Libertarianism, Objectivism, and Rage

Does that make you angry?

//;-)

Michael

Post 41

Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 2:43pm

The KHC's monthly guest speakers extend beyond libertarians, having included Christian homeschoolers, neo-pagans for group marriage, hemp activists, NRA reps, Marxist publishers, porn stars, Objectivists, and tax avoidance lawyers. And while regular attendees come from many fields, libertarian scribes arrive in abundance, including: * J. Neil Schulman, scripter for the New Twilight Zone (Profile in Silver) and author of The Frame of the Century (suggesting OJ's innocence), * Brad Linaweaver (Sliders: The Classic Episodes, Moon of Ice), * Victor Koman (The Jehovah Contract -- under option to Hollywood), * John DeChancie (Other States of Being, Witchblade: Talons), * "Anarchist" playwright Ben Pleasants, and * Thomas M. Sipos (Vampire Nation)

Whoa, tough crowd. I hope she knows what she is doing.

Post 42

Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 3:28pm

Does that make you angry?

Creepy. Talk about smarmy? You sound like Hannible Lector . . . or Ellsworth Toohey.

(Edited by Robert Davison on 11/24, 4:10pm)

(Edited by Robert Davison on 11/25, 6:06am)

Post 43

Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 4:35pm

Robert D,

LOLOLOLOLOLOL...

You just don't get what a playful poke in the ribs is, do you?

Everything is in terms of put-downs and arrogance and just plain bad vibes.

Fuck that. Do whatever you have to do to make it stop hurting - at least for a while.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Michael

Post 44

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 12:22am

Andy wrote:

However, I prefer to call useful anger "righteous" rather than "appropriate". The hotter description reminds us that our anger works best when it lights a fire under the ass of its recipient (including ourselves) to do the right thing. Because righteous anger can stir us and others out of moral complacency into action against evil it is an emotion in service to reason.

Andy, you have a way with words. I mean that whole-heartedly. I love good rhetoric and vibrant prose and admire the minds that construct it. I would even go so far as to say that I might like you in real life if we stayed off certain topics, y'know? But our greatest virtues sometimes hide our greatest weaknesses. And the internet, with its defacto anonymity and utter safety beyond our monitors, is a perfect stage for a hit & run, and the premier playground for our less presentable urges.  Ironically then, often I find the worst thing about your point of view, Andy, is that it looks so righteous on paper. Within the hermetically sealed universe of your crusade in prose you always come across as a modern day Lancelot. To my mind the central problem with your position on this thread is that it lacks any resemblance to life as we know it.

Andy, you are the master of the framed debate. You have a seemingly endless enthusiasm for shooting fish in a barrel. For crying out loud, you posted a man's arrest record on an internet bulletin board and for what? So we could all engage in some old fashioned shunning? Of course to your mind, such moralistic grandstanding is a no-brainer; moralistic grandstanding needs no justification, it is intrinsically virtuous. It's "Lancelot" vs. "the child molester," so let 'er rip!  Once you've framed the debate with one of your can't lose formulae, you're good to go. You've got your big brush ready for anyone who thinks you're off base or out of line.

Andy, I haven't read every last thread on this board since I showed up here, maybe I've missed something.   When you say that "righteous anger can stir us and others out of moral complacency into action against evil," you don't mean the chorus of "what he said's" that follow upon the heals of such invective, do you? Who are you talking about and what actions have they been stirred into?

Everyone, please, when--when has anyone's anger as expressed so loudly and often on this board lit "a fire under the ass of its recipient to do the right thing?" When has any tirade at the expense of a fellow student of Objectivism repaid you in their realizing the error of their ways and coming over to your way of thinking? Or have people moved closer to your way of thinking mainly when you've stated your position with clarity, high spirits and straight up winning good sense? Most of the time the net effect of relentlessly flaming someone on one topic, is to turn them against you on all topics on principle (not always, thank goodness; plenty of folks around here are able to tell the difference between people and ideas and remember that ad hominem is something to avoid). MSK and Robert Davison's recent sniping comes to mind. These two good men surely have bigger fish to fry, but now if one finds an opening in the other's armor on any thread they can't seem to leave it alone.

Linz, Andy, have either of you managed to set MSK straight on any damn thing, other than how you feel about him? Far from bringing MSK to your way of thinking, it's polarized the entire board. Thread after thread now bears the deeply boring subtext of this framed debate over "righteousness" vs. "pomo-niceness." Golly gee, boys and girls, which one would you choose?

