K, "hate speech", really?

I didn't know this guy, but sounds like he went off the deep end.

What is the defining difference between a "self-proclaimed Objectivist" and a non-self-proclaimed Objectivist?

Perhaps, like the Inquisition, some supreme authority exits which can certify the “true believer” and prosecute the heretic. Who made this authority the keeper of the keys of the true Objectivism?

I agree people should be civil, even with those with whom they disagree. And, in the Gulch, I have had all too many “True Objectivists” invoke an inquisitorial impulse to extirpate heresy, which is whatever the True Believers say it is.

No wonder so many have abandoned the Gulch for more pleasing pastures. I would love to see the Gulch Culture change to one of where the group understands disagreeing with one’s views is not the same as being against the people that hold those views.

When once the forms of civility are violated by the discussion participants resorting to name-calling, there remains little hope of return to kindness or decency. A quick review of previous posts at the Gulch, over any period of time, reveals ad hominem attacks.

Wag more, bark less, and —hopefully— the Gulch will thrive.

I do not think in this case we are discussing snobbery (however, I will allow that in the comments, it appears to devolve that way, regardless of the blogger Peter Cresswell.) I completely disagree with your assessment and since most of your comments have been ad hominem in nature, I ask that you frame your arguments for or against the article in a productive way. If you cannot and continue to comment on this post, you will lose points which you may not care about but if others take points away for your ad hominem discussion, your comments will be hidden.

Yaron's last name is spelled "Brook".

well if you are never exposed to it, it does not exist. right?

It would also be easy to imagine people reading the linked post and concluding that Objectivists were an infighting breed of intellectual snobs.

The only thing worthwhile, which I have copied to my hard drive for possible future use as my desktop display, were the header and footer graphics. The rest was drivel between two pseudo intellectuals fighting for the same lawn chair in a rainstorm.

IE: if this is the most substantive thing either of them has to say, then they should remain silent ... the world needs answers, not hissy-fits.

I read the critique. Like most such writing, it is a critique, and not a constructive analysis. It's someone telling another person that they ought not to say something that they have a perfect right to say and which, had the critic not pointed to it, I would not otherwise have been exposed to.

Interesting. Txs

It's easy to imagine people reading a few SOLO blogposts and (wrongly) thinking they've read enough to know they oppose Ayn Rand's idea.