You Fail

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I came across this and it reminded me of so many Objectivist discussions (from all angles) that I cracked up.

How many people do we know like that?

Michael

[ginny]

I still can't stop laughing. Do you know who this guy is?

[Selene]

I still can't stop laughing. Do you know who this guy is?

It is from Billy Madison with Adam Sandler.

Adam

[Barbara Branden]

I've occasionally received email to which this is the perfect response.

I especially love "Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to you."

Barbara

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Michael,

You mean many Objectivists are prone to overkill? Nah :-).

Jim

[Philip Coates]

> Objectivists are prone to overkill?

Nah, can't be. We're -perfect- because of our commitment to a philosophy.

To be serious for a moment though, you actually see context-dropping in two ways, over and over => 1. On the giving end: Criticism or disagreement which is WAY over the top, insulting, totalistic condemnation, dropping of context. 2. On the receiving end: Bristling or over-reacting to ANY criticism, even ones which are polite or not insulting / morally condemnatory.

An example of this might be,

D: "You're being a *dogmatic moralizer* in how you judge people in this particular case too harshly or with too little context."

P: "I obviously have to break off all relations with you because you just said that."

[Question: whose statement or position is wrong here, D or P? Or both?]

[Selene]

> Objectivists are prone to overkill?

You actually see context-dropping in two ways, over and over => 1. On the giving end: Criticism or disagreement which is over the top, insulting, totalistic condemnation, dropping of context. 2. On the receiving end: Bristling or over-reacting to ANY criticism, even ones which are polite or not insulting / morally condemnatory.

An example of this might be,

D: "You're being a *dogmatic moralizer* in how you judge people in this particular case too harshly or with too little context)."

P: "I obviously have to break off all relations with you because you said that."

[Question: whose statement or position is wrong here, D or P? Or both?]

or neither.

P is flat out stupid. Does that count? It would also depend on what the person said.

Adam

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Phil,

What I see is a confusion over the necessity to be uncompromising over principles as contrasted to the need for proportionality in judgment and the need to focus on the pursuit of values. Rand often showed her heroes overlooking faults in others as Roark did with Wynand. If Roark had condemned Wynand, what would he have gained?

Jim

[Philip Coates]

I agree. And with the point that Roark and Wynand are an example in many ways of how to keep / recognize the value in a friendship even when you don't always agree on many things. But there is more to be said about the D and P example which is why I chose that one.

Everyone picked up on where I got that example from in real life, right?

I'll try to write a post about it later today.

[Philip Coates]

Probably no point in posting again.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Probably no point in posting again.

Phil,

I apologize that my personal circumstances right now make this a little like correspondence chess .

I'm sure everyone understands the D and P examples and where they came from. I think the D statement is understandable, but the problem is that it personalizes the issue. Instead of saying I disagree with judgment X, it was uncalled for and here are the reasons why, it says that the person performing the action is a dogmatic moralizer which is a character charge and suddenly everyone is checking the charge against the evidence available to them and there is a big brouhaha.

The P statement has a number of problems. It globalizes a set of specific issues. All that is needed is a statement that I stand by judgment X and here are the reasons. It also cuts off further information gathering about the issue. It is also not proportionate to the dogmatism charge which is not exactly charging P with a capital crime.

I could go on, but you could fill pages with this stuff. There is an escalating pattern of incitement that seems that characterize many Objectivist disagreements. First someone comes out with a public charge, then someone comes out with an answer to the charge. Then people further write books further explaining the situation. People become further and further entrenched in their side of an argument having escalated the issue.

I'm not sure how fast I'll be able to reply to further posts, but I wanted to acknowledge the effort you put into framing the questions.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am not so sure I, personally, would want a response on a thread where the opening post is about one guy saying to the other that everybody in the room is dumber for having listened to him.

A question of values, I suppose...

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> I'm not sure how fast I'll be able to reply to further posts, but I wanted to acknowledge the effort you put into framing the questions.

Thanks, Jim, I appreciate that - I simply wasn't sure if anyone was reading/interested. I forgot in your case you are driving across the country. That and a note from your mother will assuage me...ha, ha

I agree with your third paragraph in post #11, but I think there is considerably more to be said. Here's what I had been planning to say if anyone pursued the thread:

I don't know if David's criticism of Peikoff was -public-. I didn't get that sense from LP's simply saying he was "forced" to break off all contact with him. Here's why I think Kelley's comment about moral dogmatizing is quite okay or at least reasonable and *in the ball park of quite intimate or close-quarters human interchage. Or at least no big deal / maybe discuss it / perhaps shrug it off:

There is such a huge tendency among hubristic Objectivists to take extreme moral umbrage, resentment at a single comment. Sure, if you have friends, they are occasionally going to criticize you harshly, point out if you were rationalistic, misjudged, were overly moralizing and condemnatory. Or the opposite. Or if you were being lazy, stupid, etc.

I am willing constantly to criticize. But I also have learned from critics who have been equally frank with me [intelligent and careful critics, I hasten to add...not like too many people on the web discussions]. And in fact, that someone is free to take exception, be very critical is often an indication of trust. And if youi are constantly feeling offended, resentful, nursing bruised feelings, alienating yourself from people, I've got news for you: Life is complicated and full of errors. YOU ARE NOT PERFECT. VERY OFTEN YOU PROBABLY MADE THE SCREWUP THAT YOU ARE BEING ACCUSED OF. CORRECT IT AND ****get over yourself** [Now, someone who is predominantly critical of you, never finds positives to point out, is unsupportive and just a general 'drag' and a pain in the ass...is another topic.]

--Imperfect Phil

,,,,

(the general 'you' above applies to **everyone** - people on this list, Peikoff, Kelley, Rand, the general public). ...I'm glad I got that off my chest. I probably didn't phrase it perfectly either...

[Philip Coates]

> There is an escalating pattern of incitement that seems that characterize many Objectivist disagreements. First someone comes out with a public charge, then someone comes out with an answer to the charge. [Jim]

Hubris.

And the IPHDY - "I'm perfect, how dare you..", and MSDS - "my shit don't stink" syndromes.

[Philip Coates]

> I think the D statement is understandable, but the problem is that it personalizes the issue. Instead of saying I disagree with judgment X, it was uncalled for and here are the reasons why, it says that the person performing the action is a dogmatic moralizer which is a character charge

Jim I just reread your post re the above. First, we don't really know from P's wording if he's condensing and stating it as it happened or as it felt to him. Second, if someone close to me that I respect told me that I was over-moralizing or judging too dogmatically, or harshly in a particular case, I'm not going to worry if he blurted it imprecisely: "you're a dogmatic moralizer" vs. "you are dogmatically moralizing here." I would normally take the first to -mean- the second.

Most importantly, I strongly disagree that either one is a "character charge". You are not accusing someone of immorality or bad character, simply or a lapse of judgment or a flaw. Take a slightly different example which has caused outrage.

On another list I charged someone with being rationalistic in their writing. It's a thinking or judgment or psychological or maybe just a writing error. Not a -moral- flaw. Or a terrible, damning indictment.

My reaction to people, to "Objectivist touchiness": Don't be so sensitive. I'm not when someone points out a (reasoned and reasonable)weakness or flaw. How else do we learn?

I'm always surprised when I return from the real world how non-touchy and 'just the facts maam' people are in the business and scientific world compared to Hubristic Objectivists.

[Philip Coates]

> opening post is about one guy saying to the other that everybody in the room is dumber for having listened to him.

Michael, I hope you don't feel dumber now for having read -my- posts on this thread. Do you?

(don't answer that)