A Bold New Step for Objectivist Scholarship

[George H. Smith]

In justice, I never got the impression Phil wants an "out," rather he wants the "in" and in the inn he'll stay respecting what's being discussed. Whether he takes a dip in its pool by falling in or being tossed in, he's still in the inn, or at least at it. But at such times we can say, "Phil, you're all wet!" Of course, that's just pointing out the obvious. Now this string of metaphors isn't an argument and it certainly won't work any metamorphical transformation on his immutable personality, but he surely does keep us ad hominemly engaged.

--Brant

My point was that that Phil never takes responsibility for doing the selfsame thing that he criticizes others for doing. He always has a "reason" for his insults, and this is really the point. We all have reasons for why we use zingers. With rare exceptions, we always believe that our zingers are justified; if we didn't believe this, we wouldn't use them. But to hear Phil tell the story, his critics are mean-spirited and nasty, and this is why they attack him, whereas he -- benevolent Phil -- is just defending himself, or he is attempting to offer constructive criticism, or whatever.

Phil is big on offering others constructive criticism, so here is some for him: Phil should tend his own garden and leave others to tend theirs. If Phil would focus on what others say instead of how they say it, his posts would be much better received, at least by me.

Ghs

[kiaer.ts]

What a total fucking waste of time.

[Dennis Hardin]

Of course he was joking. The majority of the personal attacks on OL are either offered as humor or thinly disguised as humor. Some of the nastiness is quite clever (you guys should be so proud!) but it still diminishes the attacker far more than the object of their sarcastic venom.

But I know everyone is having far too much fun to give a shit.

If you object to something specifically object when it comes up so it can be dealt with instead of letting things go on and on. If you don't when you do object you end up with a generalized smear of the type that Phil specializes in. We make some fun at Phil because we like him but he otherwise wouldn't be very tolerable with some of the things he says. I use a lot of humor. Do I need to zip it? Is it "sarcastic venom"? Brant Attacks!? I'm sure I've done such from time to time, after what--+7500 posts? There are many types of humor and many motivations for using them and how the types and motivations may line up may shift from time to time, person to person. Your "Faith in mankind momentarily restored" is certainly sarcastic with the lace of some humor (?), but if OL has destroyed your faith in mankind you don't read the papers or watch the news, that's for sure. Above all, some of us like to play a little, not just come with the big thoughts. The philosophy you seem to want in respect to this topic is throw out the bathwater and throw out the baby; you don't need either. Well, that's good for you, I suppose, since I don't really know or care to know.

--Brant

I agree with what Phil had to say here:

1. Dennis is under no obligation to specifically object every time something comes up that is dumb, offensive or whatever the case may be. And neither am I. Why? Because no one has that kind of time - you'd end up doing nothing else and getting in purely personal "but I didn't do it here" type fights. You simply wait until they add up then make it a general criticism.

2. It is usually *vastly superior* to make a general statement about the type of error. That doesn't put anyone on the spot and (presumably, although it doesn't seem to work out that way on OL) doesn't put anyone on the defensive by calling him out personally.

3. The principles are universal principles about behavior or thinking or social skills. It is best to discuss them generally. They apply much more widely than just to people on OL...as might Dennis's criticisms. And -certainly- my many criticisms of the Oist movement are intended to be much broader than a few people who post here.

I think that you are usually very respectful in most of your posts, Brant. Maybe more so than I am in some instances, although I do my best not to make things personal. But sometimes my anger does get the best of me. Sarcasm, per se, is not necessarily disrespectful if it is aimed at the ideas rather than the person.

"We make some fun at Phil because we like him. . ."

I'm not sure that always comes through.

[Dennis Hardin]

What a total fucking waste of time.

Discussing the importance of benevolence and civility is a waste of time?

You're the last person on OL I would expect to hear that from.

[kiaer.ts]

What a total fucking waste of time.

