You are NOT an Objectivist

[kiaer.ts]

I always thought that in order to be an Objectivist you had to adhere to the primacy of existence and accept Rand's theory of concept formation, or, at most, accept the four pillars of the one-footed profession of faith:

• Metaphysics Objective Reality
• Epistemology Reason
• Ethics Self-interest
• Politics Capitalism

If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" or "Wishing won't make it so." 2. "You can't eat your cake and have it, too." 3. "Man is an end in himself." 4. "Give me liberty or give me death."

But, it turns out, whom you "associate with" and the lower-case adjective you use to describe your politics also matter. Form the FAQ page at the website Objectivst Answers, Hsieh, et al., advise:

• You are not an Objectivist if you consider yourself to be a libertarian (or associate with the Libertarian Party), advocate revising Objectivism (like David Kelley's "open system"), or associate with false advocates of Objectivism (like David Kelley, Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, and Chris Sciabarra).

Thanks, Diana, I did not know that. Let me know when McCaskey's, Harriman's, yours, or Peikoff's name is added to that list.

Edited November 6, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Rich Engle]

Ain't she something?

Makes you think of that bumper sticker: WHO DIED AND MADE YOU ELVIS?

Makes you think of growing up where there was always that one kid who started a club, and ran it like a Chinese Dynasty, without the fun.

Waterhead freak. Racial purity-type laws for intellectuals. Two words: Blow Me.

This is going to keep so many of us up all night. *sob*

rde

[George H. Smith]

Now that we know who is not an Objectivist, perhaps we should explore the more interesting question of who is a Hsieh-style Objectivist. Here are some of my suggestions, and I'm sure other OL members can come up with suggestions of their own.

If you have at least one spontaneous orgasm while listening to a lecture by Leonard Peikoff, you might be an Objectivist.

'

If you think that Nathaniel Branden is more evil than Adolf Hitler, you might be an Objectivist.

If you think you recently saw Ayn Rand in a donut shop, you might be an Objectivist.

If you refuse to sanction someone at least once a week, you might be an Objectivist.

If you seek advice on which pleasures you should not feel guilty about, you might be an Objectivist.

If you make the sign of the cross whenever a libertarian approaches you, you might be an Objectivist.

If you think that President Obama is a Kantian, you might be an Objectivist.

If you have never wondered what Diana Hsieh is like in bed, you might be an Objectivist.

Ghs

[Selene]

Excellent George:

This could be the beginning of a whole set of social networking...

OA meetings...Hello, my name is Phil and I'm an Objectivist.

[kiaer.ts]

I searched for, but did not find an on line list of Objectivist excommuniqués. For some reason, Hsieh's list is rather short. Can someone either provide a link or post a list?

[kiaer.ts]

Now that we know who is not an Objectivist, perhaps we should explore the more interesting question of who is a Hsieh-style Objectivist. Here are some of my suggestions, and I'm sure other OL members can come up with suggestions of their own.

If you have at least one spontaneous orgasm while listening to a lecture by Leonard Peikoff, you might be an Objectivist.

'

If you think that Nathaniel Branden is more evil than Adolf Hitler, you might be an Objectivist.

If you think you recently saw Ayn Rand in a donut shop, you might be an Objectivist.

If you refuse to sanction someone at least once a week, you might be an Objectivist.

If you seek advice on which pleasures you should not feel guilty about, you might be an Objectivist.

If you make the sign of the cross whenever a libertarian approaches you, you might be an Objectivist.

If you think that President Obama is a Kantian, you might be an Objectivist.

If you have never wondered what Diana Hsieh is like in bed, you might be an Objectivist.

Ghs

You wouldn't be laughing so hard if you knew that Hsieh strongly approves of your work:

http://objectivistan...ivism-atheistic

Yes, Objectivism is atheistic. For more details, you might see the Lexicon entry on God. As for why the arguments for God's existence fail, I'd strongly recommend George H. Smith's book, Atheism: The Case Against God. I've also done apodcast series on philosophy of religion. (That's still ongoing.)

answered Sep 06 at 20:05

Diana Hsieh ♦

1000280●5

Will contradictions never cease? I hope, George, you will let Diana know she is NOT an Objectivist.

[Rich Engle]

You wouldn't be laughing so hard if you knew that Hsieh strongly approves of your work:

I'm thinking that might change after this thread.

