About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


Post 60

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 3:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've heard this defense before, from Howard Stern. He talked about his troubles with the FCC, and how Mcdonald's dealt with criticism by pointing to Ronald McDonald House. Stern quipped that he should open a "Howie House."
People in Brooklyn defended Gotti by pointing to the alms he threw them, as mobsters were always giving back to the community.




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 61

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 4:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Right on Joe Maurone. And Mussolini made the trains run on time...

I've heard this defense before, from Howard Stern.
 
If you think Lindsay Perigo backs that spineless line you don't know Lindsay Perigo.

I was wrong! Lindsay, yesterday's triumph doesn't afford you carte blanche today! Alec is right on the money. As you say, in the greater scheme of things this event doesn't count highly, but horror isn't a matter of numbers. Will you value this ill trait more highly than the people whom it repels from serving and trusting you?




Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 62

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 4:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Lindsay- personally, I accept your apology. I consider what you said to me not that important and more silly than really offensive. I believe you really regret saying it.

It was one year ago that my first article appeared in Solo. Just looking over this thread, I am again reminded of the remarkable quality of the people attracted to Solo and how much the whole experience has added to my life. Within a few weeks of the publication of that first article, I became aware that there was a problem in your behavior that went beyond the normal level of things we all put up with in good friends. Over the last year I have tried to address it through mild public posts, private emails, and even three extended articles which were not published. This first article last fall was an attempt at humour (A Parable), in which I created a kingdom of Sololand that both you and, I believe Barbara, hated. My second article sent in several weeks ago (On Criticism and Condemnation) was an attempt to appeal to reason. The third was also written this past spring (I forget what I even called that one) and was about the last major blow up. I submitted it for publication but agreed with you when you called me that it probably shouldn't have been published at that time. You can publish any of them if you choose to- or not, as you see fit.

In the next few days, I will write one more. Whatever the outcome of all this, whatever you end up thinking of me, I will continue to think of you with love and respect, and as a great friend and soulmate. I don't tend to make up "top ten" lists any longer, but if I did, certainly many people that I have met here online in the last year- you, Chris, Alec, Garin,Derek, are among my closest friends, and with several others here it is just a matter of exposure before they would also be included. (My relationship with Barbara is, of course, at such a level that even the lofty concept of "friend" is inadequate.)

The title of my article will be "Drooling Beast". I will submit it through Andrew and you can all decide whether you want to publish it or not. Whatever you decide, I only wish you the best in life always, as Mario would say, and I mean it just as much as Mario would have if he had sung it.



Post 63

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 5:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


Is it really possible, Linz, that your post #59 is the start of another tirade?

Barbara



Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 64

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 6:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara,

Do you think you are seeing in Linz the same trend you saw in Rand?

Namely both speak their mind and do not mince their words?

This is what led Rand to eventually alienate all her firends from her earlier career and end her life with no friends apart from Peikoff.

Now you are saying that that behaviour in Linz will cause the downfall of SOLO. Linz has answered that SOLO is not just "Linz".

However, there is something also very important to point out in all this. Rand's no-nonsense attitude with regards to speaking her own mind and expressing herself openly is what really made Objectivism what it is today. What would it have been if she had only gone half way and veiled a lot of her ideas in order to make them more palatable and popular to society?

Linz's openness about his views on the state of today's culture also created what is SOLO.
How would you feel now if he had admitted to finding value in all art forms and all types of music? What would SOLO then mean anymore?

I can understand that you may concerned for the future of SOLO based on your pervious experience with Rand, but that you wouldn't value openness and honesty on a personal level, that I would find surprising.

Of course "openness and honesty" are not the be all and end all of everything, obviously there has to be a filtering process to sort the wheat from the chaf - but I do value knowing where I stand with someone, that I don't have to guess behind veils of disguise.

That is what I value highly in both Linz and Rand.




Post 65

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 7:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There was one executive decision made not too long ago that was brilliant and if it was initiated by you, Linz, I take back whatever I said about lack of managerial ability. That decision was that of creating the sub-group of homosexuality and getting a lot of the discussion on that subject off of the front page. No one will argue that there is not a greater number of members in SOLOHQ who are homosexuals than there is in the normal population and I have argued in the past that if Objectivism is to be regarded by newcomers as something other than a one-issue philosophy then homosexuality issues shouldn't be 'in-your-face'.

