Rethinking SOLO- An Open Letter to Lindsay and Joe

Nathan,

If Joe, Jeff, or Linz didn't write it...it will not be the official policy (or unofficial pogrom) of SOLO. And even then, SOLOists are free to...(ahem, promised Jesus I wouldn't curse)...fudge off. Or just ignore Joe, Jeff, and Linz and try to do what they want.

Haven't SOLOists been lectured by the Founder and Principal on this very subject before?

Doesn't the continued existence of this thread indicate the Gods of SOLO have nothing to fear from dissent towards Luke's article, or anyone else's articles, even their own? Couldn't there be a reason for Jeff, Joe and Linz not to be afraid of public dissent toward what you see as the "official, emerging Party line"? (my words) Why is this thread still here? Hell, why aren't you banned? Too obvious for them?

Take SOLOHQ as it is. It's a web-site with an open, largely unmoderated discussion forum, and a vast pool of diverse articles, all of which is up for debate, and fair game. Letting one article or another through the queue does not give it, or the ideals within it, the Official SOLO Stamp of Endorsement and Enshrinement Into the Holy Charter. It's just an opinion piece. Get over it!

Again: If Joe, Jeff, or Linz didn't write it...it will not be the official policy (or unofficial pogrom) of SOLO.

(Edited by Jeremy on 6/22, 7:34pm)

Post 21

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 7:50pm

And I suggest that you keep doing what you want to do, and when threads like this start to disappear, and SOLOists are required to sanction one post or another, or sign their names at the bottom of one article or another, then you have something to fear. I have never seen anything remotely resembling either of those coersions. Have some confidence in the proprietors' own understanding of property rights and self-determination, Nathan (and anybody else).

Post 22

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 8:19pm

Derek wrote:

"Grandstanding" is an act, a pretense. You join the motive-bashers club with that little accusation. You don't have a clue what my motivations are, so I can only wonder why you'd think I'm not serious.

What I inferred from your earlier post was, "I'm important around here. I've written all those posts, and I have all these articles waiting to come out, so by God - you had all better listen to me." That's why I agreed with Peter that you were grandstanding.

That's your take. Mine was:

I'm serious about SOLO and what I have to say about Objectivism, and have serious intentions for the future.

And

I assume that someone this serious is worth listening to.

Take it or leave it. I'm unconcerned about explaining myself to those who will see bad motives motives regardless.

Why, do you think YOU have nothing of value to contribute to SOLO and that if you left it would be no great loss? If so, too bad. I think more highly of myself than that.

I never said that I had nothing of value to offer SOLO.

Fine. A corollary is that if you think you have something of value to offer, then you think you are worth listening to and would be a loss if you departed.

You see how I said that without any negative connotation whatsoever? Without turning a virtue into a vice?

I can say that about myself with absolutely no sense that I'm speaking "haughtily" or being arrogant in any way.

By whose satisfaction should I judge my willingness to stay here?
Cut the semantics. You know what I meant.

Yes, I do, but I don't think you do. I agreed with you.

Again, you should not turn the virtue of my self-esteem and the exercise of my self-interest into a vice. Yes, the culture here at SOLO has to be to my satisfaction. Why would I wish to be where I am dissatisfied?

You can portray that as infantile if you wish; I call it self-esteem and good judgment.

I am acting on the evidence of my own senses and declaring Mr. Setzer's behavior as malefactory, especially his advocacy of labeling others as "pseudo" and "malefactors" worthy of "search and destroy," in essence following his advice, and you're complaining about it.
No, what I'm complaining about is that you are conjuring up an atmosphere of fear and the prospect of witchhunts where neither danger exists.

That's your judgment, which I will respect.

My own judgment is based upon my knowledge of history, the events of the last week, and the behavior of the individuals involved.

You, apparently, have never seen these things spiral out of control. I have. All it takes is a few key people with poor judgment or axes to grind, or who see conflict as recreation - and sufficient uncritical followers - and the fabric of a group is torn, often irreparably.

I think the danger is very real, but lessened by exposure.

