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 5Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 5:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I just want to make it clear that I really do enjoy having GS here, and the only problem is the possible misinterpretation of his seeming omnipresence. (On a related note, I have often been puzzled by this Mario Lanza thing. [Pun intended.]) The special treatment proposed by SOLOHQ for GS would not be necessary for the other non-Objectivists such as Messrs. Barnes, Geddes, or Tingley. It is very healthy that all four of these highly intelligent and articulate deluded souls (joke) make us earn the right to believe what we do.

I look forward to finally getting the time to wade through the debates and to return to some I have had to abandon.

GS should take into account that Mr. Perigo is, after all, a right-wing talk show host with bipolar disorder. And he often means what he says as much as I meant what I did in the previous sentence.

I also would caution that one cannot assume that the failure to silence one's opponent in a debate means that the opponent has not been refuted. Not all opponents are honest in that respect. So if a forum decides to ban someone, it doesn't mean the forum owners are afraid to be challenged. It means that, rightly or wrongly, they have decided not to give opportunities to someone they regard as destructive of their ideals.




Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 8:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
To Glenn Lamont and others,

I apologize for my clumsy use of the word "parroting." I did not mean to imply that anyone here simply parroted Ayn Rand's arguments. I spoke to the general tendency for Objectivist-related boards to degenerate into new converts typing in long passages from Atlas, versus chaps just out to stir up trouble. Mr. Stolyarov is neither.

I suggest, as a hopeful end to this thread, that we all consider two things:

1) Mr. Perigo probably should have responded to Mr. Stolyarov privately. The world needs more tact. How would any of us respond when, instead of a private response, we received a public thrashing? Mr. Stolyarov might have been verbose, but that's better than short and obscene.

2) We all share two things that rarely peek out from under the Objectivist banner: a sense of optimism, and a sense of humor. These are some of the best weapons in our arsenal, and Mr. Perigo can wield them with devastating effect when the grape moves him. We all need to use them more.

I like this little band of SOLO brothers. Let us take on the world and not each other.

-Scott Schad



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 3
Post 22

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 8:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Cameron.
 
>>To hear from conservative authoritarians such as Stolyarov and Citizen Rat that Lindsay, in acting to protect the integrity of this site and the ethos it presents to the world, is a Stalinist is downright disgusting.<<
 
Actually that's not true.  I thought it was pretty obvious from my epitaph "Leninz" that I think Linz's ethos is Leninist.
 
Regards,
Bill




Post 23

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 9:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Scott.
 
>>I got an idea for you, Citizen Rat. Why dont YOU 'strike SOLO' for good?<<
 
I don't take my participation in this forum very seriously.  A Galtian strike against Solo would accord an entirely undue moral weight to my activities here.
 
>>You never contribute anything positive, all you do is bitch about how terrible this person is, or howrotten that person is.<<
 
Well, it's true that I would be a better man if had done the Christian and turned the other cheek to Leninz and his boys.
 
>>Mr. Stolyarov at least makes some positive contributions.<<
 
He certainly does, but at least I'm not patronizing when he does.
 
>>You're a rabble rouser.<<
 
Well, it can certainly look like that when you stand against the crowd.
 
Regards,
Bill




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 9:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think that GS (Stolyarov) does take some peculiar positions from time to time, and his style does tend to be more than a little cold, impersonal, and grandiose.  And mind you, I'm sure I rub certain people the wrong way, too.  Maybe he has a need to manifest himself in the way he presently does; I don't know... only he can know this.  But I do know one thing: he has always come across to me as very well-mannered and courteous, and if his formality is how he manages that, I'm not sure I want an alternative.

I don't know GS's background or what his "agenda" ultimately is.  Although I can plainly see that he has really chafed many of you in here, I do know that I don't really feel assaulted by him or his posts... I guess that's just my nature; if someone's position or argument isn't articulated in a certain form, my eyes tend to just glaze over, and I miss their whole point.  As a result, it doesn't faze me.

From time to time, GS does phrase an essay in just a certain way, whereby my attention is grabbed and I'm willing to really sink my teeth into it.  But I think that many of his arguments that most of you have found offensive, are of a certain form -- perhaps it's the length or the language he uses -- that never gets my attention in the first place, so I haven't read them. 