Try not to beat yourself up too much over this, George--one can never predict who one's fans end up being. I wonder what other guilty pleasures she has, that dirty little monkey? If you play it right, you might be able to nail her--then you'll get an answer to your last question. Your Kung Fu remains most excellent, Studly Doright.

rde

Edited November 6, 2010 by Rich Engle

[9thdoctor]

• You are not an Objectivist if you consider yourself to be a libertarian (or associate with the Libertarian Party), advocate revising Objectivism (like David Kelley's "open system"), or associate with false advocates of Objectivism (like David Kelley, Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, and Chris Sciabarra).

I wish Ted had provided a link, I went hunting and it wasn't in a topic, but in the site's FAQ.

http://objectivistanswers.com/faq/

Here's a funny detail:

http://objectivistanswers.com/users/?sort=name

Betsy Speicher was banned without having made a single post. Chris Cathcart was banned too, he did pose a single question. So far this site looks like such an embarrassment.

Edited November 6, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[George H. Smith]

You wouldn't be laughing so hard if you knew that Hsieh strongly approves of your work...

That changes everything. I wish to express my undying admiration for Hsieh. I apologize for every negative thing I have ever said about her, and I hereby withdraw my sanction from David Kelley, Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, Chris Sciabarra, and everyone on OL -- except myself.

Meanwhile, if I had not had this sudden conversion, I might have posted these additions to my list:

If you have used the expression "anti-mind and anti-life" within the past 24 hours, you might be an Objectivist.

If you fantasize that Ayn Rand would have declared you her intellectual heir, if only she had known you, you might be an Objectivist.

If you hide all your abstract art before your friends come over, you might be an Objectivist.

If you read James Joyce or Henry Miller under the bed sheets with a flashlight, you might be an Objectivist.

If you fantasize about trains or marble slabs while masturbating, you might an Objectivist.

If you keep hoping that someone will ask you, "What do you think of me?" so you can answer, "But I don't think of you," you might be an Objectivist.

If your worst nightmare consists of dreaming that you meet Ayn Rand in her living room, only to be thrown out in less than five minutes, you might be an Objectivist.

Ghs

[Rich Engle]

The "Karma System?" "Style Points?"

WTF?

Hey, isn't Karma "religionist?" WTF?

Why does this remind of of something in one of those reality shows?

rde

Jerseylicous!

Edited November 6, 2010 by Rich Engle

[9thdoctor]

Meanwhile, if I had not had this sudden conversion, I might have posted these additions to my list:

If you have used the expression "anti-mind and anti-life" within the past 24 hours, you might be an Objectivist.

If you fantasize that Ayn Rand would have declared you her intellectual heir, if only she had known you, you might be an Objectivist.

If you hide all your abstract art before your friends come over, you might be an Objectivist.

If you read James Joyce or Henry Miller under the bed sheets with a flashlight, you might be an Objectivist.

These are good Jeff Foxworthy parodies. Someone ought to perform them, make a YouTube video. The character could be called George Randworthy, or some such.

If you fantasize about trains or marble slabs while masturbating, you might an Objectivist.

Probably the biggest howler I’ve ever seen in Rand-land was Leonid writing that he used to masturbate while listening to the Tchaikovsky 4th and imagining having sex with Ayn Rand.

[kiaer.ts]

I wish Ted had provided a link

Had I linked to her she would have had to ban herself.

You do the cause of advancing mankind no good by increasing her status on google.

[Rich Engle]

If you get major wood looking at skyscrapers . . .

If you dream about trains going into tunnels and wake up wet . . .

rde

WTF?

[9thdoctor]

Had I linked to her she would have had to ban herself.

Yeah, well I had to spend a few minutes hunting around the site trying to find the topic. I finally did a google search on the text you quoted. So I got annoyed.

You do the cause of advancing mankind no good by increasing her status on google.

Tu quoque.

I’m thinking of signing on, as Ninth Doctor no less, and asking a polite, relevant question (nothing like that dunderheaded stuff I saw about plant consciousness), or providing a correct answer to something uncontroversial. Just to see how long it takes for me to be banned.

[George H. Smith]

These are good Jeff Foxworthy parodies.

Foxworthy is a comedic genius. 235 of his lines can be found here.

Here are my favorites from the first 100.

You might be a Redneck if...