Nathan Hawking

Post 23

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 8:27pm

Nathan, do you remember how you (like me) argued that the matter between SOLO and David Elmore should have been handled privately. Why do you not feel that this matter is any different? Why did you not just email Luke directly asking if you were a target of his article, and try to straighten things out with him? Why did you not just email Joe or Linz and ask if Luke's article was some sort of letter of the law at SOLO?

The fact is that you chose to publicly put the owners of this site on the spot over an issue that involved them indirectly at best. And by doing so, you injected this forum with a dose of negative energy at a time when it could use it the least. I don't feel you should be banned or moderated, but I really don't know what you're looking to accomplish.

Post 24

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 8:28pm

Jeremy J:

Thanks for your feedback. The place you describe is the place which drew me here.

Have some confidence in the proprietors' own understanding of property rights and self-determination, Nathan (and anybody else).

Confidence is earned, Jeremy, not bestowed.

Your confidence is apparent, and respected, but mine will have to take its natural course.

Thanks again for your thoughtful reply.

Nathan

Post 25

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 8:39pm

Nathan, you say you have been here for seven short weeks and then go on about where SOLO is heading. How can you say it's heading somewhere when you clearly have so little to go on? If you had been following for a bit longer, say a few years, you might realise that this has all been going on for as long as SOLO has existed, and will likely go on and on and on. Some people join the forum, post madly for a few months, get an inflated sense of their importance to the continuation of this effort, and then get pissed off and move on. As for me, I observe in amusement, don't get too excited about the ominous predictions about the future, and reap the tremendous benefits of participating in a forum with mostly like-minded people.

Linz can be abrasive. Very occasionally, I think he's wrong. Usually I think he's right. But right or wrong, he always believes and acts passionately - that is where SOLO came from and why it has endured. Linz, Joe, and Jeff are why I stick around. I'm happy for anyone else who is here and makes a contribution, but I don't spend half a second worrying about whether or not they stay. Contrary to popular belief, this world is chock-full of joyful, mindful, interesting people, and I am quite confident that they will continue to find SOLO.

Post 26

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 8:58pm

Pete:

Nathan, do you remember how you (like me) argued that the matter between SOLO and David Elmore should have been handled privately. Why do you not feel that this matter is any different? Why did you not just email Luke directly asking if you were a target of his article, and try to straighten things out with him? Why did you not just email Joe or Linz and ask if Luke's article was some sort of letter of the law at SOLO?

In some respects, Pete, especially the last sentence, I think in retrospect that would have been a good idea.

The fact is that you chose to publicly put the owners of this site on the spot over an issue that involved them indirectly at best. And by doing so, you injected this forum with a dose of negative energy at a time when it could use it the least.

I see this part somewhat differently. I think the negative energy, if you will, is already here, and that Luke Setzer's article encourages the denunciatory spirit seen elsewhere. I would doubtless have felt the need to argue against that publicly in any event. I'm still appalled by that "search and destroy" phrase.

To be honest, the thought of doing a portion of this privately never entered my mind. Some of the rhetoric the piece used had been used on me publicly only hours before, I found some implications of the piece very disturbing, I assumed that Lindsay had approved the piece, so decided to respond as a package deal.

Had I not been subjected to repeated attacks on my motives by the article's writer and others only hours before, my response would doubtless have been less strident and not likely taken the "open letter" form. But it's a fair question, and a good opportunity for Joe and/or Lindsay to respond positively.

Though I have repeatedly been insulted in the last couple of days, I meant absolutely no insult toward Joe or Lindsay, nor to put them "on the spot." I simply ask the question. They are not required to take it personally.

Nathan Hawking

Post 27

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 9:22pm

Gentlemen (and Ashley,)

I have just dipped my toe back into SOLO after being absent for the past academic year. I was unpleasantly surprised by how negative it is now and hope that this does not continue. I also hope there are no further departures of people who are making very positive contributions.

There have been cases in the past where we have been joined by some rather obnoxious people, and/or by people who called themselves Objectivists while interminably droning on about their own pet theories that clearly ran contrary to Objectivism. They have persistently tried to dominate the thread (and in some cases, all the threads.) People, with reason, have been unpleasant to them. BTW, I speaking of cases from when I was active before, not of any recent events. But now there seems to be just a lot of negative rhetoric leaving me mystified by what is motivating it.

