News: Goddess of the Market by Jennifer Burns

[Selene]

Perigo claims that I have been sending him my OL posts on Valliant. I think I sent him all of one. Since by "flouncing" he means "departing in a huff," I don't see how he can claim I flounced. There was no huff involved.

-Neil Parille

Could someone please post a picture of a huff. People are alway being described as departing in a huff. Is a huff suitable for a family or only one person. Please enlighten me.

We can start with this:

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/wda0919l.jpg

I prefer this:

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/getty/headshot/H/U/F/HUF311466.jpg

Adam

NY Giants fanatic!!

[merjet]

Could someone please post a picture of a huff. People are alway being described as departing in a huff. Is a huff suitable for a family or only one person. Please enlighten me.

Was that in jest?

huff (noun) - a condition of smoldering anger or resentment (source)

Or maybe it's a brand new, tiny GM model designed by a BO appointee.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Merlin Jetton

[Dragonfly]

It's obvious that Lindsay simply doesn't want Robert or Neil to pop up on his two symposium threads as neither has posted on SOLOP lately. Stephen Boydstun has either been banned too or asked to be de-membered for different reasons whatever they are--I'm not the least bit curious about that only it's odd considering his phlegmatic and generally intellectual disposition.

It seems Perigo only wants brown-nosers on his site, despite all the rhetoric about open discussion.

Anyway, Burns is explicit enough about the Brandens' memoirs in her reply (emphasis added):

I don’t agree that because these books have their limitations, they are irredeemably damaged as sources of information about Rand. Indeed, one of the benefits of working in the Ayn Rand Archives was that I was able to, as Valliant suggests, corroborate much of their description of Rand and their relationship with her. If my research had revealed a personality or series of events profoundly different than what the Brandens described, I would have said so: it did not.

So despite all the weaselly and evasive talk about side issues, the essential point remains that Burns explicitly rejects Valliant's central thesis of his book, namely that the "Brandens'" memoirs give an unreliable picture of Rand, let alone that these would be deliberately misleading. Of course that part of Burns' reply is not discussed on SOLO, as it implies a crushing defeat of Valliant, which would be rather embarrassing. The silence is deafening...

[Philip Coates]

Subject: A Classy Discussion, No Matter Who You Agree With

I was pleasantly surprised to find a civil, serious, respectful debate about "Goddess of the Market" and its view of Ayn Rand.

Right now. On SoloP of all places!!!

Jim Valliant both praises and criticizes the book in an extremely long and detailed post. The author of the book, Jennifer Burns, responds to almost all his major criticisms.

What is impressive in both posts is: i) the thoroughgoing discussion of the wide range of issues and ii) the civility and respectful airing of disagreement with no personal attacks.

Unfortunately, there are a number of posters on this site who have been gradually slip-sliding away from this high level of discussion in regard to both i) and ii).

I'd like to request that those who want to comment on the points debated by JV and JB do so without smearing the person they disagree with or misstating their arguments. It would be ironic if SOLOP gradually were to become largely a home for thoughtful, adult debate and civility while OL continued a recent tendency toward snarky one-liners, mean-spiritedness toward opponents, and ad hominem.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Philip Coates

[jriggenbach]

Subject: A Brief Lexicon to Facilitate Reading Clarity

Subject: A Classy Discussion, No Matter Who You Agree With

I was pleasantly surprised to find a civil, serious, respectful debate about "Goddess of the Market" and its view of Ayn Rand.

Right now. On SoloP of all places!!!

Jim Valliant both praises and criticizes the book in an extremely long and detailed post. The author of the book, Jennifer Burns, responds to almost all his major criticisms.

What is impressive in both posts is: i) the thoroughgoing discussion of the wide range of issues and ii) the civility and respectful airing of disagreement with no personal attacks.

Unfortunately, there are a number of posters on this site who have been gradually slip-sliding away from this high level of discussion in regard to both i) and ii).

I'd like to request that those who want to comment on the points debated by JV and JB do so without smearing the person they disagree with or misstating their arguments. It would be ironic if SOLOP gradually were to become largely a home for thoughtful, adult debate and civility while OL continued a recent tendency toward snarky one-liners, mean-spiritedness toward opponents, and ad hominem.

"Snarky one-liners," noun phrase, plural. One-liners Phil doesn't like, usually because they point up the ludicrousness of something he insists on believing.

"Mean-spiritedness," noun phrase. A marked tendency to describe the ludicrous as ludicrous, the asinine as asinine, and the uninformed as uninformed.

