like you would have on pornography? I’ve seen the free internet areas at airports, they’re worried people will be pulling up porn sites in public places, with children around, and they don’t want liability. From there to forbidding access to hate sites is but a step. Like sites where the owner calls for the assassination of the US President. Based on their Alexa ranking in Australia, SLOP can’t be banned outright there.

I bet this is only Jabba trying to get attention. Hardly anyone posts there. He's a laughingstock. And so ronery.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[Robert Campbell]

Lindsay Perigo does seem to be awfurry ronery these days.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Now hang on, are we sure this is government censorship, not a private restriction like you would have on pornography?

Dennis,

One guy over there posted this Wikipedia link (without the title): Internet censorship in Australia

The block did happen in Melbourne.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

One guy over there posted this Wikipedia link (without the title): Internet censorship in Australia

Australia does seem to be on the bleeding edge of internet censorship, but I still don’t see how SLOP could be banned there and still have those Alexa ratings. It’s more likely SLOP has found it’s way onto a private filter list, that private companies are using to keep the internet activity at the airport from becoming something actionable. I said before I wouldn't be surprised if Jabba was denied entry to the US because of his Obama/Mussolini execution ravings.

[william.scherk]

I have been reading OL a fair bit lately, but using most of my internet time to schmooze and socialize in the Vancouver underground scene. Though OLers who follow Schismatics (tribal affairs) might be interested in the discussion taking place at The Other Place under the rubric "Quote of the Day: Honor!"

Against my better judgement I entered discussion on my bugaboo (Objectivish obfuscations of and issues congealing around 'Altruism'). I was not surprised by the aphasic responses of the direly stupid and bitter, but was pleasantly surprised by Lindsay Perigo's note to discussants that they try to understand each other, and that they put their invective back in the pot for a while. Your mileage may vary (and you may agree with my erstwhile opponents on the topics I got all lathered up about) . . .

As for this bit, I should note that the "Extremist Site" blocking is done according to a list derived automatically. The Greyhound contract for internet machines 'protects' consumers from any expression of opinions that include certain key-words. One can only imagine how many key-words went klang! on their servers.

As for the Australian impetus, the reaction against the looming strictures will come from across the board, and be loudest from the left-extremists themselves (in America, similar rumblings about 'licensing' bloggers has met with a Wall Of Derision form the usual suspects on the hard left (Atrios, Markos, Josh, etc.) It is as if the Ladies Temperance Union has erupted from the dungheap of history once again.

I don't foresee any actual implementation of the Pearl-Clutcher's Plans To Make The Internets Nice.

Best regards to my OL Frenz !! If you ever wonder what I do when I am not imitating a gadfly on Objectivish forums, see my Facebook page (Bill Scherk).

One guy over there posted this Wikipedia link (without the title): Internet censorship in Australia

Australia does seem to be on the bleeding edge of internet censorship, but I still don’t see how SLOP could be banned there and still have those Alexa ratings. It’s more likely SLOP has found it’s way onto a private filter list, that private companies are using to keep the internet activity at the airport from becoming something actionable. I said before I wouldn't be surprised if Jabba was denied entry to the US because of his Obama/Mussolini execution ravings.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

Q: What were the worst 6 years in Perigo's life?

A: 3rd grade.

(I know the educational system is different than "grades" in NZ, but there it is anyway...)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I know the following does not deal directly with SLOP, but it certainly deals with the tribal mindset. And it also deals with James Valliant as a pretty telling example of the fundy tribal mindset.

There is a dude named Jeff Smith who has an account on Facebook and is interested in Objectivism. I don't know this guy, but he seems nice enough. I looked on his profile and it appears he lives in Chicago, so that's near.

Anyway and apparently, he inadvertently stepped on a land mine--I suspect partially due to Facebook's automatic social prompting mechanisms (which is basically based on keywords). But he might have tried to see what would happen by contacting Objectivists without taking schisms into account. I don't know exactly what happened, but on July 24, 2010, he posted a message called: Open letter to Objectivists on FB ...

Here's the first paragraph, which is pretty self-explanatory:

After receiving several emails (ultimatums) from individual Objectivists who have expressed their need to delete me, if I was unwilling to delete certain other individual Objectivists from my FaceBook Friends list ... I felt it necessary to post this open letter ...

And guess who popped out of the wormhole in the comments?

James Valliant.

He is just as boneheaded as always. I can't even read his writing with my normal attention--I have to skim it. In this go-around I saw the same old stuff, that words don't really mean what they mean, but instead the mean some boneheaded hairsplitting clunky meaning that (somehow) insinuates his tired old agenda. And, of course, congratulating himself on having written the Branden-bashing PARC. And that his brand of moral judgment is necessary for all humans for something or the other. And constant insinuations of what the reader thinks--with no way in hell of knowing--and sounding all wrong anyway.

At the time of this posting, there are 82 comments to Smith's open letter. I became interested because Ed Hudgins posted a lot on that thread. (He's the one who alerted me to this thing.) It's a hoot seeing him and Valliant in the same place--him making sense, standing up for good people like David Kelley, the Brandens, the Enrights, Chris Sciabarra, etc.,and promoting the idea of living a rational life, and Valliant trying to take potshots at anyone he can all over the place.

In order to provide a better understanding to OL readers, I tried to read the entire thread, but it was weird. Then I came across the following by Ed:

Since Flitton flew this discussion along with his comments, I'll provide a quick summary for anyone who's curious and, more important, anyone who thinks all Objectivists are nuts. Flitton posted here that as an Objectivist he's happy to fri...end almost anyone except for anyone who is friend with or has any dealing at all with "enemies of Ayn Rand, ARI, and Objectivism," which includes Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, David Kelley (of The Atlas Society), Chris Sciabarra (editor of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies), and the John and Marsha Enright (one of the finest couples I know).

When I pointed out how incorrect it is to call these folks "enemies," he added me to what I consider a list of honor and declaring all of us "scum."

I thank Jeff, Anja, and the others on this thread who have shown that such utterly irrational and malicious behavior in the name of a philosophy of reason and benevolence is contrary to the philosophy but, sadly, still found among some of its self-styled adherents.

Friend or defriend who you want. But always be true to objective reality, honest in your pursuit or truth, and free from any ideology that calls upon you to distort and disregard!

So that's what happened. The conversation got butchered because the snarky dude picked up his marbles and went home, then Facebook's automatic program kicked in.

I came across a point of comedy. OL got a mention by Valliant. He claimed that somehow the dishonesty of some OL members has been "established repeatedly" on SLOP.

Heh.

But the laughing out loud moment was this:

In any case, Mr. Hudgins scholarship is as shoddy as that which he recommends.

This coming from James Valliant!

The king of scholarship shoddiness!

Dayaamm!

From looking at his writing (and actually proven on SLOP of all places), this dude couldn't quote a book correctly if he had to save his life by doing so, much less get other facts right. Anyone can read the threads there or here. It's online and easily accessible for all to see. PARC managed to contain more errors of scholarship than any other single book I know of.

At least Valliant is posting on Facebook under his own name instead of trolling under a pseudonym like he did on Wikipedia.

You know, skimming over all that stuff made me really, really glad that I don't have any of the snarky fundies around me. From what I have read (not just here, but elsewhere, too), I don't like them as people, I don't trust them, I would not want my kids around them, and I definitely don't belong to their tribe.

I speak of the sanctimonious pompous mediocre jerks, not all people on the ARI side. I guess I have a thing about sanctimonious pompous mediocre jerks...

But what the hell.

I say, let them have their tribe. They are God's children, too...

(Yeah... I guess I am a smart-ass... )

Michael