On Nathan's copyright thread, there were overly personal comments made toward him following no provocation on his part that was apparent to me. I hope that he continues here and that this type of behavior does not persist.

In the SOLO spirit, could we please try to take the level of invective down a notch? Could everyone who is irritated by another poster please try to think for a minute of some less fiery or less personal wording, before hitting the 'post' button?

Benevolence, people.

Thank you,

-Bill
(Edited by William A. Nevin III
on 6/22, 9:31pm)

Post 28

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 9:27pm

Great post, Ashley.

Nathan, read her post twice. I hope you can take a step back, think things over and decide to stay for good.

All new/semi-new folks, did you know SOLO at one time was host to a poster who wrote articles condemning abortion? That the same poster set forth to prove that single mothers and fathers should have fewer rights under the law than fully Registered and Married Parents? That this same poster felt the need to replace all "ph's" with "f's" because he thought "ph" muddled the English language, and refused from then on to spell "philosophy" or "pharmacist" as God intended, with a two-letter beginning? That this same poster was never banned, censored, censured, or blocked? His article proclaiming abortion to be a sin against humanity and his thread decrying the abusiveness of single-parenthood--and What the Government Should Do About It--were never edited, modified, shoved under the carpet, or erased? That this poster left of his own free will when he saw his ideas making little headway? Despite being a pretty bright guy with some pretty insightful moments, some of his ideas were just plain wrong. And yet they made their way through to us, the SOLOists, by way of the relatively liberal policies of SOLOHQ. Joe and Linz never had to bother with erasing, editing or moderating the things he said, because they had faith in us, in our ability to figure out what was what, to think for ourselves. And the truth, as always, will out. In the end, we made the call. It was all very democratic, and quite unorganized, but the free market played its immutable role as arbiter of good ideas and that poster got voted off the island...sort of. In any case, the volcano didn't even have to erupt.

Do you really think people are going to get lynched around here for veering a bit off course on the road to discovering for themselves what kind of ideas they should hold on to? SOLO has quite a seedy history, kids. You should dig through the archives, see what kind of whack-jobs Joe, Linz and Jeff have tolerated, then come round and call on them to answer for their criminal blacklistings of poor, poor "rebels against the System". See if God don't drop ten tons of dead baby seals on your head for jumping the gun a bit.

Everyone here owes these men a little something, for placing so much faith in us, for trusting us to be able to think for ourselves. I won't ever get down on my knees and be humble towards any man, ever, but I will certainly show some damn gratitude. I'm beginning to understand why LP blows his stack now and then--it's probably hard to watch the good will and faith you put in people be shat on and so thoroughly misunderstood at least once a month.

(Edited by Jeremy on 6/22, 10:06pm)

Post 29

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 9:28pm

Ashley:

Thanks for your thoughtful response. You've given me things to think about.

Be assured that my sense of myself is not inflated. I know that I have some value but am nowhere near indispensable.

I predicated my remarks on the belief that I am, as others are, worthy of being a valued member of SOLO. But I see talk of publicly labeling people who disagree with us or whose style we dislike as "malefactors" as disvaluing of others.

Anyone who leaves because of an unnecessary negativity in the culture is a loss.

Nathan Hawking

Post 30

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 9:28pm

Since I was mentioned specifically at the start of all this regarding another thread, and I skimmed the posts in this one just now, all I can say is:

Dayaamm! Some people do bleat and blather up a storm over nothing.

Makes you wonder what his real reason for all this is.

Ahem.. oh yes, I already said that.

//;-)

Michael

Post 31

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 9:31pm

Err...yeah, benevolence and stuff too!

(Thanks for the reminder, Bill!)

Post 32

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 4:55pm

If you choose to write on the internet grow a cast-iron ass or get out of the kitchen. I cannot believe the pouty lips here. So a few people hyper-ventilated and got the vapors. The sun will still rise tomorrow. It is only words on a screen, written by a consciousness on a chair who you probably don't know from Adam's housecat.