1. You think "loading the dishwasher" means getting your wife drunk.

5. Your stereo speakers used to belong to the Drive-in Theater.

8. Chiggers are included on your list of top 5 hygiene concerns.

12. The Salvation Army declines your mattress.

15. Your wife's job requires her to wear an orange vest.

16. You were shooting pool when any of your kids were born.

21. You've ever given rat traps as gifts.

24. You keep a can of RAID on the kitchen table.

25. Your wife can climb a tree faster than your cat.

26. Your mother has "ammo" on her Christmas list.

27. Every socket in your house breaks a fire code.

29. There are more than five McDonald's bags in your car.

30. The Home Shopping operator recognizes your voice.

36. You think "taking out the trash" means taking your in-laws to a movie.

38. You've ever been involved in a custody fight over a hunting dog.

40. Your kids take a siphon hose to "Show and Tell"

42. You've ever bought a used cap.

46. You've ever stolen toilet paper.

49. The gas pedal on your car is shaped like a bare foot.

50. You prefer car keys to Q-tips.

57. You have ever used lard in bed.

59. You have ever spray-painted your girlfriends name on an overpass.

60. Your lifetime goal is to own a fireworks stand.

66. You ever lost a tooth opening a beer bottle.

68. Your wife's hairdo has ever been ruined by a ceiling fan.

72. The dog can't watch you eat without gagging.

74. You have ever bar-b-qued Spam on the grill.

75. Your brother-in-law is also your uncle.

79. You view the next family reunion as a chance to meet girls.

87. You ever got too drunk to fish.

88. More than one living relative is named after a civil war general.

94. Your mother doesn't remove the Marlboro from her lips before telling the State Trooper to kiss her ass.

95. You honestly think that women are turned on by animal noises and seductive tongue gestures.

97. Your family tree doesn't have any branches.

98. Your mother has been involved in a fistfight at a high school sports event.

Ghs

[Jerry Biggers]

I would like to take this opportunity to THANK Diana (aka, Red Sonya,... or is it the other way around?) for providing the raw material that has led to this burst of inspiration exemplified in this thread!

P.S.: By the way,....did you, by any chance, ever date Keith Olbermann?

[Rich Engle]

(aka, Red Sonya,... or is it the other way around?)

It remains undetermined whether or not the carpet matches the drapes, but surely this is only a matter of time. George might find out for us..

ED: And Phil, I am really, really sorry for that, but it was right there waiting, and in the end I am a very weak man when it comes to things such as this.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Rich Engle

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Now that we know who is not an Objectivist, perhaps we should explore the more interesting question of who is a Hsieh-style Objectivist. Here are some of my suggestions, and I'm sure other OL members can come up with suggestions of their own.

If you have at least one spontaneous orgasm while listening to a lecture by Leonard Peikoff, you might be an Objectivist.

'

If you think that Nathaniel Branden is more evil than Adolf Hitler, you might be an Objectivist.

If you think you recently saw Ayn Rand in a donut shop, you might be an Objectivist.

If you refuse to sanction someone at least once a week, you might be an Objectivist.

If you seek advice on which pleasures you should not feel guilty about, you might be an Objectivist.

If you make the sign of the cross whenever a libertarian approaches you, you might be an Objectivist.

If you think that President Obama is a Kantian, you might be an Objectivist.

If you have never wondered what Diana Hsieh is like in bed, you might be an Objectivist.

Ghs

George,

Classic!

If you write long essays about why John McCaskey might not deserve a rung in Hell, but Leonard Peikoff deserves the benefit of the doubt for putting him there, you might be an Objectivist.

If science stops at 1900, you might be an Objectivist.

If there is a context which always seems to confirm your point of view, you might be an Objectivist.

If ethics means constructing long-winded, abstract arguments encapsulating your judgments of other people, you might be an Objectivist.

If you belong to the Brahmins of New York or Irvine and never associate with assorted untouchables, you might be an Objectivist.

If you check your premises more often than your rear view mirror and chew on them until they form a perfectly consistent noncontradictory whole, you just might an Objectivist.

If you reject all of the above and think for yourself, you might be #@&% instead of a $$$$$.

Jim

[Selene]

I just checked the unanswered questions over at Objectivism Central:

Is it proper to date a girl who smokes pot?

0 This woman, while not being an Objectivist, has many great qualities like being smart, attractive, funny, pro-reason and pro-man in general. She, however, likes to smoke marijuana. She says that it provides a great pleasure and relaxes her body and mind after a long day of work.

What should I do about it? Confront her? Immediately break up with her?

Now surely, the answer to this major philosophical question will advance the cause of Objectivism and certainly change the Karma of Kalifornia!!

Today Kalifornia tomorrow ze Vorld!!!!

[Rich Engle]

Is it proper to date a girl who smokes pot?