Discussing the importance of benevolence and civility is a waste of time?

You're the last person on OL I would expect to hear that from.

No, yet another thread hijacked with personal attacks and rationalizations of such behavior is. This thread is entitled "A Bold New Step for Objectivist Scholarship." What an embarrassment. Four fifths of it, like most of this website, is devoted to absolute bullshit. The supposedly grown men who continue this would shame the most vicious dysfunctional ghetto snap-queens of NYC - I say this as a two decade resident of the South Bronx. I don't intend to contribute to it by commenting further as if it were worth rational comment.

[George H. Smith]

I think that you are usually very respectful in most of your posts, Brant. Maybe more so than I am in some instances, although I do my best not to make things personal. But sometimes my anger does get the best of me. Sarcasm, per se, is not necessarily disrespectful if it is aimed at the ideas rather than the person.

I have never understood this thing about always being "respectful." Posters earn respect; it is not something automatically granted to them because they can figure out how to subscribe to OL and write some posts. If you don't respect someone intellectually, then why should you pretend like you do? I must have missed that memo.

Ghs

[Dennis Hardin]

Dennis,

In an earlier post you linked an article on your website, "The Choice to Live," which contains the following passage:

Advocates on either side of this argument acknowledge that there are specific circumstances, such as terminal illness or political slavery, where one might legitimately conclude that the value of one’s life cannot be properly enjoyed and that, therefore, suicide may be contextually valid. The disagreement pertains to the validity of the option to perish given a normal state of health and reasonable external potential for achieving a successful life.

I am curious about your use of the phrase "contextually valid" in regard to suicide. Could you elaborate a bit?

Ghs

George,

The context where suicide becomes valid would apply to any circumstance where the person’s life is dominated by overwhelming and interminable pain, either emotional or physical. I am entirely sympathetic to the work of Jack Kervorkian, who I think, ironically, deserves the status of a heroic champion of the precious value of life. I have personally witnessed situations where it was clear that the moral thing to do was to help the person terminate their existence (if that was their choice). In retrospect, I have often wished I had Kervorkian’s courage.

In terms of enotional pain, the issue becomes somewhat murky, since it is never clear that it needs to be interminable. In an apparently hopeless situation such as Kira faced in We,The Living, however, I think the choice to die is entirely valid.

[George H. Smith]

What a total fucking waste of time.

Discussing the importance of benevolence and civility is a waste of time?

You're the last person on OL I would expect to hear that from.

No, yet another thread hijacked with personal attacks and rationalizations of such behavior is. This thread is entitled "A Bold New Step for Objectivist Scholarship." What an embarrassment. Four fifths of it, like most of this website, is devoted to absolute bullshit. The supposedly grown men who continue this would shame the most vicious dysfunctional ghetto snap-queens of NYC - I say this as a two decade resident of the South Bronx. I don't intend to contribute to it by commenting further as if it were worth rational comment.

A thread that veers off topic. Imagine that! I bet this has never happened before in the history of OL. It's a good thing that you have never been involved in such digressions yourself.

Btw, you have used your "ghetto snap-queens" zinger several times now. It's getting pretty old. Maybe you should come up with something new before you write another post bitching about all the bitching. Your meta-bitching is dysfunctional as well.

Ghs

[Dennis Hardin]

What a total fucking waste of time.

Discussing the importance of benevolence and civility is a waste of time?

You're the last person on OL I would expect to hear that from.

No, yet another thread hijacked with personal attacks and rationalizations of such behavior is. This thread is entitled "A Bold New Step for Objectivist Scholarship." What an embarrassment. Four fifths of it, like most of this website, is devoted to absolute bullshit. The supposedly grown men who continue this would shame the most vicious dysfunctional ghetto snap-queens of NYC - I say this as a two decade resident of the South Bronx. I don't intend to contribute to it by commenting further as if it were worth rational comment.

I think someone got up on the wrong side of the bed today.

