A Bold New Step for Objectivist Scholarship

[Dennis Hardin]

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. . .

--Brant

I really liked this post, Brant. After reading it, I feel I know you even though obviously I don't.

The people I work with daily also frequently comment on my sense of humor. I think humor enriches daily life in ways we can't begin to calculate. And it comes so naturally to me that sometimes I have to reassure people that I'm joking or they tend to freak out. But I never find it necessary to use insults or belittle anyone. Quite frankly, I couldn't do that if I wanted to. I'm far too sensitive. If I even suspect that something I said might have hurt someone, I will check in with them to make sure they understood that was not my intent.

I don't feel it's my responsibility to be the Mall Cop here at OL. People know when they're being uncivil, or nasty or cruel. I don't need to tell them. And I think the appropriate response is to ignore them. Giving them attention--even negative attention--only encourages them, pathetic little children that they are.

Pseudo-intellectual hoodlums are still hoodlums. Taunting with insults is only fun if they can get a rise out of you. If you ignore them, they go find someone else to assault.

[Dennis Hardin]

George,

I can think of numerous instances of suicide that I would call immoral. Terrorist suicide bombers, for one. And mass murderers like Harris and Klebold, the Columbine High School killers, who knew they were committing suicide when they went on their rampage. Or any of the myriad copy cat suicide murderers who followed in their footsteps. Those are two extreme categories of suicide where the perpetrators would likely claim they were depressed and hopeless but their suicidal actions were definitely immoral.

The immorality in such cases pertains to murdering others, not to the suicides per se. These murderers would not somehow be less immoral if they had not killed themselves in the process of killing others. The suicides are incidental to our moral evaluation.

Someone else mentioned suicide bombers. In the case of Muslim terrorists, we are dealing with people who believe that their actions will get them a pass to heaven and eternal happiness. They don't regard suicide as the cessation of life but as passage to a better life.

But the common denominator is the destructive intent--whether you kill other people or merely hurt other people. The essential nature of the immorality involved is the same--using your life as a means to the end of ruining other lives rather than treating your life as an end in itself. The key ethical principle being violated is independence.

And I think we're psychologizing when we say Muslims truly believe they will wake up in paradise. It's possible, I suppose, but we don't know for sure just how delusional their inner mental state might be. They would not be blowing themselves up if they were happy people, so depression and hopelessness are clearly involved.

Brant is exactly right that vengeful suicides are fairly common, but I think they are immoral even when the person only takes his own life. In such cases, suicide represents a vicious attempt to leave others with the agony of living out their own lives with unbearable guilt. Many years ago, I read in the local paper about a young boy who committed suicide and left behind a note for his parents: “Next time maybe you’ll buy me a Honda.” (I think he was referring to a motor bike.)

Imagine the pain those parents had to live with for the rest of their lives. It happens all the time. I definitely regard such vicious behavior as immoral.

Using a young child as an example complicates the issue, but let's assume we are talking about an adult who commits suicide for revenge, i.e., in the hope of causing others to feel pain. What moral principle is being violated here?

I will address your other remarks in another post.

Ghs

I don't remember how young the boy was, but I doubt he was much younger than Harris and Klebold. That's clearly old enough to be a moral monster.

[Dennis Hardin]

A few words about the choice to live....

To speak of a choice to live is curious, in a way. We obviously don't have a choice about being born, so that is not what is being referred to here. We are speaking instead of the choice to continue living.

In most cases we don't make a conscious decision to live. The instinct of self-preservation (or whatever one wishes to call it) is so strong that the desire to live is our natural default setting. We rarely think of it except when we believe our lives are in danger or when we contemplate suicide. In normal circumstances, to say that I choose to live is like saying that I choose not to destroy my computer. True, I could choose to destroy my computer, but the thought never occurs to me so long as it continues to function properly.

Murray Rothbard once said that every living person shows a "demonstrated preference" for life, because if someone really preferred death over life, he would be dead. Only in this sense (again, in normal circumstances) can we say that people choose to live.