Sam




Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 66

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 7:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz,

You may be fooling Marcus into thinking that your blustery mean-spiritedness is honest communication of who you really are; but I see things differently.

HAVING IDEAS IS ONE THING;  COMMUNICATING THEM EFFECTIVELY IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

Your behaviour is totally out of control.  Listen to your backpedalling almost contrite behaviour.  Logic is not guiding you; emotions are.

Face it!  You need psychotherapy.  Anger is assassinating your authority.  

Someone asked about your early childhood. That's what you need to ask yourself.  What recollections do you have of experiencing this kind of rage as a totally dependent young boy?  Every time someone yanks your chain; you become that enraged young child.  Your bluster doesn't bother me; I have been listening to blusterers  of ALL AGES carry on for decades.

You don't even know me; I've been here only a few weeks; but I believe that the ideals of Objectivism are worth the effort of helping you  to rehabilitate yourself.

I agree with the comparison that Marcus makes between you and Rand. I disagree that her anger worked for her.   If you seek to find the secret to expunging those  anti life HATEFUL FEELINGS which seethe below your own  consciousness, then I would believe that you are well and truly sorry.

Part of being sorry is making ammends to those you have harmed.    Expunging your anger is NOT going to make your voice impotent;  it will free you to fly higher and freer with the smile of reason written all over your face. That phoney happy-face photo hasn't fooled me in the least.

By the way, how do I know all this?    I learned it all in kindergarten!      

You can rage on with me all you like;  I won't excuse you from the human race; I think you are worth it!

Sharon




Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 67

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 8:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wow, what a complete mess.  I wish I could say "uga-uga" and have Linz and Barbara kiss and make up. This whole thing has been brewing for awhile and I sincerely hope they can work it out.  Solo needs both of them. 

Linz, I adore your brutal honesty and passion, but you you really fucked up.  You knew you were on thin ice with Majesty.  I know you probably meant to nudge people and express disgust that people weren't reading the Free Rad, but it blew up in your face.  You did the right thing by deleting the post and apologizing. I know you are truly sorry and are always sincere, but some changes need to be made so that we can get back on track.
 
The last thing we need is for people to start dismissing SOLO because they think you are posting reckless tirades against one-and-all because you might be drunk or are childish or have some kind of irrational stack-blowing privilege. That is what some people think already from reading all the posts. Recklessness is not rationality.  It never was. You are the voice of SOLO and are the face of the forum. Dayaamm Linz, I love you and I care deeply about SOLO.  Please take a good look at what is happening. 

Barbara, please, please, please, give it another chance.  Linz did right by apologizing and deleting the post.  I know there are deeper issues, but you two have to talk that out privately.  No one wants to see you leave.  I don't blame you for wanting to hang it up, but don't.  Work it out.  It is not beyond repair.  Don't let him get you fired up.  Linz is Linz and I know you have issues, but I am asking you to give it more time.  Don't close the door on SOLO yet.  At least not over this. Stay strong, work out the issues rather than walk away. Continue to Hold Court.  You know we love ya both. 

Kat




Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 68

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 8:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sharon,

I believe that the ideals of Objectivism are worth the effort of helping you  to rehabilitate yourself.

Sharon you recently posted on another thread that you were not sure if objectivism was for you and that you needed to do more reading. Nearly all others here have disagreed with your views at one time or another and you have questioned if this site is for you. I think you don't like disagreement.

I guess the reason that you are still here - is SOLO was created at Linz's wish - not to banish anyone. Doesn't mean we have to be nice to you or agree with you though, although I have agreed with you sometimes and you haven't responded.

HAVING IDEAS IS ONE THING;  COMMUNICATING THEM EFFECTIVELY IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

I agree with you there. Linz however does communicate them effectively. Linz communicates benevolence for that which he is passionate as well as scorn for that which he loathes - as all good SOLOists do.

The "effectiveness" is dependant on the desired "effect", i.e. your target audience. However, I think no one is completely perfect in that respect, myself included.




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 69

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 9:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Marcus,

If my friends and family could hear you say that I don't like disagreement, they would be laughing hysterically.  How else would we learn to think?

It's lack of civility that I am against.

If I haven't responded to certain posts; I don't know what to say; except that perhaps I couldn't think of any helpful response. No rudeness was intended. 

