RoR: Forum

Philip Coates -- Thanks for your Post 23 and for the follow-up Post 33. You acted as an ally of the first order in my effort to encourage Objectivists and the more or less like-minded to practice tolerance for the sake of encouraging people to work together to increase our understanding of a complex reality. The phrase of Post 33, "Respect for a -process- of civil discourse focused on the ideas without insult because it damages the process." is profitably remembered by those who want to work with others to learn far more than they can alone. I would hate to see us each and every one struggling a lifetime to create just the wheel. At the end of our lives, we might have a 100 wheels, if we were lucky.

In an uncivil community, people are constantly paranoid about being attacked. It seemed clear to me that Philip's piece was not attacking various people who thought they were being attacked. One can and should maintain one's standards. Rationally, that is done by presenting an argument. Name-calling interferes with that process as a distraction and a waste at best. At worst, it cuts off our supply of ideas from people who are generally pretty rational and intelligent around here.

Post 61

Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 6:56am

Charles,

I had a pretty good laugh on reading your Post 60 - not at you, but in recognition of a perplexity that I too faced when I started posting here. You think you've seen some name-calling? All I can say is, "Stick around, brother. You ain't seen nothing yet!"

LOLOLOL...

One aspect you have felt here already at Solo (which you mentioned in other posts) is tolerance for other viewpoints. That is resoundingly correct. Now you address the intolerance for other viewpoints you see. That is also resoundingly correct.

That is Solo.

People care passionately about ideas here. They often disagree. They clash. They survive. Not perfect, maybe, but it works. Personally, I like it.

You have shown a concern that I used to have: that some posters will be intimidated enough by the name-calling that they will not post. I have noticed the opposite over time.

Some other Objectivist sites I checked out is where I have seen way too much restraint - people almost afraid to go against the party line. They disagree, but it is so... so... I can't think of a good word... "little" comes to mind. I also felt some good things at those sites I visited, but nothing near the just plain fun you find around here. I got the impression that they were the type of people who made sure they didn't make any noise during sex. You know the type... (ahem...)

Er.. back to the point...

Posters who really care about their ideas around here shrug off the name-calling. They are shy at first (as I was), but they end up coming around to the seduction of thoroughly trouncing what they find to be half-brained blathering. The secret to being successful at this is a precondition. You have to have your rational capacity fully engaged before shooting off your mouth.

Despite the name-calling, there is one overriding emotion that I have discerned on Solo - benevolence.

I have learned to sense a difference in the flare-ups here. Most of them end up in a good-natured solution, either by one side convincing the other or by a "mock-contemptuous" (playful) agreeing to disagree. Or there is a grudging long-suffered semi-respect that bleeds over from thread to thread. Sometimes the benevolence gets shot all to hell and that is when I, myself, get really pissed. That is my main objection to lynch mobs, for example.

From reading your posts, the general tone is one of extreme respect and the brakes are used a bit when you criticize. In the ones I read (which is most of them), I have not seen one instance of foul language.

Yet... yet... yet...

In the "Minding Your Manners" thread, the word "dung" crept in for the first time. Hmmmmm... Is Solo starting to get to you?

//;-)

Michael

Post 62

Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 9:28am

You think you've seen some name-calling? All I can say is, "Stick around, brother. You ain't seen nothing yet!

Of course, if you're going to insult someone, you should at least do it right, for example:

You starvelling, you eel-skin, you dried neat's-tongue, you bull's-pizzle, you stock-fish--O for breath to utter what is like thee!-you tailor's-yard, you sheath, you bow-case, you vile standing tuck!
William Shakespeare, Henry IV, part I,

or,

What an imbessil what an ultramaroon

Post 63

Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 10:53pm

Michael - I really do like the passion of ideas, I just have not found it useful to call people names. I also have noticed that people at other sites are unwilling to state any idea of their own, unless they think they have a quote from Ayn Rand to fully support it. They too often have no direct line between themselves and reality. I greatly value the fact that most people here have maintained that direct line to reality. I have recognized that the generally rational people here do exercise a good deal of benevolence as well. But, every now and then they seem to get a little carried away. Perhaps the temptation to be cute is too much at times. Of course, I am new here and my impressions may want more experience, as you have suggested. I will get off my high horse now on the matter on this tread that I expressed my concerns about and leave it to the good participants to figure out where they should pull the reins on their steads.