Ghs

I agree with you that it's not a conscious decision we make at some point, and that on a practical level it's much more an issue of choosing to continue to live (or to take the actions necessary to do so). But from the standpoint of the Objectivist ethics, the question is whether the choice to live is moral or premoral. For Rand, ethics is entirely teleological--actions are judged by the standard of the goal we seek. But until we choose to live, technically there is no goal and therefore no morality. So what is the moral standing of the choice to live, if the choice precedes morality? And if someone simply decides life is not worth the effort, are we wrong to judge them morally?

[Dennis Hardin]

The subject that interests me is whether a person's obligations to others should be factors in our evaluation of his suicide. Should his financial debts be considered? Should the fact that he leaves behind a grieving family be considered? Etc., etc.

I raise these questions because if we argue that others should be taken into account when deciding whether or not to commit suicide, we might end up, logically speaking, defending the position that there are situations in which we should live solely for the sake of others.

I have my own opinions on these difficult issues, but they are not engraved in stone, and at this point I prefer to hear what others have to say.

Ghs

The standards of evaluation don't change because the person commits suicide. Irresponsibility—the refusal to take responsibility for one’s own life—is a default on the virtue of independence, and it is immoral when a person lives in a way that involves being a burden or parasite on others. Drug addicts who are enabled by spouses or other family members are a classic example. If they burden others with their debts, their immorality consists in their failure to meet the requirements of their own survival. If a person commits suicide and leaves behind debts for others to pay, his immorality again consists in his lack of independence. If he is responsible and remains alive long enough to resolve the debts as best he can, it is out of a human being’s moral obligation to himself and his own life, not an obligation to others.

A failure of independence necessarily places a burden on others, but the moral obligation is really that of a person to himself and what his life requires. If we make contracts with others, our own integrity is what makes the deal binding. If you owe someone five dollars or a million, paying it off never becomes altruistic.

Honesty is the ruling ethical principle when it comes to how others feel about us. Human beings cannot take responsibility for others’ emotions. All we can do is be as honest as possible so that what others may feel toward us is based on the reality of who we are. If a person elects to end his life due to hopelessness and pain, he does not have the obligation to continue to suffer to spare others from suffering over his absence.

That's the best I can do at 1:30 A.M.

[Dennis Hardin]

Regarding 'The Choice to Live':

I just noticed there's another thread on this specific topic, with a link to an article by Kelley. The link appears to be broken, however. Below is another link to an audio excerpt of the same talk.

Choosing Life by David Kelley

[George H. Smith]

George,

I can think of numerous instances of suicide that I would call immoral. Terrorist suicide bombers, for one. And mass murderers like Harris and Klebold, the Columbine High School killers, who knew they were committing suicide when they went on their rampage. Or any of the myriad copy cat suicide murderers who followed in their footsteps. Those are two extreme categories of suicide where the perpetrators would likely claim they were depressed and hopeless but their suicidal actions were definitely immoral.

The immorality in such cases pertains to murdering others, not to the suicides per se. These murderers would not somehow be less immoral if they had not killed themselves in the process of killing others. The suicides are incidental to our moral evaluation.

Someone else mentioned suicide bombers. In the case of Muslim terrorists, we are dealing with people who believe that their actions will get them a pass to heaven and eternal happiness. They don't regard suicide as the cessation of life but as passage to a better life.

But the common denominator is the destructive intent--whether you kill other people or merely hurt other people. The essential nature of the immorality involved is the same--using your life as a means to the end of ruining other lives rather than treating your life as an end in itself. The key ethical principle being violated is independence.

I don't agree with this. When you commit mass murder, for whatever reason, the key ethical principle being violated is respect for the rights of innocent victims. Whether or not you kill yourself in the process is relatively insignificant from a moral point of view.

And I think we're psychologizing when we say Muslims truly believe they will wake up in paradise. It's possible, I suppose, but we don't know for sure just how delusional their inner mental state might be. They would not be blowing themselves up if they were happy people, so depression and hopelessness are clearly involved.

I am not psychologizing at all. I am simply taking people at their word when we have no reason to doubt it. To suppose that people who are willing to die themselves in order to kill others cannot be happy, that they must feel depressed and hopeless, is to psychologize in a manner that flies in the face of countless historical examples. People who are willing, indeed eager, to die for a cause that involves killing others are a common phenomenon throughout history, especially in "holy wars." During the Middle Ages, popes frequently assured Christian crusaders that they would go to heaven if they died fighting infidels. As a result, there was rarely a shortage of volunteers. People really do believe this crap.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

A few words about the choice to live....

To speak of a choice to live is curious, in a way. We obviously don't have a choice about being born, so that is not what is being referred to here. We are speaking instead of the choice to continue living.

In most cases we don't make a conscious decision to live. The instinct of self-preservation (or whatever one wishes to call it) is so strong that the desire to live is our natural default setting. We rarely think of it except when we believe our lives are in danger or when we contemplate suicide. In normal circumstances, to say that I choose to live is like saying that I choose not to destroy my computer. True, I could choose to destroy my computer, but the thought never occurs to me so long as it continues to function properly.

Murray Rothbard once said that every living person shows a "demonstrated preference" for life, because if someone really preferred death over life, he would be dead. Only in this sense (again, in normal circumstances) can we say that people choose to live.

Ghs

I agree with you that it's not a conscious decision we make at some point, and that on a practical level it's much more an issue of choosing to continue to live (or to take the actions necessary to do so). But from the standpoint of the Objectivist ethics, the question is whether the choice to live is moral or premoral. For Rand, ethics is entirely teleological--actions are judged by the standard of the goal we seek. But until we choose to live, technically there is no goal and therefore no morality. So what is the moral standing of the choice to live, if the choice precedes morality? And if someone simply decides life is not worth the effort, are we wrong to judge them morally?

In normal circumstances (this qualification will be assumed throughout my discussion), we choose to live, or choose to continue living (the exact wording isn't very important}, in the same sense that we choose not to consume rat poison, or choose not to jump off a cliff, or choose not to run into a burning building. All my examples are metaphysical alternatives. They are things we could do, but we do not view them as psychological options. They are filtered out before they reach the level of conscious awareness, so we never consider them.

The instinct of self-preservation runs deep in humans, so the relevant question is not so much Why do you choose to live? as it is Why do you choose not to die? It is usually death, not life, that requires a conscious decision.

Of course, it can be argued that my psychological observations, even if accurate, are irrelevant to the philosophical problem involved here, since the choice not to die can be converted into the choice to live. Well, yes and no. A demonstrated preference for living over dying does not necessarily indicate that a person values his own life in any morally significant sense. It may simply indicate that he is unwilling to take the effort required to kill himself. It is frequently much easier to live than it is to die, and people tend to choose the path of least resistance.

We now come to your question, "if someone simply decides life is not worth the effort, are we wrong to judge them morally?" Yes, in my opinion, this is wrong (in the sense of "mistaken"). You may regard their decision as mistaken or unwise, but I don't see what moral principle they have violated. Where is it written that we must continue to live even when we believe that our life is not worth living? What better reason can there be for ending one's life?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

The standards of evaluation don't change because the person commits suicide. Irresponsibility—the refusal to take responsibility for one’s own life—is a default on the virtue of independence, and it is immoral when a person lives in a way that involves being a burden or parasite on others. Drug addicts who are enabled by spouses or other family members are a classic example. If they burden others with their debts, their immorality consists in their failure to meet the requirements of their own survival. If a person commits suicide and leaves behind debts for others to pay, his immorality again consists in his lack of independence. If he is responsible and remains alive long enough to resolve the debts as best he can, it is out of a human being’s moral obligation to himself and his own life, not an obligation to others.

Drug addicts cannot burden others with their debts unless those others willingly accept such burdens. This is a two-way street.

I don't understand how your views on independence pertain to the issue of suicide. You seem to say that a person needs to pay off his debts, or at least make a good faith effort to do so, before it would be morally proper for him to commit suicide. Why? Because obligations to others are really obligations to oneself. You then mix this in with the virtue of independence. I don't follow your reasoning here, so I will read your post again later on.

Ghs

[anthony]

George,

Would you perceive any moral variance between a (say) reasonably religious person commiting suicide, and a rational atheist?(who may be Objectivist).

I'm coming at this from the base that the latter has deliberately and objectively long laid claim to his own life (and his own death.) Further, at risk of being elitist now, it could sensibly be argued that this man has greater standards and values, which he could not bear to see compromised.

I'm wondering about this as a result of reported suicides often involving devout Christians - who apparently had lost jobs, or had straying wives, or similar.

To psychologize, I presume they felt they had let their families down, or such-like.

Tony

[George H. Smith]

George,

Would you perceive any moral variance between a (say) reasonably religious person commiting suicide, and a rational atheist?(who may be Objectivist).

I'm coming at this from the base that the latter has deliberately and objectively long laid claim to his own life (and his own death.) Further, at risk of being elitist now, it could sensibly be argued that this man has greater standards and values, which he could not bear to see compromised.

I'm wondering about this as a result of reported suicides often involving devout Christians - who apparently had lost jobs, or had straying wives, or similar.

To psychologize, I presume they felt they had let their families down, or such-like.

Tony

The traditional Christian prohibition of suicide is far more severe than the moral qualms that O'ists might have. O'ists at least concede that we have a right to kill ourselves, whereas even liberal and libertarian-oriented Christians, such as John Locke, typically denied this right. Why? Because, having been created by God, we are God's property, so we have no right to destroy our own lives. Moreover, God created us for a purpose, so to kill oneself is to defy the will of God.

Contemporary laws against suicide are a remnant of this way of thinking. The penalties for suicide in earlier legal systems had teeth; for example, the family of a person who killed himself could not inherit his property.

My point is that for a Christian to kill himself is much more of a moral transgression, subjectively considered, than for an O'ist to kill himself. For the Christian, there can be no value greater than God, and suicide is the ultimate betrayal of this ultimate value.

(There are almost always exceptions to historical generalizations, especially when dealing with the diverse traditions that we call "Christianity." I am speaking here of a dominant trend.)

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I previously mentioned Lecky's discussion of suicide in his History of European Morals. He covers pagan attitudes in Volume One, but this doesn't seem to be available on Google Books. Volume Two is available, however, and can be found here.

Scroll down to page 46 and you will find Lecky's discussion of Christian beliefs about suicide. (You can also click on "Suicide" in the table of contents.) This section begins with a useful summary of the four major objections to suicide offered by pagan moralists.

Ghs

[Xray]

I doubt if anyone has a problem with Phil's seriousness. What I have a problem with is his hypocrisy. Consider these remarks by Phil:

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.)

Any reasonable person would understand that to call people "loud-mouthed table-pounding cranky abrasive old farts" is an insult -- but not Phil. He doesn't think this is an insult because he didn't name anyone in particular -- even though it is obvious to whom he is referring.

Thus, when I replied that Phil should "remove the pole from his ass," he responded with righteous indignation, claiming that I was "defiantly returning to very sort of abusive insulting language the inappropriateness of which has been pointed out to him."

This is not a matter of being serious. It is a matter of being a gold-plated hypocrite.

But if Phil doesn't think LECAF is an insult, then this would qualify as an error of judgement on his part, and not as a conscious attempt at deception (to which the term "hypocrisy" refers).

I dont know about you, but I just don't take to heart what people write on forums when they are emotionally upset. We humans are no robots, and "Man" is not always the "rational being" posited as an ideal in the Objectivist philosophy.

[Replying to Philip Coates]:

And the real wonder of all this is that you absolutely refuse to do what you're always whining that too few of the rest of us do - respond to our argument that "civility" is a phoney concept from top to bottom and nothing but a smokescreen designed to conceal the fact that those who are always clamoring for "civility" are just as insulting as the rest of us. They want their insults not to count as insults, while our insults do count as insults. There is nothing more to the entire phoney baloney issue than that.

JR,

Just curious: do you regard civility as a value, or would you prefer people not being civil to each other?

I agree with you that it's not a conscious decision we make at some point, and that on a practical level it's much more an issue of choosing to continue to live (or to take the actions necessary to do so). But from the standpoint of the Objectivist ethics, the question is whether the choice to live is moral or premoral. For Rand, ethics is entirely teleological--actions are judged by the standard of the goal we seek. But until we choose to live, technically there is no goal and therefore no morality. So what is the moral standing of the choice to live, if the choice precedes morality? And if someone simply decides life is not worth the effort, are we wrong to judge them morally?

You have correctly pointed out substantial contradictions in the whole "morality" package of Objectivism. It doesn't mesh. Keep digging. After all, going by Rand's very own premises, it is crucial for a philosophy to be free from contradictions.

(replying to Dennis Hardin)

We now come to your question, "if someone simply decides life is not worth the effort, are we wrong to judge them morally?" Yes, in my opinion, this is wrong (in the sense of "mistaken"). You may regard their decision as mistaken or unwise, but I don't see what moral principle they have violated. Where is it written that we must continue to live even when we believe that our life is not worth living? What better reason can there be for ending one's life?

Maybe it is Objectivism's putting "life as the ultimate value" which can make it difficult for Objectivists to accept that an individual can subjectively choose non-existence over existence and act on it?

Choosing non-existence over existence is clearly not a mere "whim", but much more than that.

All advocates of objective morality (like e. g. the Catholic Church) have the problem of "morally judging" these acts.

And even the Catholic Church meanwhile has modified its harsh judgement. So much for "objective" morality. It just does not exist. Why is this so hard to accept for many? Do they believe everything is going to collapse if they abandon the belief in this fallacy?

Edited March 7, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

Irresponsibility—the refusal to take responsibility for one’s own life—is a default on the virtue of independence, and it is immoral when a person lives in a way that involves being a burden or parasite on others.

But if a philosophy bases its ethics on an organism's need for survival, then it must acknowledge that parasites are very well equipped for survival by nature.

Also, a living organism has to kill other life in order to exist.

As Ghs has pointed out:

George H. Smith: "Ayn Rand's derivation of man's inalienable right to his own life rests implicitly on a moral sanction of life as such, and, if she is to be consistent, Rand must apply her rights concept to all life forms. A sanction of all life, however, is inconsistent with man's survival. To live, man must kill other life - he cannot survive on inorganic matter."

Source: George H. Smith, Ayn Rand and the Right to Life: A Critical Evaluation, Invictus 17, p. 8 (quoted from L. A. Rollins, The Myth of Natural Rights, p. 16).

Edited March 7, 2011 by Xray

[Selene]

But if Phil doesn't think LECAF is an insult, then this would qualify as an error of judgement on his part, and not as a conscious attempt at deception (to which the term "hypocrisy" refers).

Ms. Xray, if Phil did not think cyanide was a deadly poison and added it to your beer float, should he be acquitted of pre meditated murder?

[George H. Smith]

I doubt if anyone has a problem with Phil's seriousness. What I have a problem with is his hypocrisy. Consider these remarks by Phil:

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.)

Any reasonable person would understand that to call people "loud-mouthed table-pounding cranky abrasive old farts" is an insult -- but not Phil. He doesn't think this is an insult because he didn't name anyone in particular -- even though it is obvious to whom he is referring.

Thus, when I replied that Phil should "remove the pole from his ass," he responded with righteous indignation, claiming that I was "defiantly returning to very sort of abusive insulting language the inappropriateness of which has been pointed out to him."

This is not a matter of being serious. It is a matter of being a gold-plated hypocrite.

But if Phil doesn't think LECAF is an insult, then this would qualify as an error of judgement on his part, and not as a conscious attempt at deception (to which the term "hypocrisy" refers).

Do you really think Phil is so dense as not to understand that the phrase "loud-mouthed table-pounding cranky abrasive old farts" is an insult? If you truly believe this, then you have a much lower opinion of him than I do.

I don't know about you, but I just don't take to heart what people write on forums when they are emotionally upset.

Why are you telling me this? I have said similar things many times. Phil can insult me all he likes; it doesn't bother me in the least. What annoys me is Phil's incessant moralizing about civility, when he is as uncivil as anyone else on OL. This wouldn't be a big deal if Phil only did it occasionally. But he has appointed himself the school marm of OL, and I don't like school marms.

Ghs

[caroljane]

I doubt if anyone has a problem with Phil's seriousness. What I have a problem with is his hypocrisy. Consider these remarks by Phil:

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.)

Any reasonable person would understand that to call people "loud-mouthed table-pounding cranky abrasive old farts" is an insult -- but not Phil. He doesn't think this is an insult because he didn't name anyone in particular -- even though it is obvious to whom he is referring.