Not to be dishonest or unfairly cruel or catty, although he once again does sometimes write in a gripping, succinct, and only justifiably formal manner, much of his writing style "bromidizes" (to borrow a Rand term) his supposedly more incendiary messages so effectively, that I have never felt them to be a monumental threat to western civilization, because I doubt they would survive the probability of really being noticed on a grand scale. 

GS definitely has his peculiarities; I won't lie.  But then again, I'm sure that I do.  The only thing that I will suggest to him (if he cares), is to perhaps relax around the gang here and become more informal... talk about less impersonally-detached, "high stakes" things from time to time, and choose to take the risk of trust that we won't devour him if he doesn't try to earn our respect so much with an air of Vulcan elevation.  We don't bite... at least I don't.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 8/02, 11:30pm)




Post 25

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 9:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Jeremy.
 
>>Oh please Bill.  I'm not gay ... <<
 
OK.  So what?
 
>>... and I detest Stolyarov's advocating government involvement--whether he admits it or not--in marriage.  One has nothing to do with the other in my book, and whatever anyone else gets out of it, I will continue to refuse to accept waging morality wars against most of the population because Stolyarov doesn't think most people are capable of being responsible for themselves and their loved ones.<<
 
I'm glad you detest the straw man you put up against Mr. Stolyarov.  I do too.

>>"Striking" SOLO is a chump's way out.<<

 
Exactly how is a decision to no longer participate in a forum that makes a bold-faced point of not wanting to associate with you the "chump's way out"?
 
>>G. is not a chump.<<
 
No, he is not.
 
>>Why give him that advice when you could take it yourself?<<
 
Asked and answered.  See my comments to DeSalvo.
 
>>G. can work this out on his own.  Let him be.<<
 
I am confident that Mr. Stolyarov can take or ignore my advice without a problem.

>>Edit:  PS I find it rather funny that there's an article on accepting anger as valid and applaudable when one's premises are being questioned or assaulted, but some have implored that G. not get riled up about this little to-do.  I certainly would, even if not to that particular degree.  But I know that G. can handle this, and so can SOLO's apparent ogres of the encroaching Red October Part 2.  Pfffffttttttt................<<

 
Well, perhaps it's the ignorance of your youth.  But if you truly desire to see the world as it, the scales will fall from your eyes in time.  You'll recognize the signs of the Left, even when it's wearing sheep's clothing, and you'll know the difference between Mr. Stolyarov's disgust with Leninz and a mere wounded pride.  However, Jeremy, I despair that this will not happen soon, for you appear to be too enamored with striking the pose of the light-hearted poseur.  That is not the best way to figure out which things need to be taken seriously.
 
Regards,
Bill




Post 26

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 9:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Rodney.
 
>>It is very healthy that all four of these highly intelligent and articulate deluded souls (joke) make us earn the right to believe what we do.<<
 
Joke or not, I'll take the compliments wherever I can get them. ;)
 
Regards,
Bill




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 3
Post 27

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 9:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
To all the Leninzists:
 
Embrace honesty for a moment.  Why did Leninz do what he did?  Mr. Stolyarov privately proposed a trade.  Leninz did not see any value in it for SOLO.  Instead of simply declining Mr. Stolyarov's offer, he uses it as an opportunity to tell the world he is horrified by the man and will do nothing that suggests an association with him.
 
Let's face it, anyone horrified by Mr. Stolyarov is perhaps just a bit irrational.  Leninz's denouncement of Mr. Stolyarov is not a thing that merits anyone's respect.
 
Regards,
Bill




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 11:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm glad I'm keeping late hours at the moment so I had a chance to read your post to me, Rat.

That was, by far, one of your worst.  Maybe the worst--I don't know, I'll let Jesus decide.  If my youth leads me to not make ill-informed assumptions about people I haven't met, then I'm glad to be young.  I'm not striking a pose, Rat.  I actually am a light-hearted man.  So much so that I can ignore your dropping of context (asking "so what" when you know the issue is your contention that LP's rejection of GS' marriage "defense" is nothing but a rationalization on the part of someone playing identity politics.  The "so what" is that one does not have to be gay, or a leftist, or a demon, to reject Stolyarov's proposals.), and your admonitions to me that I should stop following some groupthink mentality (despite the fact that I have said I do not think this announcement was necessary and that I enjoy G's presence on this forum) and actually address you this one last time.