"Ad hominem," Latin phrase, poorly understood by many on OL. Originally a phrase used to describe an argument of the following form: "Arguer X is an evil person; therefore what s/he argues is false or illogical." Used by Phil to refer to any statement in an argument that refers to one's opponent's ignorance of the subject matter at hand.

Helpfully,

JR

[jriggenbach]

Let me add that there is nothing more ludicrous or asinine than this recurrent obsession with "civility" and "respect" in argumentation. What exactly is it that I am supposed to "respect" about a pretentious jackass like James Valliant? His individual rights? I do respect them. His claims to have something to say that educated people might want to listen to? The claims are preposterous, ludicrous, asinine. I reject them. Why on Earth should I pretend otherwise? "Civility" is, at bottom, nothing but a codeword for pointlessly refraining from saying, straightforwardly and succinctly, what one thinks about the topic under discussion. It is a favored term among those who believe, for some strange reason, that discussions and debates should resemble the tea parties of little girls - nothing robust or hard-hitting allowed. Perhaps we should all wear gauzy tutus, crook our pinkies, and curtsy while holding these "discussions" and "debates"?

JR

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't even remember why I was banned from SoloP. It was several years ago.

Phil,

No, it wasn't several years ago. It was last year.

Helpfully...

EDIT: Oops. In trying to check by Google with wildcards, there are no posts by you indexed for 2008 and 2009. There are posts indexed for 2007. That doesn't mean no posts were made later, only that if they were, Google didn't index them. But since Google indexes most of the stuff on SLOP, I'll take that as a good indication and stand corrected.

Helpfully...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Subject: A Brief Lexicon to Facilitate Reading Clarity

Subject: A Classy Discussion, No Matter Who You Agree With

I was pleasantly surprised to find a civil, serious, respectful debate about "Goddess of the Market" and its view of Ayn Rand.

Right now. On SoloP of all places!!!

Jim Valliant both praises and criticizes the book in an extremely long and detailed post. The author of the book, Jennifer Burns, responds to almost all his major criticisms.

What is impressive in both posts is: i) the thoroughgoing discussion of the wide range of issues and ii) the civility and respectful airing of disagreement with no personal attacks.

Unfortunately, there are a number of posters on this site who have been gradually slip-sliding away from this high level of discussion in regard to both i) and ii).

I'd like to request that those who want to comment on the points debated by JV and JB do so without smearing the person they disagree with or misstating their arguments. It would be ironic if SOLOP gradually were to become largely a home for thoughtful, adult debate and civility while OL continued a recent tendency toward snarky one-liners, mean-spiritedness toward opponents, and ad hominem.

"Snarky one-liners," noun phrase, plural. One-liners Phil doesn't like, usually because they point up the ludicrousness of something he insists on believing.

"Mean-spiritedness," noun phrase. A marked tendency to describe the ludicrous as ludicrous, the asinine as asinine, and the uninformed as uninformed.

"Ad hominem," Latin phrase, poorly understood by many on OL. Originally a phrase used to describe an argument of the following form: "Arguer X is an evil person; therefore what s/he argues is false or illogical." Used by Phil to refer to any statement in an argument that refers to one's opponent's ignorance of the subject matter at hand.

Helpfully,

JR

The hypocrisy of Perigo in banning two people who were no longer posting on his site so they wouldn't show up and pollute his symposium threads is buttered by his disingenuousness.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Emotionalism & Dismissing In Advance

> James Valliant...claims to have something to say that educated people might want to listen to? The claims are preposterous, ludicrous, asinine. [Jeff]

But you didn't actually read the post I'm referring to, did you? So you're in no position to reject "claims" as preposterous which you are uninformed about.

Sounds as if once you have dismissed someone or cast them into outer darkness, you can thereby dismiss sight unseen the idea that he could -ever- make a post that is a good one, reform, have a sound idea.

How is that different from those you would classify as the orthodox true believers who refuse to read -anything- by those once classified as "enemies of Objectivism"?

Edited January 22, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Brant Gaede]

Subject: A Classy Discussion, No Matter Who You Agree With

I was pleasantly surprised to find a civil, serious, respectful debate about "Goddess of the Market" and its view of Ayn Rand.

Right now. On SoloP of all places!!!

Jim Valliant both praises and criticizes the book in an extremely long and detailed post. The author of the book, Jennifer Burns, responds to almost all his major criticisms.

What is impressive in both posts is: i) the thoroughgoing discussion of the wide range of issues and ii) the civility and respectful airing of disagreement with no personal attacks.