I can assure you that I am not one of those quiet sex people! Sex deserves to be fully enjoyed and I would never care to leave out the aural senses.

Post 64

Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 10:57pm

Charles, you are magnificent.

Post 65

Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 11:04pm

Oh, yes, Michael, I forgot the out-of-context "dung" reference. The word appeared in my post only as a summary paraphrase of someone else's unfortunate words. I would not use it to describe someone else's ideas here. I might call socialism "childish", but there appear to be no socialists here, so I do not reckon I will use that word here. Unless, just maybe, the name-calling does really get to be too much for me. Then the parent in me might come out and I might suggest that everyone go to their rooms and think about what they have done.

Post 66

Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 11:28pm

Bob, it appears that if you ever decide to unleash your name-calling abilities on me, that I will get a good laugh out of it.

Jennifer, thank you. It really pleases me that you think so, since I so much enjoy you. It has been a great pleasure to make your acquaintance and I am greatly looking forward to knowing you much better. No, this is too restrained. You are completely lovely.

Michael, I think you are the very best of men and I have found your ideas interesting and valuable. I admire your sense of life. I am always glad to hear from you.

Post 67

Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 11:36pm

Charles,

I ain't buying it on the "dung" explanation. I'm just waiting until some Randroid or other steps on your toes real hard. Dung? Well, we shall see if that's where it stays "as time goes by."

I've said it before and I will say it again. Some things only hurt the first time.

//;-)

Michael

Post 68

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 4:15pm

Michael, I learned my manners too well to curse others. The only person I curse is one Charles Anderson after he has done something really stupid. Oh yes, sometimes I have cursed god when something goes wrong, but that would cease if I ever had any reason to think he was listening!

Post 69

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 6:10pm

Charles,

You are my kind of people.

Fuck the Randroids anyway. (Sorry - can't seem to resist...)

//;-)

Michael

Post 70

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 2:23pm

Bob, first I want to apologize to you if I stepped on your toes or was out of line for speaking for you. It was done with the best of intentions; I felt you were being attacked, as was anyone with an appreciation of the art in issue.

Michael Newberry,

I've had time to consider my comments. This is not an apology, but stating my reasons as to why your posts bother me. I think I owe you that much.

I think Bob was very gracious in answering you inquiry. I wish I had been as gracious. But I do still think and feel that it was not necessary because honestly, I feel that there is an agenda when I read your criticisms. I think Alec said it best in his post.

Michael, you are a very intelligent man and a very talented artist. I have learned much from you and your website. I think you are at your best when you focus and present the things you love. But there seems to be a grudge against those who post art that isn't part of your view of what art should be. It's not a matter of being thin skinned: hell, James Kilbourne writes a scathing article of my beloved YES, and is met with compliments for even attempting to listen. But though his criticism was scathing, his overall manner was not. That incident was a good example of artistic differences on SOLO being handled with civility.

I don't know if there is more expectations of you because you are an artist, but it really does seem that you may be threatened by work that doesn't fit your criteria. Your last post to me didn't help, you really set yourself up as a martyr.
"You don't fit into this world?" Dude, I know how you feel, you're talking to the KING OF THE SPACE CADETS!
That's why Rand appealed to me, made me feel like I was the bearer of a holy truth that no one else could see. But the space cadet is now a spaceplayer, and has realized that that there is not one monolithic total height, but several heights, who knows how many? The total passion for the total height? Which one? You can climb the highest mountain on Earth, and find one higher on Mars, then Jupiter, then who knows? I am not calling for moral relativism or lack of standards, I am calling for realization that there is a whole world of options and experience, and beyong the basic call of reality, there are countless options to realize one's own personal heights.