[George H. Smith]

Dennis,

In an earlier post you linked an article on your website, "The Choice to Live," which contains the following passage:

Advocates on either side of this argument acknowledge that there are specific circumstances, such as terminal illness or political slavery, where one might legitimately conclude that the value of one’s life cannot be properly enjoyed and that, therefore, suicide may be contextually valid. The disagreement pertains to the validity of the option to perish given a normal state of health and reasonable external potential for achieving a successful life.

I am curious about your use of the phrase "contextually valid" in regard to suicide. Could you elaborate a bit?

Ghs

George,

The context where suicide becomes valid would apply to any circumstance where the person’s life is dominated by overwhelming and interminable pain, either emotional or physical. I am entirely sympathetic to the work of Jack Kervorkian, who I think, ironically, deserves the status of a heroic champion of the precious value of life. I have personally witnessed situations where it was clear that the moral thing to do was to help the person terminate their existence (if that was their choice). In retrospect, I have often wished I had Kervorkian’s courage.

In terms of emotional pain, the issue becomes somewhat murky, since it is never clear that it needs to be interminable. In an apparently hopeless situation such as Kira faced in We,The Living, however, I think the choice to die is entirely valid.

We agree so far, but I have another question: Do you think the terms "moral" and "immoral" apply to a person who has killed himself? What would it mean to call the decision to commit suicide "immoral"?

I ask this because people don't usually take their own lives unless they regard their situation as hopeless in some sense.

Ghs

[Selene]

George:

To use the concept of immoral to judge the act of committing suicide seems to beg the question.

I have good friends who call it an act of cruelty that is projected on the surviving people that loved the person.

I can identify with that feeling.

I am very ambivalent about the whole issue.

Dennis:

I heard an hour and a half interview with Kevorkian about six (6) months ago, as you know he is still on parole. I found him to be a remarkable man.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

This is all very well and good, Dennis, (re your #128), but you certainly do have the time to deal with it, quickly and efficiently when it comes up, because it doesn't seem to come up all that often with you and because of the number of posts you've been making lately on two or three threads. I use a lot of humor in my life and sometimes no matter how benevolent and innocent I am about it some people sometimes take it the wrong way. If they don't tell me, I seldom know. One butcher two decades ago took it completely wrong and started treating me, his customer, as if I were a clown or court jester. I couldn't believe he was so dumb. He wasn't. He was trying to hurt me in one of the worst ways. I simply and quietly said, "You know, there is a certain level of respect we naturally extend to each other just because we are human beings." That's all I said about that. He instantly knew what I was referring to--you could see it wash over his face--and I never had any more problem with him. I did stop trying to joke with him. The clerks at the Safeway love me for being their customer. Just seeing me in line brightens them up. They have a tough job with the constant stream of various customers, some of whom aren't so nice sometimes and I'm sensitive to that. It goes almost without saying that I like them and they pick up on it. My being humorous simply flows out of me. I don't force it; if I did it wouldn't happen. I don't force it or work at it. I could never do it professionally unless I went into the audience and engaged someone, aside from lack of interest in that. When I was about 13 I had braces put on my teeth by a pioneering orthodontist, Charles H. Tweed here in Tucson. I was told years later by my mother that one of the office workers told her that whenever Tweed was told I was coming in, no matter how much he was in the dumps, he'd always be in a good mood the rest of the day. I had had no idea about that and I have no idea if it is from nature or nurture. My mother has a streak of it in her too and can still come up with a good one in spite of her extensive vascular dementia. (I have to watch her like a hawk so she doesn't fall down, hurt herself, go to the hospital and die there. This is why I make so many posts on OL and why they tend to be short. You'll know when she goes because my posting style will completely change. I literally sit all day on the Internet with my laptop reading OL and scores and scores of financial and geo-political articles.)

You and Phil are two very different cases. His remarks apply to him if they apply to anyone. If to you, not nearly as much.

