Good Bye
Posted by TruthFreedom1 11 years, 4 months ago to Philosophy
argumentum ad hominem: Passing judgement on a perception of character. I have never passed character judgement on a person on this site or at any time unless I have first been attacked in such a way. I did not come here to engage in this way. I have come to believe that you might not have an objective bone in your body. Leonard Peikoff says the Objectivist movement is "a closed system and not open to change." I think he was right. I am open to change which is why I came here. That was obviously a mistake. People who have closed minds to the opinions of other and who don't show respect for those opinions (agreed or not) are destined to wallow in a stagnant world, but hey who am I to pass judgement. Its to bad the moderators of this site don't do something about such things. And now I bid you adieu... Probably to a loud chorus of cheers... Phhht
Previous comments... You are currently on page 7.
Some forums do have oppressive moderators, but most have them to keep the spam away. I cannot tell you how many times my forum has been bombarded by advertising for a cabinet company in England. We are an automotive forum in the US. My moderators deal with these threads and drop the ban hammer on the spam posters.
Moderators on my forum also make sure that civility is maintained. By that I mean that in the event someone directly threatens another member they take action and ban that person. I think any organized society or group would find it’s self in need of peace officers at some point.
People need to understand that when they are on an internet forum they are NOT on public property. They are standing in the living room, the creation, of the person that created that forum. I would not expect someone to walk into my living room, my creation, and just start trash talking. When something like that happens people get shown the door. Would you seriously expoect for someone to come into something you created just to talk trash?
and no
great input. have you been around when the crap is flying and producers say this is shit? we can get all over the map down the street. basics. that's all I'm asking. I've been told to bite anatomy, called a racist, every vulgar thing you can think of has been commented to me. it would be nice to focus on why most come to the site and their discovery of Ayn Rand. t would be nice that the discourse was civil. It would be nice that those who want to produce in here are not chilled by malevolence, pushed away by socialist agenda. heck-they need only to turn on the tube or open the paper to get that
No, I don't think they can do no wrong. I think they can do wrong. What I expressed was something I consider wrong. But, that's for us to judge, not our enemies, or even our allies.
The topic was Snowden's release of information. My assertion was my indifference to what our country does to non-citizens *compared to what it does to citizens*... in the context of that argument.
Treason consists of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Revealing to the Russians, for example, our intelligence gathering activities will get back to their ally... Iran. Who will be able to use it against us.
Should I follow him out the gate?
His site is not a free-for-all.
2. spread ideas of Objectivism
3.provide a forum for people to discuss the movies and Objectivism.
4. It's ok to criticize Objectivism. It's NOT a site to spam, and not a spot for those who do not believe in reason and logic and want to destroy the community.
5. If one wants to do so- head on over to Huffpost. they will readily oblige
Michael Stuart Kelly, on 14 Feb 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:
Kat and I own the forum.
I basically run it--sort of like a traffic cop. I try to make sure things are moving along and that nobody hogs the forum with excessive preaching, trolling, spam and so forth. No explicit porn, either..
There is no protection of Rand's honor or anything like that here. No adherence to a party line. For instance, we even have a few socialists who are interested in Rand who regularly post. (They're great people, too. They even put up with me. :smile: )
There is something that looks like an exception, but it's really not. I have a very soft spot for Barbara Branden and Nathaniel Branden. During the publication of Valliant's boneheaded book against them, a small group of true believers haunted everywhere on the Internet the Brandens were mentioned and flooded each place with snarky derogatory statements about them--reams and reams of convoluted, eye-glazing hair-splits to prove Rand was pure and the Brandens were contaminated. ("Moral hygiene" was even a popular phrase back then. But soapbox on a bubble is the image that comes to my mind. :smile: )
So I made a rule here that there was one place on the Internet--other than the Brandens' own sites--where that would not happen. It's OK to disagree with them, even criticize them if it's respectful. But no ham-handed character smears.
The reason I say this isn't an exception is that OL is not a vehicle for any ham-handed character smears of anyone. I just had to be extra-clear in this case because of the excessive enthusiasm of the zealots.
There are certain authors I believe should have a place to present their work before the targeted audience of OL, so I set up "Corners." Generally, these authors have moderating privileges within their respective Corners. Some are more tolerant of comments than others. Each decides according to his or her convenience.
Other than that, there is no hierarchy. People come and go as they please. My attitude is that what is good for each individual posting-wise is good for OL. So you won't see here the comical swan songs of people leaving and long threads of others begging them to stay that you can see elsewhere. It's either give and receive value, or the person is free to pursue a different audience and community elsewhere. Cliques and power games don't flourish well here.