I am wary of any call for "the total passion for the total height", for any call to build a Tower of Babel, for fear of totalitarianism and solipsism.

This may build a bridge or create a schism. I doubt it will solve the issue. If that is even possible...but if it doesn't, let this be my statement on where I stand with you and Solo, a person and an institution that I respect yet fear, especially in light of the recents shakeups.

(addendum: I used the word "fear"...I am not sure that's the right word, but what I mean is that there is a certain trepidation and caution involved when I am here...it is very kick ass here, which is great, but can be a double edged sword.)

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 6/15, 2:22pm)

Post 71

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 3:41pm

Joe, I've sent you a personal reply.

(Edited by Bob Palin on 6/14, 3:43pm)

Post 72

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 4:41pm

Thank you Bob.

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 5:27pm

Joe M:

�This is not an apology, but stating my reasons as to why your posts bother me. I think I owe you that much.�

�I feel that there is an agenda when I read your criticisms. I think Alec said it best in his post.�

��there seems to be a grudge against those who post art that isn't part of your view of what art should be. It's not a matter of being thin skinned: hell, James Kilbourne writes a scathing article of my beloved YES, and is met with compliments for even attempting to listen. But though his criticism was scathing, his overall manner was not. That incident was a good example of artistic differences on SOLO being handled with civility.�

��but it really does seem that you may be threatened by work that doesn't fit your criteria.�

��let this be my statement on where I stand with you��

Hi Joe,

Num++ brought up your post to me privately, and I looked it over and I thought it might be helpful if I comment.

This is what I understand from it: that you are bothered, feel I have an agenda, that I am uncivil, insecure, and intimidated by all work outside of my personal interested.

You start off with that you will state your reasons but when I actually read your post carefully you did not mention one. You did mention you agreed with Alec without a quote or source, you wrote about how you feel yourself about being a loner, and nowhere do you quote where I am uncivil.

Now I am not a mind reader�and I don�t play mind games, well except with Hong, I have never been good with hints�all I understand from you is that your unhappy with me and I don�t have any clue as to why.

Now there might be a good reason to call someone uncivil and etc but without actually detailing factual stuff then you are being nasty. Have you ever talked with people who hate Rand and justify it my misstating her views? Well you're kinda doing the same thing without stating or misstating anything I have written.

From my perspective I am being very kind to you now�if you have something critical to say well then criticize! When push comes to shove and you have to quote what you thought was bad�you might actually find it is well thought out and stated carefully and you might not have a case at all.

On the other hand if you right, that I am a prick, and you give facts then it makes it possible for me to learn where I make mistakes.

Michael
(Edited by Newberry on 6/19, 5:30pm)

Post 74

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 7:53pm

Michael and Joe,

With everything that�s going on around here right now, it is this row between you two that breaks my heart. I respect both of you very much and have always seen you on the same side. Michael, I am ashamed of you. You should be wiser than this.

Please don�t assume anything for each other. I have found that every time people say to me �it seems that you this and that��, they are wrong about me.

Joe, when I read you saying �I respect yet fear�(SOLO and Michael)� a few days ago, it hit me hard coming from you. No, you should not fear Michael.

Michael, to be fair, I don�t think Joe really implied that you are �uncivil�. I still remember when Linz denounced you in the Lanza thread, Joe called �Michael, stick around!� Please trying to see things from Joe�s perspective. Do you know Joe at all?

I could have a lot more to say�please listen to each other�s heart, and solve this behind the doors. I believe that I am right about you two. I�ve never seen any unbridgeable rift between you.

Btw, Michael, I don�t remember when I ever played mind game with you.