Well, perhaps it's the ignorance of your youth.  But if you truly desire to see the world as it, the scales will fall from your eyes in time.  You'll recognize the signs of the Left, even when it's wearing sheep's clothing, and you'll know the difference between Mr. Stolyarov's disgust with Leninz and a mere wounded pride.  However, Jeremy, I despair that this will not happen soon, for you appear to be too enamored with striking the pose of the light-hearted poseur.  That is not the best way to figure out which things need to be taken seriously

I was criticizing the idea that G should not take this personally.  The announcement was, after all, directed entirely at him and not just those contributors who don't follow "party lines" (Whatever the hell that means.  I disagree with LP on probably as many issues as I do with Stolyarov.  If this was Leninism, you and I would be at the bottom of a river, wrapped in  rugs.) 

This is silly, Rat.  Why haven't they simply banned GSII?  Or you?  Too hard?  They must maintain appearances?  We've all swallowed the official SOLO Manifesto, Rat.  There's no need to appease our sensibilities.  They ban you two, and we all applaud.  Correct? 

I'm waiting, Admin.  Ban these two.  Let's see what happens.

Other than that, pffffffffffttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt.

(Edited by Jeremy on 8/02, 11:14pm)




Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 29

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 11:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 

Gentlemen,

 

I am new to this website and have never posted before. Having participated in other forums of this type in the past I can tell you that this type of exchange is exactly the kind that is so corrosive to discussion forums. While I cannot comment on Mr. Stolyarov’s contributions, or lack of – I will say this; it has been my experience that the WORST possible forum to address such issue is the public one. It elicits ill will and personal attacks, it tends to break off forum members into factions, it greatly detracts from the fundamental purpose of the forum, and quite often the forums never again regain their former atmosphere.

 

What attracted me to this website a little over a week ago (while surfing the web) was what appeared to be a relaxed and friendly place for people who share a common interest (objectivism). I was hoping that I had stumbled upon the exception to the rule. That ‘rule’ being that on average Philosophy forums of any type are usually no more than a small collection of highly articulate - narcissistic bastards. Almost without exception, the website/forum begins benevolently, but soon deteriorates into ad hominem exchanges. Given enough time the forum shrinks in active members and is left with a small group of hard core members divided into 2 groups; the original website creators trying in vain to resurrect their website to what they originally intended, and the hard-core ‘bastard’ types that never tire of arguing with others. Eventually the second group is kicked out by the first – but, by that time the website has long ago ceased being a place that people bother to visit or participate in.

 

I do not believe that this website has descended to that level, and the above is meant as a warning – not a condemnation. That said, I offer you this unsolicited advice (yes, I know the perils of ‘unsolicited’ advice –lol ):

 

  1. NEVER allow a situation to reach a point where it necessitates the public posting of an article in order to address any single member of the forum. (Naturally, praise and recognition are not included).
  2. If you have made the error of number 1, never compound that error by allowing any lengthy or ongoing exchanges in reference to the issue. Either you retract and apologize for the error, and then close the issue as no longer open to discussion (enforced without hesitation), OR you hold your ground and eliminate the source that caused you to commit number 1 in the first place – also followed by closing the issue and not leaving it open for discussion.

 

In my experience any attempt to tightrope walk an issue that has moved to the ‘personal’ level is doomed to fail. In matters such as these there can be no ‘gray areas’ – no ‘middle grounds’. Its an either or proposition.

 

George W. Cordero

 

(Edited by Ision on 8/03, 12:50am)

(Edited by Ision on 8/03, 12:54am)




Post 30

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 3:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Let's face it, anyone horrified by Mr. Stolyarov is perhaps just a bit irrational.  Leninz's denouncement of Mr. Stolyarov is not a thing that merits anyone's respect.


It would be more accurate to say that Mr Stolyarov's views on a number of issues are "just a bit irrational" (to put it mildly), and Lindsay is perfectly entitled to distance SOLO from Mr Stolyarov where he thinks it appropriate. SOLO is Lindsay and Joe's organisation after all.