And then there is the real, perhaps a little tangential, but very illustrative problem of the forum troll. How many times has "letting 'em have it" helped send them away or--dare we dream--changed their minds? Jimminy, any reasonable person can see that such critters thrive, absolutely thrive on invective and abuse. It binds them to the forum that much longer until they eventually run out of steam as a result of their own mysterious fuel economy. But we sure showed him, didn't we boys! He won't soon come rou--what? Oh. Here he come's with a new alias... The worst thing about haranguing the forum troll is that it makes us look good as we engage in the most antisocial and uncivil behavior this board can muster.

-Kevin

Post 45

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 3:01am

Linz, Andy, have either of you managed to set MSK straight on any damn thing, other than how you feel about him? Far from bringing MSK to your way of thinking, it's polarized the entire board.

Ah, the moral equivalence fallacy again. Defending a promoter of pedophilia is as good as opposing pedophilia�the only thing that matters is that those who do the latter don't get angry, while practitioners of the former may get as angry, smart-assed & smarmy as they like. Defending someone who smears others as alcoholics is as noble as the smeared parties' protests�the only thing that matters is that the latter are not expressed too loudly. Downplaying monumentally unconscionable deceit of a true hero by her exploiters as "the bad stuff" is as admirable as coming to the (dead) hero's defence�the only thing that matters is that those who do the latter don't do so in a way that offends those who do the former.

Beyond sickening.

Linz
(Edited by Lindsay Perigo
on 11/25, 3:16am)

Post 46

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 4:35am

"Everyone, please, when--when has anyone's anger as expressed so loudly and often on this board lit "a fire under the ass of its recipient to do the right thing?" When has any tirade at the expense of a fellow student of Objectivism repaid you in their realizing the error of their ways and coming over to your way of thinking?"

Funny you should ask that.

I was once on the receiving end of Linz' anger. In the short-term I was highly pissed off and went off licking my wounds. But after a time I realised there was some truth to what he said and I came to accept it as a lesson I had needed to learn the hard way. I consider myself better off for it having happened.

Post 47

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 6:05am

Michael,

It was a rude question and an attack on Linz.

The implication was that he is intolerant of disagreement. That is unfair and arrogant. The very fact that you are still here, unmoderated, is proof of its falsity.

As to pokes in the rib, everytime you are called on something, the response comes back it was just a 'good natured' joke. If you are going to be 'bitchy' at least own up to it. This butter won't melt in your mouth defense is wearing a little thin.

Post 48

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 6:22am

I'm not so sure that Kevin is advocating moral equivalency. I think he is wondering about what has happened to the ideas that are supposed to be discussed when the pot shots fly. Whether or not anything important is being accomplished.

One thing has become clear to me. Fabricating "enemies" on an Internet forum is great fun, but it doesn't seem to do a rat's ass worth of good out in the real world.

The real bad guys are out there - not in here. And they ain't listening. Religion goes on its merry way making converts day after day. Objectivism sure ain't stopping it.

And "enemies" on an Objectivist Internet forum - other Objectivists or admirers of Rand's works to tell the truth - get pissed off because they have been offended and leave. Thank God somebody saved the day!

LOLOLOLOLOLOL...

Setting up most any of the posters I have read so far as the moral equivalent to a Bin Laden, and pretending that one is making a difference in the world for trouncing evil, is about as morally equivalent as I can think of.

Michael

Edit to Robert D - Our posts crossed. Let me be clear on something. We bitch at each other, but underneath it all, you are nowhere near a Bin Laden in life. You admire Ayn Rand's works and get grumpy a lot. (yawn) We both share the same basic interest, though. So if an enemy - a real enemy in the real world - attacked you, I would not hesitate to put myself in harm's way to defend you.

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/25, 6:26am)

Post 49

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 7:46am

Michael,

Nor I you. I call them as I see them.

Post 50

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 9:49am

The real bad guys are out there - not in here. And they ain't listening.

How true!

Post 51

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 9:56am

Tim: I was once on the receiving end of Linz' anger.

I never met a mature and sane person who has been damaged by someone else's anger.
Anger can only damage the person who practice it!
If someone get damaged by someone else's anger it tell you a lot about that person!

Post 52

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 10:01am

I hope whoever sanctioned Linz's post # 45 will elaborate on what it means to them. Linz is a brilliant man, a star, but that post isn't proof of it. First of all, it's a perfect example of what I described Andy doing. Linz finds a chink in my argument (of sorts), frames the debate ("the moral equivalence fallacy," placing me somewhere on the side with an unnamed "promoter of pedophilia") and then he just goes off into a catch-all rant summing up the last few weeks of PAR vs. PARC just 'cuz.