Unfortunately, there are a number of posters on this site who have been gradually slip-sliding away from this high level of discussion in regard to both i) and ii).

I'd like to request that those who want to comment on the points debated by JV and JB do so without smearing the person they disagree with or misstating their arguments. It would be ironic if SOLOP gradually were to become largely a home for thoughtful, adult debate and civility while OL continued a recent tendency toward snarky one-liners, mean-spiritedness toward opponents, and ad hominem.

Phil, this is crap. Burns is the only one over there worth reading. The only reason to read Valliant is for reading Burns. Robert and Neil are banned and WSS is "moderated." As for me, I've no intention of posting on threads predicated on an "Are you still beating your wife?" premise. It's get Barbara--that's what this PARC II is about.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

I swear I think people like you, who preach public perception to others, have no clue about what public perception is.

On the threads you discuss, there is a dude who blasted the living daylights out of Jennifer and backed it up by saying he had not even read the book. That was so ridiculous that even Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo called him to task.

But despite that, it clearly showed a tribal cultist mentality that scapegoats someone out of follow-the-leader lockstep in full bloom.

Now that's public perception.

Do you think the public is going to ignore that kind of stuff and focus only the thread openers?

How can you ignore that kind of stuff and preach about public perception? You don't even perceive what the public perceives.

Michael

[jriggenbach]

Subject: Emotionalism & Dismissing In Advance

> James Valliant...claims to have something to say that educated people might want to listen to? The claims are preposterous, ludicrous, asinine. [Jeff]

But you didn't actually read the post I'm referring to, did you? So you're in no position to reject "claims" as preposterous which you are uninformed about.

Sounds as if once you have dismissed someone or cast them into outer darkness, you can thereby dismiss sight unseen the idea that he could -ever- make a post that is a good one, reform, have a sound idea.

How is that different from those you would classify as the orthodox true believers who refuse to read -anything- by those once classified as "enemies of Objectivism"?

Yes, Phil, I read Valliant's review. I read it last night, before you ever mentioned it, along with Burns's reply. This morning, I went back to SOLO and skimmed the other posts in the two threads Perigo had by then divided the whole thing into.

I hadn't realized that you claim the ability to read minds and determine what other people have and have not read. I suggest you work on it, however; your performance still needs a bit of sharpening before you try to do it publicly.

JR

[Selene]

Subject: Emotionalism & Dismissing In Advance

> James Valliant...claims to have something to say that educated people might want to listen to? The claims are preposterous, ludicrous, asinine. [Jeff]

But you didn't actually read the post I'm referring to, did you? So you're in no position to reject "claims" as preposterous which you are uninformed about.

Sounds as if once you have dismissed someone or cast them into outer darkness, you can thereby dismiss sight unseen the idea that he could -ever- make a post that is a good one, reform, have a sound idea.

How is that different from those you would classify as the orthodox true believers who refuse to read -anything- by those once classified as "enemies of Objectivism"?

Yes, Phil, I read Valliant's review. I read it last night, before you ever mentioned it, along with Burns's reply. This morning, I went back to SOLO and skimmed the other posts in the two threads Perigo had by then divided the whole thing into.

I hadn't realized that you claim the ability to read minds and determine what other people have and have not read. I suggest you work on it, however; your performance still needs a bit of sharpening before you try to do it publicly.

JR

And please do not forget to work with nets. I hate bodies falling from the sky unless I cause the fall.

Adam

dead cat bounce society

[Brant Gaede]

Phil,

I swear I think people like you, who preach public perception to others, have no clue about what public perception is.

On the threads you discuss, there is a dude who blasted the living daylights out of Jennifer and backed it up by saying he had not even read the book. That was so ridiculous that even Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo called him to task.

But despite that, it clearly showed a tribal cultist mentality that scapegoats someone out of follow-the-leader lockstep in full bloom.

Now that's public perception.

Do you think the public is going to ignore that kind of stuff and focus only the thread openers?

How can you ignore that kind of stuff and preach about public perception? You don't even perceive what the public perceives.

Michael

The brain set at SOLOP is accept Burns, reject Heller. This is called cutting your losses. Valliant burnishes himself by rubbing on Burns, a true scholar. Because of the work he had to put into his review and because of all the work he seemed to have done at Wikipedia it is obvious we can take his ill health claims via Pedrigo justifying his long SOLOP absence with a pound of salt.

--Brant

[Chris Grieb]

Could someone please post a picture of a huff. People are alway being described as departing in a huff. Is a huff suitable for a family or only one person. Please enlighten me.