I stand by what I have said regarding Mr Stolyarov's virtuous attributes, however I find his response to Lindsay rather bizzare, and while Lindsay is perfectly capable of defending himself, certain points strike me as blatantly contradictory:

Mr Stolyarov quotes Lindsay:
I resolved at that moment that in no way would I permit the impression to be created that, simply because Mr Stolyarov is a prolific contributor to SOLOHQ—one whose articles and posts have been unimpeachable and inspiring as often as they’ve been appalling, both in letter and spirit—he and SOLO are in any way aligned.
and then responds:
Yes, yes. Ignore all the good things he has done, and focus on the bad, simply because he did not pass every round of the Party's ideology screening. He is not a loyal drone, and cannot be counted on for unconditional obedience when called on. Rather, he has that "disturbing" habit of doing and thinking whatever he wishes.
It may have escaped Mr Stolyarov's notice that Lindsay, far from ignoring all the good things he's done, praises some of his work as "unimpeachable and inspiring". I also don't buy your idea that Lindsay has singled you out because you aren't a "loyal drone". A number of other contributors, including myself, regularly disagree with Lindsay over a variety of issues.

Mr Stolyarov further criticises Lindsay for his less than amused reaction to the Reagan quote that Mr Stolyarov finds funny, then proceeds to criticise Lindsay again for taking amusement in something he did not find amusing (the 179 point unsanctioning incident).

Finally, the comparisons being made by Mr Stolyarov and other posters, of SOLOHQ to the Soviet Union and Lindsay to Lenin are total and utter bullshit. You can not possibly compare the excercise of private property rights to the immoral actions of a totalitarian government.

MH

Edited to add substantial additional comments.

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 8/03, 4:48am)




Post 31

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 4:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I support Lindsay's statement and think it the right thing to do, and he's done it well. Solo's openness to dissenting opinion is a great characteristic I like, and it expresses its directors' confidence in truth and how it's got at. But I don't see it as an obligation, and I agree that Stolyarov should not be identified as being of Solo. He is at variance. His formalism is like an armoured maths train cutting through a countryside he's often not taking in. I doubt anyone can arrest that in him for the time being. So be it. But he asked, and Lindsay declined. Perfectly fair. And Lindsay has identified the distance. Fair too, and true.






Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 32

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 4:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wanted to add my voice to this dialogue only because I think a few things need to be articulated here, aside from the obvious:  that the owners of this site have a right to agree or not to agree with commercial arrangements of any sort; that the owners of this site have a right to set policy on what is acceptable.

First, SOLO is an Objectivist organization.  So far as I see, there is no "official" SOLO view of anything except that it is an Objectivist organization.  But Objectivism has identity.  This most certainly applies to fundamentals, even if it allows for a lot of disagreement concerning the particulars.  Even though I have actually praised the "hijacking" of the philosophy, that is, the application of the philosophy's essentials to new issues and contexts, I have always argued that we should assume responsibility for our own interpretations and applications.  So I'm a little uncomfortable with the suggestion that SOLO may not be the place for such interpretations:  right-wing, left-wing, or otherwise.  The whole point of dialogue is that we'll be able to sort out the wheat from the chaff, so as to clarify, rather than to "mislead and confuse."  The whole point of dialogue is to put the authors of articles on notice:  that they must defend their formulations as an extension of, or an application of, or a departure from Objectivism.  More importantly, they must defend their formulations as true, quite apart from whether they are "Objectivist" or not.

I have often been derided by my buddy Lindsay for being a bit too "ecumenical."  And the irony is that, on this score, SOLO has been wildly ecumenical---far beyond anything I've ever seen on any specifically Objectivist board anywhere.  I, myself, have had serious, crazy, passionate, blazing discussions here---disagreements on everything from Eminem, feminism, and homosexuality to global policy, the Iraq war, and aesthetics.  Are there "smears"?  Is there "evasion"?  Welcome to the Internet!  If you don't want the disagreement or the disagreeable on an Objectivist organizational site, then set up a website that has no interface between the reader and the sponsoring organization.  Set up a website that doesn't include comments and discussion, a website whose only purpose will be to repeat the catechism.

That is not SOLO.  Bringing up the "Old Soviet Union" or comparing Lindsay to Lenin and Stalin is appalling.  It trivializes the nightmare that was the Soviet Union and insults the memory of the millions of people who were murdered under that bloody regime. 