--Brant

Edited March 6, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

Ted, make a post apropos the subject you are interested in. Get the thread back on track, if that's your wont.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

George:

To use the concept of immoral to judge the act of committing suicide seems to beg the question.

I have good friends who call it an act of cruelty that is projected on the surviving people that loved the person.

I can identify with that feeling.

I am very ambivalent about the whole issue.

Dennis:

I heard an hour and a half interview with Kevorkian about six (6) months ago, as you know he is still on parole. I found him to be a remarkable man.

Adam

A lot of suicide is revenge driven, frequently unconsciously. Not all. If you are feeling suicidal imagine commiting suicide but without an audience, without anyone ever knowing about it. If such people weren't on the premise of victimhood--of being a victim--most suicides, I think, wouldn't happen.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Dennis,

In an earlier post you linked an article on your website, "The Choice to Live," which contains the following passage:

Advocates on either side of this argument acknowledge that there are specific circumstances, such as terminal illness or political slavery, where one might legitimately conclude that the value of one’s life cannot be properly enjoyed and that, therefore, suicide may be contextually valid. The disagreement pertains to the validity of the option to perish given a normal state of health and reasonable external potential for achieving a successful life.

I am curious about your use of the phrase "contextually valid" in regard to suicide. Could you elaborate a bit?

Ghs

George,

The context where suicide becomes valid would apply to any circumstance where the person’s life is dominated by overwhelming and interminable pain, either emotional or physical. I am entirely sympathetic to the work of Jack Kervorkian, who I think, ironically, deserves the status of a heroic champion of the precious value of life. I have personally witnessed situations where it was clear that the moral thing to do was to help the person terminate their existence (if that was their choice). In retrospect, I have often wished I had Kervorkian’s courage.

In terms of emotional pain, the issue becomes somewhat murky, since it is never clear that it needs to be interminable. In an apparently hopeless situation such as Kira faced in We,The Living, however, I think the choice to die is entirely valid.

We agree so far, but I have another question: Do you think the terms "moral" and "immoral" apply to a person who has killed himself? What would it mean to call the decision to commit suicide "immoral"?

I ask this because people don't usually take their own lives unless they regard their situation as hopeless in some sense.

Ghs

There was a horrible suicide described in Atlas Shrugged. It was so bad that even reading about it at the age of 19 I knew it didn't come from the author's imagination. Decades later I found out such a suicide had actually happened involving a Rand acquaintance. That really was evil. The real question, though, is whether a suicide motivated by unconscious, repressed anger causing depression is moral or immoral. I would say morality there would be mox nix. People simply have to be better trained and self-trained to deal with anger.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Progressive Escalation (often leading to unfairness)

> I will admit that some of my own responses (to Phil and others) have a disrespectful tone at times—but almost always in “self-defense” to a similar prior post from the same person. I operate on the principle of not "initiating malevolence" [Dennis]

> ...I do my best not to make things personal. But sometimes my anger does get the best of me. Sarcasm, per se, is not necessarily disrespectful if it is aimed at the ideas rather than the person. [Dennis]

What I think happens is things *escalate* across many posts or interactions [i'm not speaking of you or any one particular person, but in general]. This happens in life more broadly as well. It takes a while for something to become a "blood feud". (I wonder if the Hatfields and the McCoys started small before the guns were drawn?)

And generally it takes two to feud - often the blame for escalation is on both sides:

The first person crosses a line of only arguing facts, evidence, process. The the second person overreacts, won't let that slide..and so on. Things start with a somewhat belittling comment like "no rational person could think that" or "that's your usual failure to focus". Then the person attacked, being offended, responds with another attack which is a bit more pointed. After four or five? posts its an all-out series of personal insults. And pretty soon is descends into rampant emotionalism: pretty widespread or ongoing irrationality in response to those people who 'sting' you: firing off salvos of SDP's ("slap down posts"). The combatants are unwilling to find anything rational or persuasive in anything their foe says. "I won't give the sob the satisfaction." And they will look for the slightest nit to pick, rather than offering the honest benevolent respect of dealing with the central point that they knew the person was making: Hahaha, you misquoted Rand or used poor word choice.