Was that in jest?

huff (noun) - a condition of smoldering anger or resentment (source)

Or maybe it's a brand new, tiny GM model designed by a BO appointee.

Merlin; I hope it was in jest. : )

Edited January 22, 2010 by Chris Grieb

[Neil Parille]

Dragonfly,

As you correctly note Burns disagrees with the central claim of Valliant's book, that theBranden accounts are "monuments of dishonesty." So Valliant is reduced to arguing, in effect, that if Burns were as smart as he, she would realize just how dishonest theBrandens are.

One thing that Valliant should be "called out" on is his repeated claim that theBrandens are lying when they say they heard the Remington Rand typewriter story from Rand.

http://jenniferburns.org/blog/79-in-the-rand-archive-part-5-on-the-brandens

Material from the archive indicates this legend is long established in family history and originated with Rand herself, though it is unclear if the youthful Rand was experimenting with tales of origin, or if the distortions of memory played a role (think of a game of telephone, stretched across generations).

This also makes it likely that Fern Brown heard the typewriter story from Rand and misremembered it.

Needless to say, no one on SOLO is asking Valliant why Burns comes to different conclusions on all sorts of matters with which he took issue.

-Neil Parille

Edited January 22, 2010 by Neil Parille

[Robert Campbell]

Subject: A Classy Discussion, No Matter Who You Agree With

I was pleasantly surprised to find a civil, serious, respectful debate about "Goddess of the Market" and its view of Ayn Rand.

Right now. On SoloP of all places!!!

Jim Valliant both praises and criticizes the book in an extremely long and detailed post. The author of the book, Jennifer Burns, responds to almost all his major criticisms.

What is impressive in both posts is: i) the thoroughgoing discussion of the wide range of issues and ii) the civility and respectful airing of disagreement with no personal attacks.

Unfortunately, there are a number of posters on this site who have been gradually slip-sliding away from this high level of discussion in regard to both i) and ii).

I'd like to request that those who want to comment on the points debated by JV and JB do so without smearing the person they disagree with or misstating their arguments. It would be ironic if SOLOP gradually were to become largely a home for thoughtful, adult debate and civility while OL continued a recent tendency toward snarky one-liners, mean-spiritedness toward opponents, and ad hominem.

Phil,

Where the hell have you been, in the three or so years since Lindsay Perigo ran you off SOLOP?

The Jim Valliant post over there shows Mr. Valliant on his best behavior. Even so, he drips with condescension. And Mr. Valliant pretends to expertise on Ayn Rand's intellectual development, a subject about which he obviously knows very little, and has spent even less time trying to learn about.

Jennifer Burns' reply is polite and measured, but she's not buying into any of Mr. Valliant's major assertions.

Further contributing to the civility of that exchange is the fact that Jennifer Burns has not replied further, so Jim Valliant hasn't had any opportunity to drop his nice guy act and start insulting her.

Meanwhile, none of Mr. Valliant's critics is currently posting on SOLOP. Jonathan was banned something like a year ago; William Scott Scherk is under moderation; Neil Parille was banned just before the event; and I wasn't planning to go back there but Lindsay Perigo banned me anyway. Obviously, Mr. Perigo wanted to make really sure no one would rain on Mr. Valliant's parade.

And because none of Mr. Valliant's critics are allowed to post there any longer, the bump in readership that SOLOP got from the Valliant-Burns exchange is already subsiding.

Oh, yes, and the chief ally these days of Messrs. Perigo and Valliant is hanging out over here, because none of the people Ellen Stuttle wants to insult are allowed to post on SOLOP any more.

Robert Campbell

[Dragonfly]

That they are relatively polite on that thread is of course because Burns is officially a participant. They'd like to associate with her for prestige reasons and then you have to show your best behavior. That Burns politely but firmly kicked Valliant in the balls is conveniently ignored.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Dragonfly

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Obviously, Mr. Perigo wanted to make really sure no one would rain on Mr. Valliant's parade.

And because none of Mr. Valliant's critics are allowed to post there any longer, the bump in readership that SOLOP got from the Valliant-Burns exchange is already subsiding.

Robert,

Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo royally screwed up on that one.

He tried to preempt wining arguments by bullying and lost his audience.

I used to think he was a better at public skills than that.

I might start adding another adjective to my pet name for him: incompetent.

In other words, The Incompetent Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Obviously, Mr. Perigo wanted to make really sure no one would rain on Mr. Valliant's parade.

And because none of Mr. Valliant's critics are allowed to post there any longer, the bump in readership that SOLOP got from the Valliant-Burns exchange is already subsiding.