We do have a group of regular posters and I love each one. But they are here by their own free choice. Just as I am, for that matter.
No peer pressure. No lockstep. People speak for themselves and no one speaks for "Objectivism" or Rand or anything resembling an organized ideological hierarchy. There are standards, of course. And there is flexibility.
Another point is that OL is not part of the "Objectivist movement," whatever the hell that is. It is not a place to preach, but instead, work through ideas. All of the regulars (and I believe a good portion of the lurkers) have come to Rand's ideas because of something in them that strongly resonated. However, each person brings a different history and a different context. Some people are faster and some are slower. Some are more abstract and some are more image and example oriented. Some are storytellers and others are science people. Some like to gossip and others... er... scratch that. EVERYONE likes to gossip. :smile:
Each person has something different to get out of the ideas, too. There is no law requiring that everyone go into the Rand sausage machine and come out a perfectly formed O-weiner at the other end.
I frame it like this. In most Internet places where Objevtivism is treated prominently, Objectivism and Rand are the end points. You go there to absorb the ideas (or bash them for the hostile sites)--to learn what is right and wrong according to authority figures--and interact with others who are doing the same.
Most of the discussions at these places have the subtext that Rand is right and her enemies are both wrong and evil. Or that Rand is wrong and her followers are pathetic deluded idiots, and the true authority is [FILL IN THE BLANK]. Two different flavors, but the same substance. Depending on the venue, this subtext even permeates the words "and" and "if." :smile:
Here on OL, Objectivism and Rand are starting points. We are attracted to each other because we have a common interest that has impacted our lives in varying degrees of importance, but each person's life and goals are the end points--for them. People determine their values, not a philosophy. Mutual respect for these differences is the only way I have found to make a rich form of interaction and growth work.
If independent thinking is the major frame, then working through ideas is a messy experience, not a neat and tidy one commanded from on high. And OL is a place where we foster independent thinking. What's the use of truth if you have to blind part of your mind to see it? So messy it is--within reason, of course.
When things get too messy and the mess starts hogging the virtual thoroughfares, I step in. But ask around. That's pretty rare. And even then, there's a lot of flexibility. Before I ban or moderate, I generally throw someone's crap in the Garbage Pile and say what's wrong with it. And I try to be open to correction if I screw up.
I personally believe that an independent mind seeking enlightenment through honest, first-hand, personal initiative, even when wrong, is the most precious thing on earth.
That's what OL is all about.
Michael
http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/...
It strikes me that some here are asking for censorship in the name of moderators.
Others are looking for affirmation of their core beliefs and others still seek to disprove those core beliefs.
Coming to a forum of people who are Objectivist and then discovering that they truly are such and decrying them as closed minded and not open to change while you desire to be "open minded" is abject lunacy. WARNING!! ** Humor follows** - You know what they say about open minded people?? - "they become so open minded that their brains fall out". **End of humor**
It may surprise a few people that I have a couple friends who are gay and we have a great time visiting and talking about politics, science, history, religion, woodworking and art. All areas where we can agree or disagree and still be friends. What we do not discuss is my heterosexuality AND conversely, their homosexuality. We do not have to talk of it and still be friends. We both know that plumbing those depths would sever our bonds to each other - we each feel too deeply about our stands.
I will not deprive myself of their friendship by insisting that they change they views on this most personal of all human activities and they will not deprive themselves of my humble person by demanding that I change my beliefs about their sexual desires. We are, friends.
It seems that after a few days among us, you are playing the spoiled school yard cry baby and have decided that since you cannot change us and that you will not engage in the truly civilized manner that my friends and I have adopted, you are going to pick up your marbles and go home.
To that I can only say, see ya! Somebody lock the gate.
Also, you misunderstand. I take his statement of how much respect he has for the CIA, that they can do no wrong as long as they do it to foreigners, not Americans.
If you don't think that the CIA tortures people here's a manual , 1963, not exactly something new.
http://www.infowars.com/kubark-the-cias-...
As for the other stuff, all you have to do is search 'torture children genitals father' and you should be able to find congressional hearings and justice department document on the incidents; though you might have to dig a little.
would you consider putting up a post laying out criteria you feel would be appropriate for moderation? how the site is moderated, by-laws perhaps...
my name is out there and I have put up with quite a bit. Usually, it doesn't bother me, but I wonder how many participants it does. Producers are already discussing this, but I think guests should weigh in. Thanks
No matter how little respect he may have for the CIA, when he trows around those kind of accusations, he better have proof.
Fred Speckmann
mailto:commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Load more comments...