You've reached the point where all of what you feel for your adversary is a visceral disgust. And you fire off 'emotionalist' posts just on the basis of that. You don't edit yourself. . .

[to be continued, perhaps]

Edited March 6, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Selene]

Phil:

Do you have a clear example, from OL, of what you just postulated?

Adam

[kiaer.ts]

There was a horrible suicide described in Atlas Shrugged. It was so bad that even reading about it at the age of 19 I knew it didn't come from the author's imagination. Decades later I found out such a suicide had actually happened involving a Rand acquaintance. That really was evil. The real question, though, is whether a suicide motivated by unconscious, repressed anger causing depression is moral or immoral. I would say morality there would be mox nix. People simply have to be better trained and self-trained to deal with anger.

Can you give a source and explain further?

[Philip Coates]

> Do you have a clear example, from OL, of what you just postulated?

Adam, I've seen it a number of times, but unfortunately its hard to encapsulate as it usually stretches across many posts and sometimes takes months or a year to build. I've probably been involved in them myself. Right now Ted, George, you and Xray (well, several people and Xray), Shayne (and recently Brant and Dennis) have been involved in these kinds of feuding and hostile incivilty with another person.

Let me just continue my post and I think you'll probably recognize that you've seen this sort of 'escalating' thing more than a few times ==>

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Progressive Escalation - continued

... And, finally, you**, good "hardass" Objectionist that you pride yourself in being, -certainly- don't try to back off or back down. Or repair breaches. Or admit you played a role. Or apologize. Or reestablish possible relationships. Your specialty in life too often has been breaking with friends, families, loved ones, business colleagues, employers, intellectual adversaries...and 'evil' people.

**again, no one particular person, but many people and not just on this list, but throughout the entire Objectivist movement across decades

The reason for this is Oists tend to be way too disproportionately eggheads with limited social skills, who (way too often) wouldn't know tact and respectful disagreement if it bit them in the ass. The when another O-nerd treats them in exactly the same way, they get highly offended. And it gets more hatfieldandmccoy to where it spills across every thread where they start to encounter 'that asshole' again.

We probably have about six or seven of these little hatreds or spats going on between two people in any given week.

Most mature people who have spent a lot of time in social and business or institutional environments have learned how to back off, de-escalate potential personal conflicts. Unfortunately, for the spread of Oism, for their own personal success, and for online discussion boards like this - most LECAF's ('lone egghead cranky and abrasive old farts')never learned these things and it's too late in their lives for them to even consider doing so now.

(Also explains the shortage of women. They seldom tend to like to hang around with loud-mouthed table-pounding cranky abrasive old farts.)

Edited March 6, 2011 by Philip Coates

[George H. Smith]

Subject: Progressive Escalation - continued

... And, finally, you**, good "hardass" Objectionist that you pride yourself in being, -certainly- don't try to back off or back down. Or repair breaches. Or admit you played a role. Or apologize. Or reestablish possible relationships. Your specialty in life too often has been breaking with friends, families, loved ones, business colleagues, employers, intellectual adversaries...and 'evil' people.

**again, no one particular person, but many people and not just on this list, but throughout the entire Objectivist movement across decades

The reason for this is Oists tend to be way too disproportionately eggheads with limited social skills, who (way too often) wouldn't know tact and respectful disagreement if it bit them in the ass. The when another O-nerd treats them in exactly the same way, they get highly offended. And it gets more hatfieldandmccoy to where it spills across every thread where they start to encounter 'that asshole' again.

We probably have about six or seven of these little hatreds or spats going on between two people in any given week.

