RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : SOLO: Past, Present and Future

Friday
August 20, 2004

SOLO: Past, Present and Future by Joseph Rowlands

I just got back from a few weeks visiting Mr. Perigo in NZ. Aside from relaxation, good food, and good company, we spent a bit of time discussing SOLO. Periodically we try to go through what we've accomplished, and what we should be doing in the foreseeable future. We went through our old lists, and created some new lists in the process. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (36 messages)

Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 4:10pm

If there is any one issue that seems to be coming up over and over recently, it's food. One article on diet, one article on food and sensuality, way too many posts about cheese, something about onions, and of course plenty of mention of eating steaks! We've even had one on birthday cakes! Does that make it a single issue site?

And what about two weeks ago? Countless articles and posts on whether Bush or Kerry should be voted for. Links to articles on Kerry. Debates on whether Bush is really Satan, or just his step-brother. And on and on. Is this the single issue that makes this a single issue site?

And what about grammar/punctuation? Should we capitalize our sentences? Is a comma in the right place important? Should we use 'f' or 'ph'? This must be the single issue we all fear.

And we've had two articles on the Olympics in a week! That's twice as many articles in the last month than we've had that even mentioned homosexuality.

I'd venture to say that there are dozens of other topics getting more discussion than homosexuality. It's very hard to take any of this seriously.

Plus, what the hell does S&M have to do with homosexuality?

Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 4:28pm

I made a statement about my preferences about this web site and there was no hint of my being a prima donna, infantile, dopey, pathetic or petulant or you referring to George?. George Cordero stated my position very well. I don't object to a modicum of homosexuality discussions in SOLOHQ, as there has been in the past, but if I want to immerse myself in the homosexual life style I could probably find thousands of such sites on the net. I always considered this site to be a home for Objectivism, which is only peripherally concerned with homosexuality.

You're right, Lindsay, that "Folk are free to post on any subject they like. It's not for us Admins to determine what gets talked about & to what extent." but all I'm saying is that if that's the way it goes then I'll lose interest in SOLOHQ. But you are the guiding light.

Simple.

Sam

p.s. David Bertelsen's post is not worthy of an Objectivist. Somehow, according to him, anyone who doesn't want to immerse himself in the gay lifestyle has insecurities about his masculinity. Right.

Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 4:39pm

The "S&M" that I referred to shoud have been "SM" and wrt the current discussion it has to do withe the "S.O.L.O. Afeared" piece in the Dissent. This is hard-core lesbian pornography.

There has been a lot of discussion of the "coarsening of America" and some of what I read on SOLOHQ falls into that category.

Sam

Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 5:05pm

George Cordero stated my position very well.

Thanks

I don't object to a modicum of homosexuality discussions in SOLOHQ, as there has been in the past, but if I want to immerse myself in the homosexual life style I could probably find thousands of such sites on the net.

What you conveyed in that sentiment was the intent of my follow-up post as well.

I always considered this site to be a home for Objectivism, which is only peripherally concerned with homosexuality.

I concur.

You're right, Lindsay, that "Folk are free to post on any subject they like. It's not for us Admins to determine what gets talked about & to what extent." but all I'm saying is that if that's the way it goes then I'll lose interest in SOLOHQ.

Once again, what you conveyed in that sentiment was the intent of my follow-up post as well.

Thank you Mr. Erica.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 8/24, 5:10pm)

Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 5:14pm

I take back my comment about the SM Dissent article as being hard-core porn. I re-read it and it isn't quite that blatant.

Sam

Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 5:16pm

How about medium-core? -lol-

George

Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 5:54pm

I certainly wasn't offended by the lesbian thingy. Not...in...the...least. : )

I don't think it's (homosexuality) becoming a trend, guys. There are gay people in the Real World, and if SOLO can be said to be a reasonable sample of that World--like the military, say--then there will be some gay people at SOLO. And they will want to talk about being gay some of the time. If it becomes their only means of identifying themselves, then there's a point to protesting about it. But I'll expect them to entirely keep their mouths shut about being gay just as soon as I keep my mouth shut about loving cheese. Cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese! I'm not to keen on the guy/guy stuff (it's a matter of preference, not morality; I also loathe Spam and have nothing but contempt for nutrisweet) but come on....lesbians? Hehe...

Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 6:02pm

George: Yeah, that's about it.

Market dynamics are wonderful but they sure don't seem to be appreciated here. I give my opinion, as a consumer (of SOLOHQ), as to what my values and requirements are for participating. One would think that the vendors of SOLOHQ would take this as a sentiment that might be useful to them in the way they market their product. They don't have to agree with it or change their policies if they don't think my opinions are valid. They don't have to do anything if they don't want to, but if they don't I'll migrate somewhere else. It's their property. If they make bad decisions then they're the ones that will bear the consequences. I don't have a problem with any of that.

That being said, I have treasured much of what I have read in the past several years here and I appreciate the postings of the many highly intelligent philosophers here — with whom I could never compete.

Sam

Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 9:54pm

Let's think this through sensibly.

James Kilbourne's essay was a moving account of learning the value of a life true to oneself. That's a principle that can be abstracted from his essay to inspire all readers of whatever sexual orientation. To call it simply an account of the "angst of homosexual affairs" is to miss entirely its message and to disparage the huge acts of courage that so many gays learning self-acceptance face, even in the midst of enormous societal odds. This is a real and significant cultural phenomenon and it's not about to go away. It's appropriate it comes up from time to time in the context of a philosophy that advocates self-esteem in opposition to self-abnegation and conformity. For too long it was kept in the Objectivist closet. It has now come out, and SOLO deserves to take great pride in the way it's helped that along.

Lindsay's remark was a throw-away one. If it offends your precious sensibilities all I can say is get over it.