Those who scream about the stultifying atmosphere here are still publishing here.  Nobody has been purged and shot.  Nobody has cultishly insisted on the "status quo orthodoxy."  Indeed, if Lindsay were so insistent, he'd never have published a monograph on homosexuality---one that departs from the Objectivist "status quo orthodoxy."  It's a monograph that does not, in my humble view as its author, participate in a "gay rights agenda" or "identity politics"; it is a monograph that advocates an individual rights agenda, which happens to include people of whatever sexual orientation; it is a monograph that seeks to celebrate Rand's exalted view of love as a response to values, as a legacy open to people of whatever sexual orientation.  And even if that monograph could be accused of departing from Objectivism, Lindsay is not so wedded to his own "status quo" that he'd allow these publications to be published without comment.  My own series on homosexuality, from which the monograph emerged, generated hundreds of comments and criticisms here.  This is simply an unprecedented practice on specifically Objectivist organizational websites.

I could go on and on:  If Lindsay were so insistent on the "status quo orthodoxy," he'd never have embraced the term "libertarian" to describe the Objectivist politics, and that's another matter that has generated much discussion here.

Lindsay is a passionate guy; he will provide us with the occasional over-the-top response; I myself have been the object of his heated denunciations on several occasions.  Despite this, I remain a participant in SOLO.  Not because I sanction my own "victimhood"---but because I believe that a forum which provides for the give-and-take is infinitely better than one that simply posts articles as received Truth, while eliciting no reply or criticism.

Mr. Stolyarov seems to insist that he'll keep posting here; that's good!  I'd be the last one to insist on the "purging" of dissent.  But let's remember that it is because of Lindsay and Joe and others that this site exists.




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 33

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 4:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wanted to add my voice to this dialogue only because I think a few things need to be articulated here, aside from the obvious:  that the owners of this site have a right to agree or not to agree with commercial arrangements of any sort; that the owners of this site have a right to set policy on what is acceptable.

First, SOLO is an Objectivist organization.  So far as I see, there is no "official" SOLO view of anything except that it is an Objectivist organization.  But Objectivism has identity.  This most certainly applies to fundamentals, even if it allows for a lot of disagreement concerning the particulars.  Even though I have actually praised the "hijacking" of the philosophy, that is, the application of the philosophy's essentials to new issues and contexts, I have always argued that we should assume responsibility for our own interpretations and applications.  So I'm a little uncomfortable with the suggestion that SOLO may not be the place for such interpretations:  right-wing, left-wing, or otherwise.  The whole point of dialogue is that we'll be able to sort out the wheat from the chaff, so as to clarify, rather than to "mislead and confuse."  The whole point of dialogue is to put the authors of articles on notice:  that they must defend their formulations as an extension of, or an application of, or a departure from Objectivism.  More importantly, they must defend their formulations as true, quite apart from whether they are "Objectivist" or not.

I have often been derided by my buddy Lindsay for being a bit too "ecumenical."  And the irony is that, on this score, SOLO has been wildly ecumenical---far beyond anything I've ever seen on any specifically Objectivist board anywhere.  I, myself, have had serious, crazy, passionate, blazing discussions here---disagreements on everything from Eminem, feminism, and homosexuality to global policy, the Iraq war, and aesthetics.  Are there "smears"?  Is there "evasion"?  Welcome to the Internet!  If you don't want the disagreement or the disagreeable on an Objectivist organizational site, then set up a website that has no interface between the reader and the sponsoring organization.  Set up a website that doesn't include comments and discussion, a website whose only purpose will be to repeat the catechism.

That is not SOLO.  Bringing up the "Old Soviet Union" or comparing Lindsay to Lenin and Stalin is appalling.  It trivializes the nightmare that was the Soviet Union and insults the memory of the millions of people who were murdered under that bloody regime. 