Num++, I blame you for this. You are just getting too smart. ;-)

Hong

Post 75

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 10:04pm

Just to be clear on the circumstances on which Joe Maurone's post was brought up:
(before anyone assumes I set up a deathmatch... thanks Hong!)
_______________________________

On another thread (Picasso's "Boy with Pipe") Michael Newberry wrote, "I am delighted that no one here seems too intim[id]ated by me to post such comments!" [post 8] The 'such' here refers in part to my lambasting of said painting. [posts 2 & 6]

After some more posts on that thread, Newberry wrote ".... but I will, if I am gracious enough to take to the time, mercilessly skewer them if they so much as claim a judgment without evidence for it." [post 11]

Naturally, I had to respond with a more comprehensive criticism, which I did [post 15].

But before I posted #15, I sent a private message to him which read in part "By the way, I mean my comments to be posted to be as objective as possible. Don't perceive I'm attacking you or anything.. just your assessment of this one work."

On this, he assured me with: "Just read your note... oh, I doubt you could upset me at all..."

Our chat continued along that line above among others...

I raised Maurone's post as an example of what other people's reaction to Newberry might be.

I'll quote the relevant part of my private message that raised Maurone's post to Newberry's attention:

Joe Maurone posted an explanation for you here, in case you missed it (I'm not assuming that you care - simply that he's probably an example of what other people's reaction to you might be). In any case, you've already figured out you intimidate some people.

The 'here' linking to some intimidation Maurone felt. [post 70 above]

_________________________

My sincere and deepest apologies to Joe, Michael, and Hong (even tangentially, just in case, to Bob Palin) if this matter heats up again. The last time this thread got hot, I privately expressed my worries to Newberry that he might get turned off from posting (at the exact same time that I was only beginning to know his work). I have no desire to see any fighting.

Joe, as Newberry is an art activist, he must have an agenda. I don't find him threatened by anything at all. I must say I was adversely affected when you brought back the Cage/Lanza issue on this thread. I hope that's dead now. Don't fear SOLO or Michael. As I said in post #15 on the Picasso thread:

... it would defeat the purpose of the forum if intimidation were to rule what we post - especially when it comes to art, where there's seems to be more disagreement than agreement.

. I've found Michael to be very thoughtful and forthright in our conversations. If you have reasons to find him intimidating, you can tell him of it without fear of his initiating uncivil dialogue. From what I know, my words to him about the Picasso could be far more strident than any straight explanation you have of your differences.

Newberry, I have to correct myself from a previous private message: Your POSTS DO REGISTER much profound delight in art, life, and thought...that there is absolutely nothing one can do to rattle it. In this case, maybe even MORE THAN your paintings. I hope you continue writing and posting art here. As I've said both privately and publicly, I'm learning a lot from you and you're not even charging tuition.

Hong, Newberry is playing mind games with you. From his posts #18 & #20 (Picasso thread), the two of you are like looking at opposite ends of the same telescope.

_______________________________

PS: I can't believe I missed half of the 4th quarter and overtime of the NBA Finals Game 5 (Pistons vs. Spurs) just so I could write this! It's almost unbelievable SOLO has affected me this much.

Post 76

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 7:08am

Num++,

You�ve said a lot of what I could have said, though I may have a stronger empathy with Joe in this case. No apology needed at all. It�s refreshing to read such open, sharp, thoughtful, and good-natured posts from you.

Geez, with you and me policing this thread, how can anybody ever act up again?!

Hong, Newberry is playing mind games with you.

Then he overestimated me. ;-)

Hong

Post 77

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 7:42am

Dear, Dear Hong,

I too, will take your words, Post 74, to heart; PLEASE DON'T ASSUME ANYTHING FOR............................................. WRONG ABOUT ME".

I've printed in Uppercase to burn it into my brain! Everyone knows that you would never stoop to shouting OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPS!

Old habits die hard.

I'm sending myself to my room now!
Sharon

Post 78

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 8:33am

(riding in on a horse and looking around)

You folks all right here? The doody level high enough? It sure looks like it.

Let me know if you run short. I'm covered with it out there and there's plenty to go around...

(tipping hat and riding off in search for more...)

Post 79

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 10:01pm