Robert,

Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo royally screwed up on that one.

He tried to preempt wining arguments by bullying and lost his audience.

I used to think he was a better at public skills than that.

I might start adding another adjective to my pet name for him: incompetent.

In other words, The Incompetent Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo.

Michael

If he wasn't incompetent he wouldn't be so his incompetence is competence.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

Subject: So, We're Really Focused on Civility and on the Issues, Over Here, Are We? We're MUCH BETTER than SoloP?

Post #518, Dragonfly: "That they are relatively polite on that thread is of course because Burns is officially a participant. They'd like to associate with her for prestige reasons" ---> psychologizing, personal attack, mind-reading /inference of motives

Post #517, Robert Campbell: "Mr. Perigo wanted to make really sure no one would rain on Mr. Valliant's parade." ---> psychologizing, personal attack, mind-reading /inference of motives

Post #514, Brant Gaede:

1) "Valliant burnishes himself by rubbing on Burns, a true scholar." ---> implication of nefarious intent or a personal attack, suggesting that someone had motives other than the truth

2) "We can take his ill health claims via Pedrigo justifying his long SOLOP absence with a pound of salt." ---> personal attack: accusation of dishonesty (in regard to being ill)

I could go further back, but the repeated tone and manner of argument is as clear as it is offensive and embarrassing to Objectivism. Usually on these threads, it starts out civil and then the participants become so splutteringly angry that they have to 'vent' rather than calmly refute. They become incapable of reason or of sticking to providing good arguments and rebutting mistaken claims.

The irony is that OL is full of people who claim that one thing they dislike about "randroids" or the "orthodox" is their intolerance and tendency to jump to the conclusion that those who disagree with them are evil, moral monsters, incapable of error. They rant and scream at Peikoff and Schwartz and claim that they prefer Kelley's attitude of calm tolerance and willingness to assume honest error before moral corruption. Then they turn around and do the same sort of moralizing ad hominem or personal attacks or accusations of evil or dishonesty or bad motives or blatant psychologizing they previously had criticized.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Brant Gaede]

Thx, Phil, for the lecture. I appreciate your coming back to give one, still doing what you complain of. Everybody roasted by you is happy doing what they are doing the way they are doing it and will keep on doing it even tho it makes you unhappy.

--Brant

hector me! hector me! NO! Wait! I forgot, I'm not a masochist!

[Brant Gaede]

Regarding Valliant, Phil, on OL and SOLOP I've always expressed myself to the effect I wished him good health. You seem to have forgotten or never known the tremendous amount of work he and his wife seemed to have put in on Wikipedia interjecting himself into Ayn Rand all while practically on his death bed as Perigo seemed to imply.

--Brant

Edited January 23, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

Phil:

Upon reviewing your post and discussing this with the Disciplinary Committee of the Dungeon:

You are convicted of gross inability to use a simple feature like the quote function...

---> psychologizing, personal attack, mind-reading /inference of motives

---> implication of nefarious intent or a personal attack, suggesting that someone had motives other than the truth

---> personal attack: accusation of dishonesty (in regard to being ill)

Have a wonderful day...school marming the way to oblivion

Adam

POST SCRIPT: WHAT BOB SAID NEXT AND DOUBLE

Edited January 23, 2010 by Selene

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

Please give the charges of "psychologizing" a rest.

As Ayn Rand attempted to define it, psychologizing means drawing unwarranted conclusions about other people's motives. (The notion was problematic from the git-go, because had she applied it in a fair and balanced manner, she would have had to admit her own frequent past indulgences in the very practice that she now sought to condemn.)

Did you establish that Dragonfly, Brant, and I made unwarranted statements about the motives of Messrs. Valliant and Perigo?

No, you merely presumed that they were unwarranted, in calling the various things we said "psychologizing."

If you want to know why I think Lindsay Perigo suddenly banned Neil Parille and me so we wouldn't rain on Jim Valiiant's parade, you could ask me. (Same goes for asking Brant and Dragonfly.)

It's not as though I wouldn't be able to explain how I arrived at this conclusion, or why I deem my reasoning sound. I have close to five years of online experience with Lindsay Perigo and Jim Valliant to draw on. I did not start out imputing these kinds of motives to either one of them, but I made some generalizations over time about the way they operate, through a process called learning.

Of course, you might disagree with my case. You might even be able to poke holes in it.

But asking why, instead of peremptorily condemning, would much more closely resemble the civil discourse that you take me and others to task for not engaging in...

Robert Campbell