Those who scream about the stultifying atmosphere here are still publishing here.  Nobody has been purged and shot.  Nobody has cultishly insisted on the "status quo orthodoxy."  Indeed, if Lindsay were so insistent, he'd never have published a monograph on homosexuality---one that departs from the Objectivist "status quo orthodoxy."  It's a monograph that does not, in my humble view as its author, participate in a "gay rights agenda" or "identity politics"; it is a monograph that advocates an individual rights agenda, which happens to include people of whatever sexual orientation; it is a monograph that seeks to celebrate Rand's exalted view of love as a response to values, as a legacy open to people of whatever sexual orientation.  And even if that monograph could be accused of departing from Objectivism, Lindsay is not so wedded to his own "status quo" that he'd allow these publications to be published without comment.  My own series on homosexuality, from which the monograph emerged, generated hundreds of comments and criticisms here.  This is simply an unprecedented practice on specifically Objectivist organizational websites.

I could go on and on:  If Lindsay were so insistent on the "status quo orthodoxy," he'd never have embraced the term "libertarian" to describe the Objectivist politics, and that's another matter that has generated much discussion here.

Lindsay is a passionate guy; he will provide us with the occasional over-the-top response; I myself have been the object of his heated denunciations on several occasions.  Despite this, I remain a participant in SOLO.  Not because I sanction my own "victimhood"---but because I believe that a forum which provides for the give-and-take is infinitely better than one that simply posts articles as received Truth, while eliciting no reply or criticism.

Mr. Stolyarov seems to insist that he'll keep posting here; that's good!  I'd be the last one to insist on the "purging" of dissent.  But let's remember that it is because of Lindsay and Joe and others that this site exists.




Post 34

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 5:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MH wrote (thankfully):-

"I also don't buy your idea that Lindsay has singled you out because you aren't a "loyal drone". A number of other contributors, including myself, regularly disagree with Lindsay over a variety of issues."


I know both Lindsay and Joe, and I can tell you that the only thing they want out of life is "loyal drones." This is the meaning of Solo! I often ask them if all the days of effort are worth it. I mean, there must be more efficient means of drone production?

Ok, I'm not telling the truth again. Really, they're in it for the money. Ideas matter, cos there's BIG money selling metaphysics. Ask Donald Trump where he got his start.

Ok, I may still be hazy on a few facts.





Post 35

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 5:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

With respect to the dictates of SOLOHQ, this always comes up again and again. The difference between private choice and censorship. These are not the same thing, although politicians love to claim they are. "You don't give me a platform to speak on, therefore you are censoring me!" They scream. Obviously because state-worshippers go from the premise that most debate should be collective and communal anyway. Because SOLOHQ is open for debate, it is therefore wrongly assumed that it is both collective and communal (in the socialist sense) rather than belonging to any individual(s).

It reminds me of a news story recently about how George Michael closed down his website when people there were using it to slag off his latest single. Some of his critics thought that was dictatorial, but it was perfectly justified. Why the hell should he pay for the abuse?

I didn't notice that GS held such opinions on euthanasia and abortion, but it was obvious that he is a prude.

I haven't a clue as to his background, but I always imagined that he was a cross between Stalin and a PC motherboard that had downloaded a few articles on objectivism.

I must say he has improved a hell of a lot since he has come here. He first articles read more like machine code, then anything resembling the product of a human being. His arguments nowadays have even started to sound more passionate and personal in a legible language - and he has written some fine articles. I think that SOLOHQ is having a good influence on him J.







Post 36

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 6:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Matt & Chris.
 
Matt: >>Finally, the comparisons being made by Mr Stolyarov and other posters, of SOLOHQ to the Soviet Union and Lindsay to Lenin are total and utter bullshit. You can not possibly compare the excercise of private property rights to the immoral actions of a totalitarian government.<<
 
Chris: >>Bringing up the "Old Soviet Union" or comparing Lindsay to Lenin and Stalin is appalling.  It trivializes the nightmare that was the Soviet Union and insults the memory of the millions of people who were murdered under that bloody regime.<<
 
I suppose I would take your disgust at this a little more seriously if you two had been similarly disgusted when Leninz and his troops made the same comparisons when Mr. Stolyarov and others (such as myself) had the temerity to suggest traditional sexual mores weren't a bad thing.
 
The serious matter underlying this squabble is that Leninz was "horrified" by Mr. Stolyarov's position that euthanasia is immoral.  It is one thing for serious people to disagree on what is moral or immoral, but to be horrified by what another person deems immoral is to discern a fundamental depravity in that person.  Now why should ANY Objectivist be horrified by a person's moral opposition to euthanasia, abortion, gay marriage, and antinomian sexuality?  Passionate disagreement is one thing, but to be horrified is entirely different thing.
 