0 This woman, while not being an Objectivist, has many great qualities like being smart, attractive, funny, pro-reason and pro-man in general. She, however, likes to smoke marijuana. She says that it provides a great pleasure and relaxes her body and mind after a long day of work.

What should I do about it? Confront her? Immediately break up with her?

Easy. You have to determine her level of "trader mentality." Play this to her, and observe her reactions very carefully. There is nothing worse than falling in with a skinflint:

[Greybird]

[...] If you have never wondered what Diana Hsieh is like in bed, you might be an Objectivist.

{delurking}

I detest the Orthodoxer Than Thou types' fatwas quoted here as much as the rest of you do. But does the constant animadverting on and ridiculing of Lindsay Perigo's sexuality really have to be followed up by starting in on doing similarly abusive riffs about Diana Hsieh?

Neither one of them deserves this. It also — and I'm sad about having to point this out on a Rand-admiring site — has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of their arguments, or with that of one's own.

Some might protest that George isn't being serious here. Perhaps not. Yet would any of you enjoy being publicly mocked as to your bedroom predilections and habits over on Speicher's or Hsieh's or Maurone's or Perigo's sites? ... I thought not.

{relurking}

[George H. Smith]

[...] If you have never wondered what Diana Hsieh is like in bed, you might be an Objectivist.

{delurking}

I detest the Orthodoxer Than Thou types' fatwas quoted here as much as the rest of you do. But does the constant animadverting on and ridiculing of Lindsay Perigo's sexuality really have to be followed up by starting in on doing similarly abusive riffs about Diana Hsieh?

Neither one of them deserves this. It also — and I'm sad about having to point this out on a Rand-admiring site — has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of their arguments, or with that of one's own.

Some might protest that George isn't being serious here. Perhaps not. Yet would any of you enjoy being publicly mocked as to your bedroom predilections and habits over on Speicher's or Hsieh's or Maurone's or Perigo's sites? ... I thought not.

{relurking}

Where did I say or imply anything about Hsieh's sexuality? My jibe had nothing whatsoever to do with that.

I will explain the point of my remark, if you cannot figure it out for yourself. (Hint: It pertains to the puritanical attitude of many O'ists.) Meanwhile, keep your irrelevant moralizing to yourself.

Ghs

[kiaer.ts]

[...] If you have never wondered what Diana Hsieh is like in bed, you might be an Objectivist.

{delurking}

I detest the Orthodoxer Than Thou types' fatwas quoted here as much as the rest of you do. But does the constant animadverting on and ridiculing of Lindsay Perigo's sexuality really have to be followed up by starting in on doing similarly abusive riffs about Diana Hsieh?

Neither one of them deserves this. It also — and I'm sad about having to point this out on a Rand-admiring site — has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of their arguments, or with that of one's own.

Some might protest that George isn't being serious here. Perhaps not. Yet would any of you enjoy being publicly mocked as to your bedroom predilections and habits over on Speicher's or Hsieh's or Maurone's or Perigo's sites? ... I thought not.

{relurking}

What sort of respect does someone deserve who - as evidence of David Kelley's evil desire to "revise Objectivism" - links to Leonard "rung of Hell" Peikoff's terminally embarrassing 'essay' "Fact and Value" - instead of quoting where Kelley has ever stated a desire to do any such thing? And that opportunist and cultist calls herself a doctor and an academic?

No, of course picking on nee Mertz's sexuality is unfortunate and suboptimal. How about picking on that Nurse Ratched death rictus she pretends to use as a smile instead?

Edited November 7, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Rich Engle]

I detest the Orthodoxer Than Thou types' fatwas quoted here as much as the rest of you do. But does the constant animadverting on and ridiculing of Lindsay Perigo's sexuality really have to be followed up by starting in on doing similarly abusive riffs about Diana Hsieh?

Yes. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The only difference here is you have to cut back on the donkey jokes. Maybe.

Neither one of them deserves this. It also — and I'm sad about having to point this out on a Rand-admiring site — has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of their arguments, or with that of one's own.

You are right--they deserve more. Much, much more.

Some might protest that George isn't being serious here. Perhaps not. Yet would any of you enjoy being publicly mocked as to your bedroom predilections and habits over on Speicher's or Hsieh's or Maurone's or Perigo's sites? ... I thought not.

I don't know. It might be kind of a turn-on. I'll ask my wife. I guess it would depend on how well-written it was.

[Rich Engle]

What is proper masculine and feminine behavior, and why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBEvlwtaaTA