Why do ARI and other Objectivists ignore current events?

[sjw]

Leaving aside what I think of Robert Tracinski's treatment of the Wikileaks issue, I have to hand it to him for at least taking a stand on it. (Of course, he seems to have no stand on the Bill of Rights, or of having a government that is accountable to We the People.)

ARI Objectivists want to change the culture, but they don't seem to want to get their hands dirty. What does ARI think about things like this?:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/29/air-transport-terrorism?x=1

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/12/29/one-tip-can-get-you-on-the-terrorist-watch-list

On at least this issue, it's clear what Objectivists should be saying. They should be saying what Ron Paul is saying: that airports are private property, and that owners should be in charge of security.

Are they too cowardly to take a stand, or are they trying to see just how culturally irrelevant they can be? If this were Weimar Germany in the 20's and 30's, would they be silently standing by while civil rights are systematically eradicated? Or is their position that none of this is actually important?

Shayne

[Roger Bissell]

Leaving aside what I think of Robert Tracinski's treatment of the Wikileaks issue, I have to hand it to him for at least taking a stand on it. (Of course, he seems to have no stand on the Bill of Rights, or of having a government that is accountable to We the People.)

Shayne, I think it ~is~ important for ~some~ Objectivists to focus their comments on current events, though ~not all~ Objectivists need to be focusing their energies on this. And some Objectivists ~do~ focus on such things, though I notice they seem to be selective on what they work on in their interviews, op-ends, etc.

In Tracinski's case, I think that fighting against Nihilism, destruction of governments for the sake of destruction, or at least destruction of the U.S. for the sake of destruction of the U.S., looms for him as a culturally more important matter than even defending the Bill of Rights or government accountability to its citizens.

People, in other words, do choose their battles (as Rand admonished us to do in the very first issue of The Objectivist Newsletter in 1962), rather than going to war against the issues we might prefer that they focus on. This does not make them bad or even misguided. Context and perspective are very important, and rational individuals can disagree about priorities. (But we've had this discussion before, haven't we...)

By the way, your wording above reminds me of what I see and hear all the time and wince whenever it appears: misuse of the phrase "We, the People." It's only proper to use it as the ~subject~ of a sentence, or as a ~predicate noun (phrase)~. But these days, people tend to overuse "we, the people" almost as much as they overuse phrases like "my wife and I."

Just some examples:

My wife and I went to a movie.

The last people to arrive at the movie were my wife and I.

The usher was rude to my wife and me.

The usher gave my wife and me a hard time.

We, the People of the United States of America, do ordain and establish its government.

The establishers of the U.S. government are we, the people of the United States of America.

The U.S. government defends us, the people of the United States of America.

The U.S. government should be accountable to us, the people of the United States of America.

I've also found that it's fascinating to realize that you can make a pretty good estimate of the education level of a person by seeing what kind of grammatical errors they make:

1. Me and my wife went to a movie. (The person maybe finished high school.)

2. The usher gave my wife and I a hard time. (Only a college graduate would speak this way.)

Don't worry. This is just an occasional hobby/dabbling of mine, not an obsession. :-)

REB

[sjw]

In Tracinski's case, I think that fighting against Nihilism, destruction of governments for the sake of destruction, or at least destruction of the U.S. for the sake of destruction of the U.S., looms for him as a culturally more important matter than even defending the Bill of Rights or government accountability to its citizens.

What an idiotic false alternative. But even if it were the alternative, what a craven side to stand on.

"If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter." -- Thomas Jefferson.

People, in other words, do choose their battles (as Rand admonished us to do in the very first issue of The Objectivist Newsletter in 1962), rather than going to war against the issues we might prefer that they focus on.

The Bill of Rights is not about non-essential subjective value preferences, it's about binding the government to the rule of law. It is ironic that the alternative you seem to stand behind is an anarchic government -- all while claiming to be against nihilism. You government worshipers are identical to anarchists, you just pick a different side of the whim-worship equation.

Shayne

[Selene]

Folks:

A question...

Is a Constitutionally limited government a requirement to protect and enforce the Bill of Rights which restrains government from abusing the citizens?

Adam

[Roger Bissell]

In Tracinski's case, I think that fighting against Nihilism, destruction of governments for the sake of destruction, or at least destruction of the U.S. for the sake of destruction of the U.S., looms for him as a culturally more important matter than even defending the Bill of Rights or government accountability to its citizens.

What an idiotic false alternative. But even if it were the alternative, what a craven side to stand on.

"If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter." -- Thomas Jefferson.

People, in other words, do choose their battles (as Rand admonished us to do in the very first issue of The Objectivist Newsletter in 1962), rather than going to war against the issues we might prefer that they focus on.

The Bill of Rights is not about non-essential subjective value preferences, it's about binding the government to the rule of law. It is ironic that the alternative you seem to stand behind is an anarchic government -- all while claiming to be against nihilism. You government worshipers are identical to anarchists, you just pick a different side of the whim-worship equation.

Shayne

Thanks, Shayne. It's always refreshing to be so blatantly, smearingly misrepresented. And it's a convenient reminder that I don't have to post on So Low Bashin', in order to be bashed in so low a fashion. Happy New Year, and keep that fresh air coming!

REB

[sjw]

Folks:

A question...

Is a Constitutionally limited government a requirement to protect and enforce the Bill of Rights which restrains government from abusing the citizens?

Adam

?

[geekgirl]

Hey, I'm new here... and just wanted to say this is completely ridiculous. (Always a good start.)

First of all, the question at hand - the purpose of the thread - has been completely ignored and seemingly lost in the mists of history. Yet, it is the most important question I've seen on the entire site to be honest. And the way it has been completely blown aside is pretty lame.

Why don't you have anything to say on current events? Why do Objectivists seem to keep their discussions in low, murmurred tones in obscure forums along the less-traveled internet venues? OR, maybe in the backs of the tea-party events, carefully trying not to appear to be too impressed with the Ron Paul people or to be associated with the LaRouche folk. Objectivism is a morality proper to man, is it not? Descended from Aristotlean logic, correct? I think we can all agree that the more people that follow it, the less "managed" and freer a society we will have, right? That's supposed to be a good thing, right?

So why don't we fight for it? Or at least tell people about it. Ayn spent several days debating publicly anyone at radio City Music Hall, did she not? Current Events are simply teachable moments.

I think even Ayn would agree that a philosophy never practiced (or at least advocated for) is hardly worth considering as a serious contender. Look at how vigorously she defended and advocated hers.

I, for one, am tired of it. I hear marxist propaganda everywhere I go... so now I answer them, when it happens. The worst thing about these Leftists, is that people like us shut up and stay quiet while they feel free to use their Argument From Intimidation to pretty much walk all over the conversation. And where does that get us? The marxist feels great, you feel like crap, and everyone else that doesn't know any better now knows less than they did before.

So when someone says, "I think healthcare's a right"...

you say, "health care is a service provided by skilled human beings; to call healthcare a right means that you desire the right to make slaves of your fellow man. You're a socialist; you always think men's lives are a means to your ends."

When someone says, "don't you care about minorities?"

You say, "the smallest minority of all is the individual - why don't you care about them?"

When someone says, "I think that rich guy makes too much"

You say, "you say you'll defend a nazi's right to march, even though you disagree, because you respect the freedom of speech more. But you'll never defend the right to make as much money as one wants, even if you don't like the guy, because you're not really about freedom, are you?"

And when you hear the inevitable, "Atlas Shrugged? You're kidding, right? Total garbage, I couldn't even follow it."

You say, "so you take as evidence of my idiocy the fact that I understood a book you couldn't even finish?"

We should be commenting on current events all the time. We should take every opportunity to illustrate how objectivism works and what it means. Most of you, in my opinion, seem to consider Objectivism a "pleasant abstraction for distraction". I think we're failing the entire philosophy if we just sit in our armchairs and discuss the finer points. Ayn Rand's work - especially politically - is in desperate need right now. There is no better time to say something, then now. When will it be too late?

[sjw]

Hey, I'm new here... and just wanted to say this is completely ridiculous. (Always a good start.)

First of all, the question at hand - the purpose of the thread - has been completely ignored and seemingly lost in the mists of history. Yet, it is the most important question I've seen on the entire site to be honest. And the way it has been completely blown aside is pretty lame.

Why don't you have anything to say on current events? Why do Objectivists seem to keep their discussions in low, murmurred tones in obscure forums along the less-traveled internet venues? OR, maybe in the backs of the tea-party events, carefully trying not to appear to be too impressed with the Ron Paul people or to be associated with the LaRouche folk. Objectivism is a morality proper to man, is it not? Descended from Aristotlean logic, correct? I think we can all agree that the more people that follow it, the less "managed" and freer a society we will have, right? That's supposed to be a good thing, right?

So why don't we fight for it? Or at least tell people about it. Ayn spent several days debating publicly anyone at radio City Music Hall, did she not? Current Events are simply teachable moments.

I think even Ayn would agree that a philosophy never practiced (or at least advocated for) is hardly worth considering as a serious contender. Look at how vigorously she defended and advocated hers.

I, for one, am tired of it. I hear marxist propaganda everywhere I go... so now I answer them, when it happens. The worst thing about these Leftists, is that people like us shut up and stay quiet while they feel free to use their Argument From Intimidation to pretty much walk all over the conversation. And where does that get us? The marxist feels great, you feel like crap, and everyone else that doesn't know any better now knows less than they did before.

So when someone says, "I think healthcare's a right"...

you say, "health care is a service provided by skilled human beings; to call healthcare a right means that you desire the right to make slaves of your fellow man. You're a socialist; you always think men's lives are a means to your ends."

When someone says, "don't you care about minorities?"

You say, "the smallest minority of all is the individual - why don't you care about them?"

When someone says, "I think that rich guy makes too much"

You say, "you say you'll defend a nazi's right to march, even though you disagree, because you respect the freedom of speech more. But you'll never defend the right to make as much money as one wants, even if you don't like the guy, because you're not really about freedom, are you?"

And when you hear the inevitable, "Atlas Shrugged? You're kidding, right? Total garbage, I couldn't even follow it."

You say, "so you take as evidence of my idiocy the fact that I understood a book you couldn't even finish?"

We should be commenting on current events all the time. We should take every opportunity to illustrate how objectivism works and what it means. Most of you, in my opinion, seem to consider Objectivism a "pleasant abstraction for distraction". I think we're failing the entire philosophy if we just sit in our armchairs and discuss the finer points. Ayn Rand's work - especially politically - is in desperate need right now. There is no better time to say something, then now. When will it be too late?

Amen to that.

Shayne

[Selene]

Sarah:

Welcome to OL.

I agree with totally engaging the marxists, progressives, and their fellow travelers in both parties at all levels and opportunities.

For example, one of the individuals who is running to replace Michael Steele as the head of the Republican National Committee is an attorney whose firm advocates that O'biwan's marxist takeover of medicine is Constitutional. Where is the uproar from the front line "Objectivist" institutions?

Additionally, the "Objectivist institutions" that I think you are referring to tend to not want to get their hands dirty with politics, which is a carry over from Rand's aversion to the political sphere.

At any rate, your input is primarily well directed.

Are you a working slave for the state or a student?

Where do you hail from?

Adam

[geekgirl]

I am a freelance graphic artist/webdesigner/flash designer/perl programmer/audiovideo tech that recently fled the blue northeast for Texas. A little bit o "goin Galt" you could say... I haven't quite dropped out entirely, but I'm certainly becoming harder to find ;-)

Engagement is the key to everything, I think. It is, after all, the way the Left propogates its propaganda, isn't it? And Ayn showed us how to deal with the Argument From Intimidation: you stand up to it. ("In today's world, it's not enough to be right, one has to KNOW that one is right") Don't think I get angry or violent or confrontational... I've found the most effective way is to simply play dumb and ask a million questions about what a Leftist believes. They are so used to people just folding under their bluff, they're not used to having to explain or defend any of it. After a few exchanges, it's usually pretty easy to trap them in some logical nonsense or make them drop the push altogether. In any case; I don't make it easy. If they intend to bluff their way through an intellectual discussion, I intend to make them work for it and fight for every inch of ground. I make sure that after talking to me, the Leftists will have second (and third) thoughts about ever making such statements in public again. And I do it with a cute smile, and simple, unassuming questions.

As for Michael Steele... I've never been able to figure him out exactly. At first, it seems like he was a statusQuo rinoe get along with the Left type. And the palace intrigue - the Republicans have never had their sh*t together, and I never had any faith in the party apparatus... so I'm not going to get on his case over the infighting; mostly because I don't care about Republicans.

What I don't understand completely, I must admit, is Rand's aversion to politics. She did seem to favor the psychological side of Objectivism over the political side; but then, she would occasionally go all out and write a 1200 page opus that revolves around the political side almost exclusively. I have trouble understanding if Rand was really as averse to politics as many of the post-Rand acolytes insist. I've always taken the reluctance in this area to be a result of the coffee klatch/teacher's lounge aspect of Objectivism. (There is, I am somewhat ashamed to say, an elitist thread through all of this that Objectivists are somehow smarter and above it all. The very concept that Politics is "getting one's hands dirty" reflects this.)

But regardless of Rand's (or some of our) aversion to getting hands dirty... we have to shed those inhibitions. Now is the time for getting hands dirty. In fact, I'll wager that we are now in the 11th hour and the only openings left are for people not afraid to dirty their hands.

I look at the Fabian Socialists in England. Completely discredited in my eyes... but they're still rocking arent' they? They almost destroyed this country in the 30s and had all their ideas totally discredited for any honest person to see... but they're still truckin, and exert an enormous amount of influence on CFAP and Obama. Meanwhile, Objectivists - with much better ideas - can't seem to figure out if they should even be part of the discussion. We should have multiple think tanks, churning out regular statements. CFAP controls both Hillary and Obama and most of the primary candidates - they covered all their bases, don't they? We should have direct influence on all the prospective Republican candidates.

I know a lot of you agree with me... just from the few posts here, and the private ones I've received... but the next step in translating that into action of some kind.

One of you was kind enough to call me an idealist - but you misunderstand. I'm just pissed off.

[sjw]

I think your anti-humility approach is key. People need an attitude adjustment in this area. I've also seen it time and time again. Here's a great video on this phenomenon:

But I would also say that actually being right is even more important than engagement. And there's the rub when it comes to Rand's Objectivism. She was wrong on important matters, both in her emphasis and in her principles.

Shayne

[geekgirl]

But I would also say that actually being right is even more important than engagement.

Of course; and us objectivists are always about Truth - it's how we got here in the first place, isn't it?

But such considerations don't seem to stop the Leftists, do they? They barely have half a truth between the lot of them, yet it hasn't stopped them from making a complete mess of the world.

Before I get off completely on the wrong foot, I have to say I loved the video; although it's a bit emblematic of the situation here in general, isn't it? (And I don't mean the actual video's content.) I'm trying to push you all into this uncomfortable discussion about engagement... and you provide me with a lovely, scholarly video about the pyschological mechanics behind peer pressure. And, back we are in the armchairs... more brandy, anyone?

Here's a great video about the Science of Kissing:

Awesome! But what really did you learn? Now, if you didn't know anything about kissing, you know everything you need to know, right? But at some point, it must occur to any of us, that to really know anything... we simply need to jump in and do it. To really get out and experience the world and truly learn anything, you have to leave the armchairs behind.

And there's the rub when it comes to Rand's Objectivism. She was wrong on important matters, both in her emphasis and in her principles.

And this is the rub I have with you. You see, I don't think she was wrong. I don't think she was done - she was refining her views right up until the end - but she was by no means wrong; her experience was always evolving. "Errors in knowledge are not breaches of morality. No valid moral code can demand infallibility."

I finished Atlas Shrugged three years ago (it was my doin the laundry book, and it took a year), and since then I've been listening to pieces of that and other works on mp3. I leave it on shuffle in the background while I code. I have Galt's speech from Atlas, Philosophy - who needs it?, The Virtue of Selfishness, her Donahue interview, etc. Then there's also movies like Sense of Life, and a History channel doc who's name escapes me at the moment. I even grabbed all the youTube videos pairing Galt's speech with visuals.

The one thing I've been impressed with throughout all of it though, is how right she is. It's virtually timeless - the things she talks about in Atlas make so much sense in light of the current Obama worldview, she's virtually a prophet. (Metaphysicians are everywhere; some of them are even called community organizers. ) I constantly hear phrases while I work that make me stop and shake my head about how right she STILL is.

Socialism IS a quest for unearned value. Half the American southwest is a national monument right now, thanks to our newest Monument Builders. The Cult of Moral Grayness is still alive... they REALLY do hate black and white simply to preserve the advantages of both. You really can't love that which you don't value... and you have to value yourself before you can really love at all. The argument from intimidation was used on me just two days ago... and Ayn's recommended solutions worked. There really are people that only seem to know how to trade Need for Value - I just worked on a project with a guy who seemingly never had anything but Need to trade. (And I eventually explained it to him in those terms.)

We can sit around and argue the finer points - that's most of the conversation here, apparently - but it's precisely the fundamentals in which she was correct. I am reminded constantly in my daily life that this is so. The only part I even think she was a little wrong about has to do with the spiritual/metaphysical... but only because she was a product of her time. (And we now have quantum physics to help!)

But... if you don't think she was right in principles or emphasis... then why are you here? What you're saying, pretty much, is that she was only occasionally accidentally right. (Wow, go easy on the praise, there!) And... that you don't want to engage on her behalf because she's mostly wrong?

Are you just a troll, shaking up the silly Randians? Or, maybe, you are secretly hoping someone will smack you and wake you from your stupor? Why not go to DailyKos and talk Ayn Rand there - you're sure to get more agreement.

And even if you harbor some suspicion that it may not be "all right", do you honestly prefer the "political morality" we're living under today? There's nothing right about what's going on right now. Nothing. Tell me you haven't thought of Stanley Mooch at least once in the past year, when you heard of some new Obama edict handed down from on high. If you did, well that was Ayn being right; the proof being reality.

Edited January 1, 2011 by GeekGirl

[Mike11]

is liking the GeekGirl

[sjw]

My, you are presumptuous and defensive aren't you? How about you learn little bit about someone before jumping to those kinds of conclusions. And you could try being less of a hypocrite as well -- sitting in your armchair lecturing us about lectures being lectures (and pretending to know all about who I am and what I know without bothering to ask what I think and why). How rich. The Internet is about communication -- and you use it to complain about people using it for communication. What silliness.

Shayne

[anonrobt]

But I would also say that actually being right is even more important than engagement.

Of course; and us objectivists are always about Truth - it's how we got here in the first place, isn't it?

But such considerations don't seem to stop the Leftists, do they? They barely have half a truth between the lot of them, yet it hasn't stopped them from making a complete mess of the world.

Before I get off completely on the wrong foot, I have to say I loved the video; although it's a bit emblematic of the situation here in general, isn't it? (And I don't mean the actual video's content.) I'm trying to push you all into this uncomfortable discussion about engagement... and you provide me with a lovely, scholarly video about the pyschological mechanics behind peer pressure. And, back we are in the armchairs... more brandy, anyone?

Here's a great video about the Science of Kissing:

Awesome! But what really did you learn? Now, if you didn't know anything about kissing, you know everything you need to know, right? But at some point, it must occur to any of us, that to really know anything... we simply need to jump in and do it. To really get out and experience the world and truly learn anything, you have to leave the armchairs behind.

And there's the rub when it comes to Rand's Objectivism. She was wrong on important matters, both in her emphasis and in her principles.

And this is the rub I have with you. You see, I don't think she was wrong. I don't think she was done - she was refining her views right up until the end - but she was by no means wrong; her experience was always evolving. "Errors in knowledge are not breaches of morality. No valid moral code can demand infallibility."

I finished Atlas Shrugged three years ago (it was my doin the laundry book, and it took a year), and since then I've been listening to pieces of that and other works on mp3. I leave it on shuffle in the background while I code. I have Galt's speech from Atlas, Philosophy - who needs it?, The Virtue of Selfishness, her Donahue interview, etc. Then there's also movies like Sense of Life, and a History channel doc who's name escapes me at the moment. I even grabbed all the youTube videos pairing Galt's speech with visuals.

The one thing I've been impressed with throughout all of it though, is how right she is. It's virtually timeless - the things she talks about in Atlas make so much sense in light of the current Obama worldview, she's virtually a prophet. (Metaphysicians are everywhere; some of them are even called community organizers. ) I constantly hear phrases while I work that make me stop and shake my head about how right she STILL is.

Socialism IS a quest for unearned value. Half the American southwest is a national monument right now, thanks to our newest Monument Builders. The Cult of Moral Grayness is still alive... they REALLY do hate black and white simply to preserve the advantages of both. You really can't love that which you don't value... and you have to value yourself before you can really love at all. The argument from intimidation was used on me just two days ago... and Ayn's recommended solutions worked. There really are people that only seem to know how to trade Need for Value - I just worked on a project with a guy who seemingly never had anything but Need to trade. (And I eventually explained it to him in those terms.)

We can sit around and argue the finer points - that's most of the conversation here, apparently - but it's precisely the fundamentals in which she was correct. I am reminded constantly in my daily life that this is so. The only part I even think she was a little wrong about has to do with the spiritual/metaphysical... but only because she was a product of her time. (And we now have quantum physics to help!)

But... if you don't think she was right in principles or emphasis... then why are you here? What you're saying, pretty much, is that she was only occasionally accidentally right. (Wow, go easy on the praise, there!) And... that you don't want to engage on her behalf because she's mostly wrong?

Are you just a troll, shaking up the silly Randians? Or, maybe, you are secretly hoping someone will smack you and wake you from your stupor? Why not go to DailyKos and talk Ayn Rand there - you're sure to get more agreement.

And even if you harbor some suspicion that it may not be "all right", do you honestly prefer the "political morality" we're living under today? There's nothing right about what's going on right now. Nothing. Tell me you haven't thought of Stanley Mooch at least once in the past year, when you heard of some new Obama edict handed down from on high. If you did, well that was Ayn being right; the proof being reality.

Further, anyone who has read her Objectivist Newsletter, The Objectivist, and The Ayn Rand Letter know full well she never adversed to politics - indeed, it was by and large what she talked about, putting into practice the fundamentals of the philosophy - so I myself never understood where those claiming she was adversed to politics got the idea... true, she said she'd rather not have to be involved in politics, but she sure never shirked being involved, as it was so important a field that affected everyone...

ps - good to read your writing, GeekGirl

Edited January 1, 2011 by anonrobt

[kiaer.ts]

Leaving aside what I think of Robert Tracinski's treatment of the Wikileaks issue, I have to hand it to him for at least taking a stand on it. (Of course, he seems to have no stand on the Bill of Rights, or of having a government that is accountable to We the People.)

Shayne, I think it ~is~ important for ~some~ Objectivists to focus their comments on current events, though ~not all~ Objectivists need to be focusing their energies on this. And some Objectivists ~do~ focus on such things, though I notice they seem to be selective on what they work on in their interviews, op-ends, etc.

In Tracinski's case, I think that fighting against Nihilism, destruction of governments for the sake of destruction, or at least destruction of the U.S. for the sake of destruction of the U.S., looms for him as a culturally more important matter than even defending the Bill of Rights or government accountability to its citizens.

People, in other words, do choose their battles (as Rand admonished us to do in the very first issue of The Objectivist Newsletter in 1962), rather than going to war against the issues we might prefer that they focus on. This does not make them bad or even misguided. Context and perspective are very important, and rational individuals can disagree about priorities. (But we've had this discussion before, haven't we...)

By the way, your wording above reminds me of what I see and hear all the time and wince whenever it appears: misuse of the phrase "We, the People." It's only proper to use it as the ~subject~ of a sentence, or as a ~predicate noun (phrase)~. But these days, people tend to overuse "we, the people" almost as much as they overuse phrases like "my wife and I."

Just some examples:

My wife and I went to a movie.

The last people to arrive at the movie were my wife and I.

The usher was rude to my wife and me.

The usher gave my wife and me a hard time.

We, the People of the United States of America, do ordain and establish its government.

The establishers of the U.S. government are we, the people of the United States of America.

The U.S. government defends us, the people of the United States of America.

The U.S. government should be accountable to us, the people of the United States of America.

I've also found that it's fascinating to realize that you can make a pretty good estimate of the education level of a person by seeing what kind of grammatical errors they make:

1. Me and my wife went to a movie. (The person maybe finished high school.)

2. The usher gave my wife and I a hard time. (Only a college graduate would speak this way.)

Don't worry. This is just an occasional hobby/dabbling of mine, not an obsession. :-)

REB

As ever, you are far too charitable, Roger.

Shayne's inability to deal with the grammatical principles parallel his inability to deal with the political principles.

Freedom no more means doing what you want than formality means using the nominative case in every circumstance.

Political freedom is action without force, either as initiator or victim. There is no supposed freedom of speech which justifies theft or waging war against America, both of which are the obvious case with Shayne's hero.

Prosaic formality requires the proper use of grammatical principles, not hypercorrection caused by the out of context application of a false concrete rule.

Note the motive Wikipedia attributes to those who engage in grammatical hypercorrection:

Hypercorrection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia hypercorrection is defined as usage of some rule of pronunciation or grammatical prescription that many users of a language consider incorrect, but that the speaker or writer uses through misunderstanding of these rules, often combined with a desire to seem formal or educated.

The same rationalist motive applies to pacifists, anarchists, free-speech absolutists and their ilk: a desire to appear moral by ritualistic concrete-bound rule following rather than contextually applied hierarchical thought.

[sjw]

I think GeekGirl might have lost her way, she may want to check out: http://forums.4aynrandfans.com

Shayne

[sjw]

Shayne's inability to deal with the grammatical principles parallel his inability to deal with the political principles.

Poor incompetent Ted, constantly losing arguments, thus always going for the cheap shot. So predictable. So pathetic.

For the record, I'm not a "free speech absolutist", and poor Ted can barely muster his own thoughts, let alone bring himself to coherently express mine.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GeekGirl,

Welcome to OL.

I'm glad you are pissed off.

And I'm glad you want to do something about it.

I will get back to you on Rand dropping out of politics. A very good explanation is in Ron Merrill's book, The Ideas of Ayn Rand.

I'll post the excerpt later tonight or sometime tomorrow.

Michael

[geekgirl]

My, you are presumptuous and defensive aren't you? How about you learn little bit about someone before jumping to those kinds of conclusions. And you could try being less of a hypocrite as well -- sitting in your armchair lecturing us about lectures being lectures (and pretending to know all about who I am and what I know without bothering to ask what I think and why). How rich. The Internet is about communication -- and you use it to complain about people using it for communication. What silliness.

Shayne

The topic of the thread (may I paraphrase) is "why don't objectivists discuss current [political] events?". Following that, there were a few posts about grammar. A couple about abstractions of abstractions. Then, I forced the conversation back on track and tried to refocus it. (I know, I'm a bitch like that) I gave examples from my own life, opined about the necessity to engage your political opposition instead of ceding ground by default, and the virtues of using current events as "teachable moments".

And you give me a video about how peer pressure works, and then said that you don't engage - essentially - because you don't believe. I asked you then what the point of your visit is, then.

I wouldn't call any of that defensive. Curious. Precocious? Bold. Spunky. Upsetting. Provocative. Fresh. Slightly confrontational. Challenging? Perhaps a bit too blunt? Too much Socrates, not enough Plato?

Maybe we should back up a bit, since you seem to be the odd apple in the bunch. You don't think objectivists should engage over current events because you don't believe Rand's ideas ultimately have any validity - am I correct in my evaluation of your position? If I'm wrong, it's because you haven't really exactly clearly stated it.

This doesn't really put me in a defensive position - but you certainly seem upset. And your anger seems to be most focused when I try to force you out of ambiguity, and into some kind of certainty. So why not explain to me why someone who doesn't appear to believe in objectivism continues to post on objectivistliving about topics they neither care about, nor eventually address? In fact, the one thing my challenges to you have done is made you uncomfortable about your own un-declared position somehow.

Everyone knows why I'm here. I'm an objectivist. I advocate for that position. I have come to an objectivist website and was intrigued by this thread, so I registered and have enjoyed pushing all of you a bit to stand up and make some noise. Get out of the armchairs. Actually get in the fray. My biggest complaint is that we are NOT proactive enough; and that position (I think) should be obvious.

I know I'm the new girl, and I don't really mean to be "challenging your credentials"... but, after all your posts and indignation, I still can't figure out - why are you here?

Edited January 1, 2011 by GeekGirl

[sjw]

And you give me a video about how peer pressure works, and then said that you don't engage - essentially - because you don't believe. I asked you then what the point of your visit is, then.

Stopped reading here. You really need to drop the silly presumptions, I said no such thing.

Most people here are not actually Objectivists (at least, not according to Rand's idea of Objectivist, which is I think the right way to define them), if you stick around a bit you'll find out. That's why I pointed you to an actual Objectivist list. I think you'll fit in better there, ignorant presumption and Objectivism go hand in hand, seeing as how they confuse being right about everything with self-esteem (e.g. Ted's ignorant presumptions about my position above). Since they actually aren't right about everything, they fake reality to make it seem so to them, e.g. by being presumptuous.

Shayne

[geekgirl]

And you give me a video about how peer pressure works, and then said that you don't engage - essentially - because you don't believe. I asked you then what the point of your visit is, then.

Stopped reading here. You really need to drop the silly presumptions, I said no such thing.

So, here's what you actually said:

But I would also say that actually being right is even more important than engagement. And there's the rub when it comes to Rand's Objectivism. She was wrong on important matters, both in her emphasis and in her principles.

And, then there's this little ditty from your opening post:

Are they too cowardly to take a stand, or are they trying to see just how culturally irrelevant they can be?

Let me get this absolutely clear: when discussing why objectivists do not engage over current events, you believe that they don't because 1) its more important to be right than engage (with the unstated assumption that they are not right), and 2) Rand was wrong on the important stuff, both in emphasis and principle (leaving nothing left to be right about). Therefore, she is only right when it's nothing important or anything she places emphasis on or her principles? You don't say Rand is wrong, just that she's not right. And two more reasons you give for objectivists not engaging are cowardice or cultural irrelevancy?

The mode of communication you use is revealing: you don't communicate by the statements you make, you communicate by inference, followed by denial.

So, yes, you are correct, you said no such thing. It's just that what you did say, left no other conclusion to be reached. You never said she was wrong... you just said she was never right. And cowards. And culturally irrelevant.

What a bizarre way to communicate. In some ways, it's awesome (for you) - you get to say whatever daft and stupid thing you'd like, then go after people who respond to your meaning, instead of the actual words. You always have a retreat you can hide behind.

So what do you mean, then? Do I take your meaning as your opinion, or the words you use to hide it? Far be it for me to put words in your mouth... but you don't seem to be on the side of objectivism. And the words you leave lying around seem to be the important ones.

Most people here are not actually Objectivists (at least, not according to Rand's idea of Objectivist, which is I think the right way to define them), if you stick around a bit you'll find out. That's why I pointed you to an actual Objectivist list. I think you'll fit in better there, ignorant presumption and Objectivism go hand in hand, seeing as how they confuse being right about everything with self-esteem

So, the objectivistliving website is not the place to discuss objectivism with people who understand it and enjoy it? And when I stumbled on this site and was intrigued by the thread, that, apparently was a mistake. I should go over to the other site you mentioned and start a new thread there with the same topic - and there won't be anyone like you, there? Promise?

Tell you what, I'm going to go over to the PERLmongers website and start a vigorous discussion about how much better JAVA is. And when people get pissed about why I'm spending so much time on a PERL site, dissing PERL, I can just tell them that I'm not dissing PERL, I just think JAVA's better. And when they ask why I am bothering to post all this crap on the PERL site, I give them a link to another PERL site for them to post at, telling them maybe they belong there?

And you think I'm lost?

I'm starting to think you're either 1) too much of a purist to be of use to anyone, even your own kind or 2) you're just a troll that has staked out a nice comfortable toll route at this bridge.

I came here to find discussion from like minds. I'm still not sure why you're here. Perhaps you just like being the turd in the punch bowl, I don't know.

The capper on it all is the crack at the end about self-esteem. This was one of Rand's principles... that a human needs to be efficacious - capable, useful, correct, RIGHT - in order to truly have self-esteem. You aren't sure that you're right... you're just so sure that Rand was wrong. (There's that communication, again!) And your primary fixation is to instinctively tear down anyone around you who seems to be sure that they are right. (Wow, Rand, spelled that one out) You apparently spend countless hours hanging around forums for people who don't believe what you do, pissing on their parade. And you started this thread; go figure.

Look, I'm not trying to start a flame war, and I'm not going to pursue any conversation with you any further... I am really interested in hearing from objectivists (or at least people who count themselves as such) who want to talk about engaging the public in political discussions about objectivism, using current cultural events as a springboard. I've laid all my reason and ideas in the open at your feet - but I still don't know what you believe, just that we all suck for our beliefs. I am not the one with the self esteem problem - that's why you're here, not I. You're a classic.

Edited January 1, 2011 by GeekGirl

[Selene]

Sarah:

There are several states which will be involved in redistricting because of the census' Constitutional re-allocation requirements. New Jersey where I am is one of them. Texas where you are is another.

I would like to hear your thoughts on getting involved in the redistricting process which will:

1) be highly political; and

2) be an excellent opportunity to advance our ideas in the State legislatures.

I am currently working on the creation of an organization to attack the traditional Gerrymandering that is engaged in by both political parties. I hope to launch it this next month.

This is a very good issue for all of us to be involved in because it will involve public hearings at the State legislative level and be an excellent pulpit to provide solutions with an objectivist approach.

I use the small "o" objectivist to distinguish where I am from the Peikovian bastardization of Ayn's concepts.

You will be an interesting voice here.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

And you give me a video about how peer pressure works, and then said that you don't engage - essentially - because you don't believe. I asked you then what the point of your visit is, then.

Stopped reading here. You really need to drop the silly presumptions, I said no such thing.

Most people here are not actually Objectivists (at least, not according to Rand's idea of Objectivist, which is I think the right way to define them), if you stick around a bit you'll find out. That's why I pointed you to an actual Objectivist list. I think you'll fit in better there, ignorant presumption and Objectivism go hand in hand, seeing as how they confuse being right about everything with self-esteem (e.g. Ted's ignorant presumptions about my position above). Since they actually aren't right about everything, they fake reality to make it seem so to them, e.g. by being presumptuous.

Shayne

This is very generous of you Shayne: This place is too good for you--go to a worse, inferior, place--you are inferior.

--Brant

[geekgirl]

I would like to hear your thoughts on getting involved in the redistricting process which will:

1) be highly political; and

2) be an excellent opportunity to advance our ideas in the State legislatures.

I am currently working on the creation of an organization to attack the traditional Gerrymandering that is engaged in by both political parties.

Its as good a place as any to start; there's been so many bastardizations of the system, its hard to know where to begin. Gerrymandering is one of the roots of evil... along with public sector unions, the voting machines, and foreign campaign cash. The secret to this, I would think, would be to propose a new system that seems corrupt-proof and tinker-proof. You would force the gerrymanderers to defend the indefensible.

Someone told me once that the founder's original plan was to simply "grid" each state to create districts... I don't know if that's true, but it appeals to the programmer in me. Simple, impartial, and inflexible. Probably not fool-proof either - but it would take a few years before they game that system. Programmers get very apolitical when they talk code, they know exactly what variables to tweak to stabilize a system. Something simple that creates squares of equal size would at least have logical appeal.

I would actually be curious what Google would say about it; I'm becoming less of a fan of the company as time goes on, but I must admit one thing Google has, is data. If anyone could map the population distribution of the country and create an algorithm to evenly disperse precincts, they could. But, then again, it should probably be something simple, nothing that requires a mainframe to support our freedoms. Can you imagine having a mathematical formula in the constitution?

In any case, if you are going to attempt this; you should have a uniform solution ready that obviously ends this whole game once and for all. People are in the mood today for change - but change that actually solves problems. If you have that solution, the mood is there to support it, I believe.

I'm not sure how you would attack it strategically. Are these boundary lines determined in a formal session, or largely a backroom deal, or is there any kind of townhall involvement?