One of the difficulties with an open discussion is that with less formal writing many nuances are possible; misunderstandings arise, and often many posters are writing simultaneously and crossing each other out of order. This creates a kind of chaos, for me who is new to "blogging" and  has been using computers for five months only; so I don't know all these tricks for going back and forth from one post to another.  If an answer is required, wouldn't  a direct question be posed?

  I realize that in Objectivism,  free choice and value for value is prime; but in social discourse some expectations must exist, one being a civil tongue. What is the value in vituperative language?  Whose hero is being held up as valuable?  Some warmonger?  

This is the crux of this thread. We are at war with the writing style of one of the posters.  What is the best way of obtaining peace?  As in the fudamentalist-terrorist problem; I look to the root cause; and work up from there.  Why are Objectivists fighting this battle again?  Are they passive-aggressive war-momgres who don't really want peace?   I thought they all wanted to live forever.

Sharon




Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 70

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 10:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
People are unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered. . If you do good, people may accuse you of selfish motives.  If you are successful, you may win false friends and true enemies.  The good you do today may be forgotten tomorrow.  Honesty and transparency make you vulnerable.  What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight.  People who really want help may attack you if you help them. . Give the world the best you have and you may get hurt.
To all these there is  only one thing left to do ; keep doing it anyway.

CD




Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Post 71

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 12:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara wrote:

"I told you once that you ARE the voice of Solo."

I don't come here to play follow the leader. I am my own leader, but I take good advice where I can get it so that I may be a good and just leader. SOLO has many voices and I come to listen to a select few of them. Linz happens to be one of them, you and James happen to some of the others.

I don't rate Linz's wisdom above or below yours. I evaluate it as he offers it, as I try to do with all proffered wisdom - yours included. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I strongly disagree with you that Linz is THE voice of SOLO. His may be the loudest and most pungent, but it isn't the only one and as he has freely admitted it isn't always the voice of considered wisdom.

Given that fact, I fail to see why anyone can't just take Linz's postings at face value, treasuring those gems he creates and ignoring or forgetting the occasional turd. Maybe the reason I don't understand is that I have never expected perfection in others, if they are honest and the sum total of their soul is overwhelmingly positive, that has always been enough for me.

"That voice is becoming something with which I no longer can sing in chorus."

Why do you feel you have to?

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 7/30, 1:50pm)




Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 72

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 1:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I can only reiterate what Robert has said.

When you have such a website for like-minded objectivists they will inevitably splinter into different groups.

When strong personalities leave that have been contributing a great deal, others in the group will start asking themselves questions like:

"What are the rules? Why am I here? Whose fault is it that they left? Who am I following now?"

The question really is though: "why did you come in first place and why did you stay?"

I hope it was because that person found some common cause with the SOLO credo in the first place. We all have our own minds and ourselves to be honest with, so let us not be swayed in the values we share.




Post 73

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 1:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Given that fact, I fail to see why anyone can't just take Linz's postings at face value, treasuring those gems he creates and ignoring or forgetting the occasional turd."

It's a fair question, and the answer is: because Linz likes to posture as "fearless leader," and his promises that their will be "much gnashing of teeth" and such create the illusion of a dictator.



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 74

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 2:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"because Linz likes to posture as "fearless leader,"

In the sense that Linz attempts to lead every charge - yes. And I take issue with the word posture. Linz is fearless.

But none of this changes the fact that you have free will. You are free to follow him or not, you are also free to lead your own charge according to your own plan (to continue the metaphor.) 

However, I would question your reasoning if your "better-plan" involves leaving SOLO just because of Linz or Joe Rowlands or any other individual who hangs out here. 

I am assuming here that Linz's presence isn't the only value that people see in this place. 

Answer me this question: Is it wise to shun a restaurant because one of the items on the menu displeases you? It isn't like Linz's posts aren't easy to ignore if you so choose to, this is an internet forum not a dinner party.

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 7/30, 2:27pm)




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 75

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 2:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert, I understand your reasoning, and don't disagree. But when that restaurant owner frequently barges in on his guest's table and tells you what and how to eat, there will be no tip.



Post 76

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 3:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Very true Joe! But what if I offer you a cannoli what then?
CD.

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 7/30, 3:04pm)




Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Post 77

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 3:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Just lookin' for a little respect...R-E-S-P-E-C-T" - Aretha Franklin.