Thus, when I replied that Phil should "remove the pole from his ass," he responded with righteous indignation, claiming that I was "defiantly returning to very sort of abusive insulting language the inappropriateness of which has been pointed out to him."

This is not a matter of being serious. It is a matter of being a gold-plated hypocrite.

But if Phil doesn't think LECAF is an insult, then this would qualify as an error of judgement on his part, and not as a conscious attempt at deception (to which the term "hypocrisy" refers).

Do you really think Phil is so dense as not to understand that the phrase "loud-mouthed table-pounding cranky abrasive old farts" is an insult? If you truly believe this, then you have a much lower opinion of him than I do.

I don't know about you, but I just don't take to heart what people write on forums when they are emotionally upset.

Why are you telling me this? I have said similar things many times. Phil can insult me all he likes; it doesn't bother me in the least. What annoys me is Phil's incessant moralizing about civility, when he is as uncivil as anyone else on OL. This wouldn't be a big deal if Phil only did it occasionally. But he has appointed himself the school marm of OL, and I don't like school marms.

Ghs

Indeed! XRay and I are both schoolmarms. I think there is some hifalutin goshdarn word for your characterization here.

[Xray]

But if Phil doesn't think LECAF is an insult, then this would qualify as an error of judgement on his part, and not as a conscious attempt at deception (to which the term "hypocrisy" refers).

Ms. Xray, if Phil did not think cyanide was a deadly poison and added it to your beer float, should he be acquitted of pre meditated murder?

In case he truly believed Cyanide to have been a harmless substance, no doubt the defense would bring this up as exonerating at trial.

The prosecution would of course counter by grilling him on why he put it in the beer then.

But thank goodness we're not not talking about Cyanide here, but only about the (comparatively) harmless LECAF which can't physically hurt. ;)

Ghs: Why are you telling me this? I have said similar things many times.

You sounded somewhat more upset than usual, so I wondered what was the reason for it.

Edited March 7, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

George only gets upset when Phil praises him. Or will get upset if . . .

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

Brant, I've actually praised some of his posts and I think he was so traumatized that he was unable to respond.

[Selene]

Towards the end of achieving Phil's new era of civility here on OL, here is the first installment for emulation:

[George H. Smith]

.

Ghs: Why are you telling me this? I have said similar things many times.

You sounded somewhat more upset than usual, so I wondered what was the reason for it.

Upset with Phil? Why would I be upset with Phil?

Posting on OL is a leisure activity for me, something I do to take my mind off more serious work, i.e., research and writing. If I am ever upset when I post something on OL, it almost certainly has nothing to do with OL itself but with something else in my life, usually work-related deadlines and writers' block.

Of course, certain feelings run through me as I am reading and writing posts, but these are not serious emotions; at most I would call them pseudo-emotions. They are the type of superficial and transitory feelings that one might experience while playing Monopoly or watching a movie. Once the recreational activity is over, the feelings, which were pretty superficial to begin with, immediately dissipate, rarely to be thought of again. If posting ever became work instead of play for me, it would lose its value, and I would stop doing it.

In most cases, I am very deliberate about the tone of my posts. When I use sarcasm, I do so deliberately. When I use insults, I do so deliberately. Why? Well, for various reasons. One reason is because I like the challenge of writing original and humorous zingers -- those one or two liners that you will sometimes find at the end of my posts. I like crafting a sentence or two with some zest and punch; this can be excellent practice for a writer.

I regard OL as both an intellectual and a conversational forum. When I am discussing serious intellectual issues (e.g., suicide on this thread)my writing style is normally serious and quite measured (unless I let myself get sucked into a flamewar). But when the tone is conversational and the topic is relatively trivial, then I write in my natural polemical style. This has always been my natural style; it is what comes out in a first draft when I write quickly. I typically have to restrain or revise this polemicism in my workaday writing, so it feels good to cut loose in another setting.

As for Phil, I disliked hall monitors when I was in high school, and I dislike them even more on internet forums, especially when they are self-appointed.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... I disliked hall monitors when I was in high school, and I dislike them even more on internet forums...

George,

I can relate to this.