As for Vera S. Doerr's essay: it was posted as 'Dissent'. Frankly, I admire her honesty and sense of humour.

So what's the big deal? I am gay. I am bombarded every day with heterosexual imagery, heterosexual references and symbolism in almost every field as well as automatic assumptions that I am straight. But I'm a big boy and I can deal with it. I suggest to anyone whose timid sensibilities are offended by the tiniest mention of homosexuality that they take a deep breath, calm down and remember the simple phrase: if you don't like it, don't do it (or read it).

Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 10:14pm

Cameron:

I suggest to anyone whose timid sensibilities are offended by the tiniest mention of homosexuality that they take a deep breath, calm down and remember the simple phrase: if you don't like it, don't do it (or read it).

You haven't understood what I wrote. I said:

I don't object to a modicum of homosexuality discussions in SOLOHQ, as there has been in the past ....

So, what's the "timid sensibilities are offended by the tiniest mention of homosexuality" thing about?

I made a statement about what my threshold was — and it's at the present level. There's nothing to argue or even comment about. You can't deny my statement as to what my level of tolerance is. Logic anyone?

Sam

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 2:27am

David wrote:

I'd be interested in "SOLO Entrepeneurs" or "SOLO Capitalists" group to discuss a shared interest in making money. How to start a business, run a business, successfully and in an enjoyable manner. How to do it ethically. How to apply reason to business problems. Compare literature.

That sounds like a great idea. I would certainly be interested in that.

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 3:02am

See the news announcement I've just added! :-)

Linz

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 3:41am

Mr Hibbert wrote:

"I don't object to a modicum of homosexuality discussions in SOLOHQ, as there has been in the past ....''

A modicum? Well, that's very magnanimous of you, Mr Hibbert. I trust the poofters will take due note of your generous strictures & confine themselves to "a modicum" in future. It behoves them to know their place after all, especially on a site not owned by you.

Market dynamics? That, in this context, is folk posting or not posting as they see fit. But some poofters might post more than a modicum. In which case, of course, we'd stomp on those market dynamics quicker than you can say "spontaneous order" or "the joys of sodomy."

Good that we have you to keep things to a seemly modicum, Mr Hibbert.

Linz

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 12:31pm

Linz:

You don't know how many prospective straight people have been turned off lately — neither do I. And I don't know how many homosexuals have been attracted to your site either. But you and I both know that there is a threshold, that varies between straight people, where they will either leave or not join.

It's up to you how you lead and encourage.

I gave you a straightforward opinion on what you are facing on the future direction of SOLO and your responses are laced with derision and snide comments. In fact, no response at all was necessary but you interpreted it as an attack.

As a straight person I have no interest in reading about the angst of homosexual affairs, how to cure anal retention by a good dose of "man-meat" and the joys of S&M. In the past week homosexuality has become a dominant theme on this board. I have no problem with what people do with their own bodies and if they want to adopt Objectivism as their philosophy, fine and dandy, just as marijuana smokers might. But I am not interested in either.

So, I'll lurk around here for a while more and see how it goes but I can't help thinking that if it keeps on the way it is going more people will be driven away from this site than will be attracted.

Sam

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 10:46pm

Mr. Perigo,

I don't post here to often, but...I thought you'd like to know that I think you guys are doing a fine job, and keep up all the good work. Sensible people will do as you said, if they are not interested they won't read. Just keep doing what you're doing and this will continue to grow. The great thing about this site is that while all seem to agree with the fundamentals of Objectivist thought that post here, many disagree about other issues and are allowed open discourse. I know that I disagree with you about Iraq, and you with me. But, that you allow others to voice opinions that are contrary to yours, this to me is a true valuabe "open society" for Objectivism. Showing others, where some may disagree. As for Mr. Erica, all I can say is "thou protests too much"... and in doing so, you awaken disbelief in your actual intentions for your comments. Like the man who ignores the beautiful women when she knows she's beautiful....it does you know good.

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 4:50pm

Quote from Jennifer (Post 10): "Having said that, however, the problem with the Atlasphere dating directory is that it attracts Objectiv-ish people, some of whom are Christian or of other religious backgrounds (Galt help me). A dinner date with a Jehovah's Witness in disguise made that point abundantly clear to me. :) "
****still laughing-crying, going on four minutes now, so yeah... it's starting to hurt all over***

Thanks for starting my weekend off on the right note, Glamazon!

Now I get to figure out what I am going to wear on my third blind date (ever) tonight, unless you've triggered an acute episode of hypochondria... my eyes are red and watery and I do have cramps now... and I just got done trying to hold my cheeks down because my face is hurting from smiling *SO* wide. Wish me luck! But know this: if I see "WatchTower" sporting glasses, bushy Muppet eyebrows and what appears to be a fake plastic nose being craddled in his arms, through the peephole, I'm gonna' be fixin' to be an Objectivist, Solo Style... (so during dinner I'll do a quick 'Wonder Woman" strippin' to my concealed red sequin dress, bust out with a boom box, and do my rendition of "Proud Mary" (with my wig, Tina, fully brushed out and set to Woop-woop-woop-woop-woop while I do the Swim) then lose the third wheel and Sashay off with his copy of "WatchTower".

Seriously, I've been ambushed on my first blind date by a... get this... a gay mormon. No... not moron. Mormon. Yes girl... a mess. I feel your pain. With my luck, you'll see me on an episode of 'Cheaters' surrounded by f@gs slapping me repeatedly for stealing their "shared" man and showing BLURRY videotaped footage to prove we've been meeting for weeks and I'm wearing stuff like green jeans, pink socks and Birkenstock's, and a yellow top from the Jaclyn Smith Collection.

-Solo, Pun Ghettofying Tragic Blind Date Target Fashion Victim Extraordinaire