If the current problems between key people at SOLO were one of someone losing their temper, having a few drinks, being insulting, then immediately apologizing, they would probably be quickly resolved and forgotten. But it seems as though words have been said, more than once in the past, which indicate a lack of respect and a questioning of peoples' honesty. If so, the underlying error would *not* be that of losing one's temper, but of one party's - or more than one party's - cold sober process of making (and then publicly pronouncing) an erroneous moral judgment.

It is an error of failing to perceive that disagreements and mistakes are not always moral ones but can be honest error or honest misunderstanding.

Let me give a hypothetical example: Suppose I were to read Barbara Branden's and Nathaniel Branden's books on Ayn Rand cover to cover (I have not done so, have only read portions) and conclude that Barbara unjustifiably portrays Ayn Rand as neurotic, power-lusting, insecure, with deep character or at least psychological flaws. And I were to conclude that her book does this in a way that the evidence does not support. Or that Nathaniel Branden does this in his book.

Suppose that I think one or both of the books goes way over the top in these ways: Are there alternatives to my concluding that the Brandens are being dishonest? Trying to build themselves up at her expense? That errors of this magnitude cannot be made innocently? As a matter of fact, it is quite possible to be 'too close' to a subject. People deeply emotionally involved with each other can often be either too harsh or too forgiving...or even both. They are blinded by their emotions and have a blind spot. So when they talk about their former relationship, you learn that they are not fully objective.

But, and here is the key point, you don't jump to the most extreme conclusion, deliberate dishonesty, without *a great deal of evidence ruling out many other possibilities* such as: honest error, lack of psychological insight, an emotional 'seeing red' or a blind spot in a particular sphere or regarding a particular person. All of these are extremely common in human cognition. Outright dishonesty or evasion is more rare. (And still one more step is needed in pronouncing a moral judgement: when you are about to draw a conclusion about someone's character as opposed to error you need to integrate it with everything else you know about the person.)

From Ayn Rand herself, then passed on to Peikoff and most of the present leaders of Objectivist movements, including Perigo, there is a gut-level tendency to assume that huge errors or errors you yourself would avoid, whether within your own movement or among your adversaries, must reflect badly on the character of the person making them.

After all, errors of this magnitude are not made innocently. Am I a psychologist? How do I know? Ayn Rand said so.

So the problem between Linz and BB and JK is this: Once someone shows that he does not respect you in such a fundamental way, that he calls your character, your honesty into question, it is understandable that you don't want to work with them any more.

If I were Barbara Branden and my effort to write a book about Ayn Rand and the details of my relationship with her resulted in my having been vilified and had my honesty and character constantly called into question for decades, a painful experience, I might first try to correct it, but ultimately I would be very unlikely to be willing to accept such treatment from those I had considered associates or allies.

The error is not in being passionate but occasionally insulting and having poor judgment. The error is the same as the one Peikoff makes in "Fact and Value": It is consciously and on principle believing one sees moral flaws rather than honest error in cases where the evidence does not support jumping to that conclusion.

This is the central error of judgment and of understanding of human beings which has sabotaged every Objectivist movement from Ayn Rand's own errors in this regard to as recently as this weekend in SOLO. It is at the center of the lack of success of the Objectivist movement and of the personal unhappiness and lack of success of Objectivists.

They think they are living in a darker universe than actually exists and are unaware that the darkness is in large part of their own making.

If this error is not corrected .... and corrected fully, consciously, and explicitly as priority #1 ... Objectivism has no chance.

--Philip Coates

PS, The present blow-up was utterly predictable as long as the error continues to be made. As is the fact that it is the -best- people, the most articulate ones who put effort and passion into their writings, who would be the least likely to accept not being treated with the presumption of honesty.

And with R-E-S-P-E-C-T for their selves and character on a rather basic level.
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 7/30, 3:19pm)




Post 78

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 3:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ciro, it just so happens that I like cannolis. :)

However, if you step on my foot and as my mouth opens to shout you shove that cannoli down my throat, you will be covered in cannoli.

Mutual trade.



Post 79

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 3:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I appreciate the concern that gives rise to the questions posed to me by several of you on this thread. I have obligations today and this evening, but I'll respond either late tonight or tomorrow.

Barbara



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.