Most mature people who have spent a lot of time in social and business or institutional environments have learned how to back off, de-escalate potential personal conflicts. Unfortunately, for the spread of Oism, for their own personal success, and for online discussion boards like this - most LECAF's ('lone egghead cranky and abrasive old farts')never learned these things and it's too late in their lives for them to even consider doing so now.

(Also explains the shortage of women. They seldom tend to like to hang around with loud-mouthed table-pounding cranky abrasive old farts.)

Yeah, Phil, you sure know how to "de-escalate potential personal conflicts."

A typical Phil post. Some condescending psychobabble about people who criticize or don't agree with him, followed by a pretentious explanation about how his social skills are superior to O'ist "eggheads" and "cranky and abrasive old farts." No insults or hypocrisy here, of course.

Maybe one day Phil will write a post with intellectual substance. This would be easier sitting down, so I advise Phil to remove the pole from his ass before attempting it.

Oh, this is much too personal, so let me rephrase it. I have found that people obsessed with civility are often anal-retentive types who are very insecure intellectually.

Much better. Now I haven't insulted anyone.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

A lot of suicide is revenge driven, frequently unconsciously. Not all. If you are feeling suicidal imagine commiting suicide but without an audience, without anyone ever knowing about it. If such people weren't on the premise of victimhood--of being a victim--most suicides, I think, wouldn't happen.

--Brant

I think you have greatly oversimplified the issue of suicide.

Cato the Younger was an icon to 18th century libertarians because he killed himself rather than submit to the tyranny of Caesar.

Cato was viewed as a hero -- an exemplar of republican virtue -- by many American Revolutionaries. How do you view him?

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

There was a horrible suicide described in Atlas Shrugged. It was so bad that even reading about it at the age of 19 I knew it didn't come from the author's imagination. Decades later I found out such a suicide had actually happened involving a Rand acquaintance. That really was evil. The real question, though, is whether a suicide motivated by unconscious, repressed anger causing depression is moral or immoral. I would say morality there would be mox nix. People simply have to be better trained and self-trained to deal with anger.

Can you give a source and explain further?

I tried to find the AS reference for you but ran out of time. If I find it I'll post it.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

Subject: George just being George as usual

Or: how not to read a post - or do it unfairly and with defiant resistance ===>

>psychobabble

a dismissive, 'loaded' and emotionalist term: often used by those who are resistant to introspection or to psychological concepts as explanations.

> about people who criticize or don't agree with him

'reading in' or psychologizing a personal motive - when that did not actualy exist in the post.

> about how his social skills are superior

'reading in' or psychologizing a personal motive - when that did not actualy exist in the post.

> I advise Phil to remove the pole from his ass

defiantly returning to very sort of abusive insulting language the inappropriateness of which has been pointed out to him.

> insults or hypocrisy

when he is called on doing this, he 'turns the tables' ...calling the very attempt to point these things out "insulting".

Which means George doesn't have to consider them. And he -certainly- doesn't have to consider changing his behavior away from food fights and personalities. (He will just point the finger at -you-, suggesting there is something monstrous or hypocritical or unjust or 'insulting' of you for naming the issue. -- That's his defensive technique.)

Edited March 6, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Brant Gaede]

A lot of suicide is revenge driven, frequently unconsciously. Not all. If you are feeling suicidal imagine commiting suicide but without an audience, without anyone ever knowing about it. If such people weren't on the premise of victimhood--of being a victim--most suicides, I think, wouldn't happen.

--Brant

I think you have greatly oversimplified the issue of suicide.

Cato the Younger was an icon to 18th century libertarians because he killed himself rather than submit to the tyranny of Caesar.

Cato was viewed as a hero -- an exemplar of republican virtue -- by many American Revolutionaries. How do you view him?

Ghs

The same. But I was only referring to one type, I think the dominant type, of suicide. It's the only type talking about the way I did that might help someone reading it. It's the great end-curse of common depression.

--Brant