How fucking dare you lump me with promoters of pedophilia, Lindsay! I promise you, Lindsay, if you knew me better you'd feel ashamed of yourself. Has your moral high-ground gotten so low that you have to point at pedophiles to show your superiority?

-Kevin

Post 53

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 10:21am

Kevin -- is all that rage necessary? Especially while pointing out someone else's?

Frankly, I'm sick of this one-way street. MSK, you, Barbara Branden, and others can say the most outrageous things with a wink or a velvet smile and somehow that's above reproach. Someone fires back, and it's NO FAIR! Give me a break. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. And don't pretend you haven't dished it out when you HAVE, as you did above and to which Linz was responding. You're lucky he doesn't curl up into a ball and say "Stop hurting me! You're so mean!" No, he tells you exactly what he thinks and how strongly he believes it. (Just like you do, my friend.)

Post 54

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 10:30am

Dayaamm Casey!

You only like it when Linz gets angry?

Er... or is the issue that Kevin just did it well? You need easier people to argue with?

Michael

Post 55

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 1:02pm

And right there in Post 54 is an example of the smarmy smart-assing I was talking about.

Let's be clear in case it wasn't already�the kind of person who would leave here because of my anger is not the sort of person who should be here. The type of person who should be here would ask, Why is he angry? Is his anger justified?

In my previous post I nominated very specific instances of moral equivalency that have been on display here for some weeks now. I do not equate their practitioners with bin Laden, contrary to that red herring being thrown in (and I have most assuredly had a lot to say about bin Laden on other threads). But I do take a very dim view of them, in part because it's the same kind of moral equivalency that allows the bin Ladens of this world to flourish. In part, obviously, because of their specific content, which no one has addressed. And in part, because of the rank hypocrisy involved. The apparent blanket exhortation against anger to which I was responding actually only applies to those on the high ground�those on the low may get as angry as they like, as it turns out. As Casey says, it's a one-way street.

Let me say it again:

Ah, the moral equivalence fallacy again. Defending a promoter of pedophilia is as good as opposing pedophilia�the only thing that matters is that those who do the latter don't get angry, while practitioners of the former may get as angry, smart-assed & smarmy as they like. Defending someone who smears others as alcoholics is as noble as the smeared parties' protests�the only thing that matters is that the latter are not expressed too loudly. Downplaying monumentally unconscionable deceit of a true hero by her exploiters as "the bad stuff" is as admirable as coming to the (dead) hero's defence�the only thing that matters is that those who do the latter don't do so in a way that offends those who do the former.

Beyond sickening.

And so it is.

I would remind those who shouldn't be here that they don't have to be here. You are guests in my house. If you don't like me & what I represent, I'm sure it's not beyond your capacities to find the door. Anyone else in my position would have flung you out aeons ago.

Linz

Post 56

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 1:37pm

The type of person who should be here would ask, Why is he angry? Is his anger justified?

Linz, I thought you were pazzo, but Lately, I keep thinking that you must be concentrating you energy
on what you had invitioned when you started solo.
Don't let anyone push you off the track!
You are doing a great Job. Stay away form the tomatoes leaves and be happy!
Ciro

Post 57

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 2:21pm

Well here's a question.

Why not address this "specific content, which no one has addressed," then?

Michael

Post 58

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 6:38pm

Linz wrote:

Let's be clear in case it wasn't already�the kind of person who would leave here because of my anger is not the sort of person who should be here. The type of person who should be here would ask, Why is he angry? Is his anger justified?...
I would remind those who shouldn't be here that they don't have to be here. You are guests in my house. If you don't like me & what I represent, I'm sure it's not beyond your capacities to find the door. Anyone else in my position would have flung you out aeons ago.

That's just precious. Michael, you should be damned grateful that Linz isn't the kind of guy who would kick you out for being a "smart-ass." We all should be grateful to Linz for being so patient and not "flinging us out" when we rankle his touchy feelings. Sheesh.

I seem to recall reading this kind of statement as one of the "verbal attack patterns" of guilt-mongers from Suzette Hadley Elgin's The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense. It is used by people trying to manipulate others into feeling guilt for what they have said or done, so that they will kow-tow to the manipulator.

Now, perhaps the resemblance is only coincidental, but...

Also, I seem to recall Michael saying on various occasions that he appreciates the fact that Linz has made available this forum for us to discuss issues and express our points of view and our passions. So Michael is now saying (and echoing the sentiments of many of us) that he finds some of Linz's behavior objectionable. So???

I've had to call some of my friends on the carpet when they mistreat me, and they have returned the favor. And that does not cancel out our good feelings about and appreciation of each other's virtues. So, what is this crap all about, huh???

REB

Post 59

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 8:27pm