Someone calls someone else an "idiot" or ~the horror~ an "arsehole" and is nailed to a cross? Oh please. You shouldn't write such terrible, hurtful things. It causes great weeping and gnashing of teeth. You need to be more sensitive.

Some people can't handle the internet environment, and my advice to them is to GET OUT. If you post or blog to be loved, forget it. You'll always manage to piss someone off. If you write to "make friends," forget that, too. You'll always make enemies. If you write for any other reason than the fact that you just want to do it, and you're ready to handle whatever comes your way--- just quit.

It'll save you a lot of grief in the long run.

Post 33

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 10:21pm

MSK writes:

Makes you wonder what his real reason for all this is.

Sarcastic speculations about motives simply bait people into continuing the acrimony.

I urge the target not to respond to this, the sender to please refrain from further baiting and all others to restrain themselves from offering the obvious (and interminable) comments. This thread seems to have reached a dead end.

Post 34

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 10:33pm

Well that was real sweet, Robert.

Long-winded boring nonsensical acrimony by another - including using my name - is A-OK to you. (I sure didn't see you objecting to anything.)

And now you don't want me to wonder why in public.

Hmmmmmm...

Now I'm really starting to wonder...

Michael

Post 35

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 11:34pm

Bill A.N.: Thanks for your comments, observations, and wise advice.

Jeremy J: Thanks again for your advice. I appreciate the perspective you put on this.

Robert B: Target had no intention of responding, but thanks for your advice.

Nathan

Post 36

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 12:28am

Nathan: Aren't you playing the other side of the Luke coin? You can't make people nice; it just makes 'em mad. Sticking a stick into a bees' nest is a tough way to get honey. MSK is handling this environment better than most. At least he's still around. SOLO seems to be more and more in a state of fulmination.

--Brant

Post 37

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 12:56am

Brant,

Let�s see if we can get something worthwhile out of all the nonstop bitching on this thread, and try to tone the fulmination down a bit. Unfortunately, gotta deal with Nathan because he just won�t stop, so here goes my best shot.

To start with, the stroke:

I want to congratulate your change in style and tone of voice in Post 35, Nathan. It made reading what you had to say palatable.

Now, the problem (it seems):

Nathan Hawking (Post 22)
Yes, the culture here at SOLO has to be to my satisfaction.

(His bold format.)

Now, a possible solution:

Unfortunately I had to work pretty hard to find these snippets in the present thread, but they were there. Most posters focused on the negative and had little good to say about Solo or anything else. Some went on and on "shoulding" on others and trying to tell them what to do. I could not find anything good about Solo in Nathan�s posts (but I might have missed something buried under all the bombast and frivolous rhetoric).

Maybe these quotes below will help Nathan�s constant dissatisfaction, maybe they won�t. I sure do appreciate them and want to extend my personal thanks to each poster for saying something positive during all the ranting and griping.

Sarah House (Post 2)
� SOLO is populated by some of the most intelligent people I've ever seen on an internet forum.

Derek McGovern (Post 14)
I'm off with Robert Winefield and other stalwarts here to the sunlit field that epitomises SOLO.

Jeremy Johnson (Post 20)
Take SOLOHQ as it is. It's a web-site with an open, largely unmoderated discussion forum, and a vast pool of diverse articles, all of which is up for debate, and fair game.

Ashley Frazier (Post 25)
Contrary to popular belief, this world is chock-full of joyful, mindful, interesting people, and I am quite confident that they will continue to find SOLO.

Jeremy Johnson (Post 28)
Everyone here owes these men a little something, for placing so much faith in us, for trusting us to be able to think for ourselves. I won't ever get down on my knees and be humble towards any man, ever, but I will certainly show some damn gratitude.

All to which I say "amen." But I want to contribute too with what I have said elsewhere.

Me (now):
Solo is GOOD.

Michael

Post 38

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 12:58am

Brant:

Nathan: Aren't you playing the other side of the Luke coin?

I understand why you might say that.

You can't make people nice; it just makes 'em mad. Sticking a stick into a bees' nest is a tough way to get honey. ... SOLO seems to be more and more in a state of fulmination.

The metaphor is good. Just extend it. Enough said.

Nathan

Post 39

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 1:04am