We are rationally horrified by that which is beyond the pale, and one cannot be rationally horrified by Mr. Stolyarov's reasoned positions against antinomianism in personal affairs.  So why is Leninz horrified, so horrified he has to publicly disassociate himself and SOLO from Mr. Stolyarov?  Either he is irrational or he has bought into the leftist identity politics that equates Mr. Stolyarov's traditionalism to oppression.
 
Why any of this should matter to an Objectivist is that Rand left a hole in her philosophy regarding marriage, family, and sexuality.  The Sexual Revolution was sucked into this vacuum, thus a large chunk of leftist nihilism is embedded in Objectivist thought.  Does it belong there?  Mr. Stolyarov thinks not and argues from Objectivist principles why it does not.  Folks like Leninz think otherwise, but answer Mr. Stolyarov only with slogans, strawmen, and evasion.  If you try to get any sort of serious response from Mr. Stolyarov's opponents, it is the same tripe the Left relies upon to advance its social agenda:  Deracinated antinomianism.
 
OK, so I'm not an Objectivist and can't say I have a real dog in this fight, other than what honor requires in support of a decent man.  However, I do find this co-opting of Objectivism by the Left interesting.  It demonstrates to me that once again that unless you actively oppose the Left, its insidious siren song of pleasure, wealth, security (you name it) on the cheap will pull you in.
 
Regards,
Bill




Post 37

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 6:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ision, Gennady, Linz, Chris, Jeremy,

Stick around a little longer, Ision. I know this will take a little getting used to, but you will find, even in the most heated discussions here, no real personal attacks. Mr. Stolyarov has himself posted articles inviting criticism.

You will also notice that some people are more likely to receive what seems to you, possibly, "personal" criticism. Linz, is certainly one, and some people even criticize me, but (please don't tell anyone) WE LIKE IT.

In some ways, Mr. Stolyarov is to be envied. I am personally offended that the founder of SOLO has never posted an article devoted to me. It's not fair. I'm certainly as much a trouble-maker as Stoly, but I get ignored.

Oscar Wilde said, "the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."

Oh, Ision; pretty brash of you to come here telling everyone how to conduct their business. Brashness is appreciated here, however. Welcome aboard, as the pedants say. Oh, yes, "thin skin," is considered a fatal disease at SOLO.

Chris, I agree with your assessment of SOLO. Enjoyed both your posts, despite their similarity. (Hate it when that happens!)

Jeremy, everything you've said so far is right on the money, even about the silliness of the original article--still, I've enjoyed the results.

There's my 2 cents. Payments accepted through PayPal.

Regi




Post 38

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 9:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Regi & Ision.
 
>>Oscar Wilde said, "the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."<<
 
Wise words, indeed, Regi.  It's why I'm all aglow whenever Leninz deigns to acknowledge my existence as "The Catholic". ;)
 
Also good advice to Ision.  I think he'll find that the occasional personality clash here tries to resolve itself into a more serious discussion of the underlying causes.
 
Regards,
Bill




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 3
Post 39

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 9:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Jeremy.
 
>>I'm not striking a pose, Rat.  I actually am a light-hearted man.  So much so that I can ignore your dropping of context (asking "so what" when you know the issue is your contention that LP's rejection of GS' marriage "defense" is nothing but a rationalization on the part of someone playing identity politics.<<
 
You need to work on you mind-reading skills, young fella (or perhaps just your reading skills).
 
With my rhetorical "so what" I was making the point that your sexuality is irrelevant to the discussion.  The issue is what you think, not who you are.  Specifically, do you really disagree with Mr. Stolyarov's fundamental belief that antinomian sexuality is immoral?
 
I probably wouldn't have bothered skewering you about not seeing this hallmark of the Left, this antinomianism, except that you have made serious statements in the past regarding sexuality which suggest you do believe its reduction to the mere pursuit of physical pleasure is morally problemmatical.  If so, you have some common ground with Mr. Stolyarov, making the vehemence of your opposition to some of his prescriptions for the good life dissonant.
 
I have diagnosed this dissonance as a failure to check your premises.  Please accept this startling insight of mine as my gift to you.
 
Benevolently yours,
Bill




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