I've always had a problem with authority (especially the self-appointed kind, but the other kind, too). I've always been sassy to those in power I didn't respect, but I've always gravitated toward the power position. I haven't lived this over and over because I like power (I don't), but because--in the places I have been--the people in charge kept screwing things up and I wanted to see them done right.

(For example, that's the main reason I became a conductor. Not because I loved conducting. But because I got tired of being the principal trombonist in an orchestra where a series of jerks waving a stick were butchering masterpieces and getting away with it.)

Today, because of the way this Internet forum stuff developed, I'm an authority of sorts.

And guess what?

Now I have a problem with me!

What the hell am I supposed to do here on OL? Put up with me?

Dayaamm!

(That's a quip, but there's too much truth behind it for comfort...)

Michael

[caroljane]

... I disliked hall monitors when I was in high school, and I dislike them even more on internet forums...

George,

I can relate to this.

I've always had a problem with authority (especially the self-appointed kind, but the other kind, too). I've always been sassy to those in power I didn't respect, but I've always gravitated toward the power position. I haven't lived this over and over because I like power (I don't), but because--in the places I have been--the people in charge kept screwing things up and I wanted to see them done right.

(For example, that's the main reason I became a conductor. Not because I loved conducting. But because I got tired of being the principal trombonist in an orchestra where a series of jerks waving a stick were butchering masterpieces and getting away with it.)

Today, because of the way this Internet forum stuff developed, I'm an authority of sorts.

And guess what?

Now I have a problem with me!

What the hell am I supposed to do here on OL? Put up with me?

Dayaamm!

(That's a quip, but there's too much truth behind it for comfort...)

Michael

Michael Stuart Kelly! You just do what your wife tells you and look sharp about it! You'll be fine.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: The Attack Dogs / Snark Pack in Objectivist Circles

Xray,

You made a couple good points on this thread about George's fallacies with regard to personal attacks. Let me summarize his technique:

[i say 'he' even though some of these techniques are shared by other posters - such as the other 3 heavily 'attack-style' types here - ND, Adam, and Jeff R]

1. He constantly indulges in personal attacks (rationalizations: I'm sharpening my writing tool; it's only polemics; it's clever; it's my natural style; it's a sidelight or a hobby which doesn't distract me too much from serious work.)

2A. When someone points this out civilly or seriously, he [they] will ridicule him as a 'schoolmarm' or 'boring' or repetitious ...or let's get back to the thread [and let me resume my attacks on it.]

2B. If he [they] can find an irritated or angry post, they will pounce on it: "aha! you're just as bad", "you do it too!"

3. George has taken 2B to another level: he complains that all my posts are vacuous, that I "insult people just as much" as anyone else...and therefore that my criticisms are "hypocritical".

4. If the criticism hits home too much or he can't think of a putdown, he will simply make a joke about it.

By blurring the line between attack or offense on the one hand and defense or criticism on the other, George, Adam, ND, and Jeff*** are allowed to continue their non-objective behavior.

*** There are others on this list who get into long foodfights, use personal attacks and insults, but in the four people I have named it seems a major personality trait: They seem to feel a need to do it regularly as if they were still chasing childhood demons or dealing with adolescent attackers. (I debated including Brant, SJW, MSK, or Ted on the list, but each of them seems to do it less frequently or perhaps more when provoked as opposed to getting off on it or having it psychologically as a dominant personality dysfunction: the unfortunate thing is this large a list constitutes now the *majority* of the most frequent posters -- which is why I refer frequently to the decline of the list.)

It's a shame because each of the four attack dogs/snark pack guys is intelligent and they often have worthwhile points to make.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

I also want to note that many of the things I point out seem *far, far worse* at a venue like Lindsay Perigo's*** SoloPassion. I check out what's going on over there maybe once a month and I almost -never- see a thread which is not overwhelmed by bitter hatreds, personal attacks, ongoing feuds, etc.

That place seems to be an unrelieved sewer.

(At least on OL if someone is going to put me or someone else down or post a personal attack or ad hominem it is often at least entertaining, done in a tone or amusement or with a clever cartoon.)

*** Lindsay P. is the poster boy and role model for personal attacks in the Oist world

Edited March 8, 2011 by Philip Coates