I just wish I remember who it was that recently accused me of being the one who coined "Randroid" back in the 1990's, (I kid you not) so I could blame you. At least I have not gone up in a puff of self-contradiction in the meantime.

Ted,

I agree that many things are matters of taste and that de gustibus non disputandum est. (Feel free to correct my horrendous Latin.)

'Above' that there certainly are a great many values that are optional, and whether someone has arrived at valuing them by reasoning (rare) or inertia or social exposure (more common) or whether (in some cases) by biological 'impulse' they too are unarguable.

"But there are some people who think that every single one of their preferences even in the realm of the optional - music, food, art, - is proof of their philosophical supremacy."

I agree. Such people are annoying bores. (I say this as (one of) the individuals who (independently) coined the term Randroid 30 years ago. (I can't take especial credit; it seemed then and now to be a pretty easy neologism that fit too many in Oist circles.))

Jeff,

Before I refute myself, let me pose some rhetorical questions. Do you like men or woman (in general) as sexual partners because of the way they look and smell, or because you reasoned yourself into thinking that rubbing genitals with them would be a good idea, so your brain added pleasure onto that judgment of pure reason afterwards?

Why do people buy artificial sweeteners? Is it because they cannot argue their own body away from liking sweetness, so they give in to the desire while making the rational decision to get the stimulus from a less fattening source? Or is it because they think that calorie-free things themselves are inherently good, and so consuming calorie-free things makes them experience sweetness based on reasoning from premise to conclusion? And is one's hunger, cravings, and sense of taste subject to biological and genetic factors outside one's control, or no? And do people not differ in their constitutions and dispositions because of such variations, or is the animal part of all our natures identical in all measurements?

Is their any amount of argument that will make you change your favorite color? Mine, blue-green, happens to be the same as Rand's. Is that an objective sign of virtue?

It may be my fault for not providing examples, but I think you could have asked for clarification before deciding that I believe that objectivity is impossible. I simply disagree with the mistaken notion some have that all our drives come from our premises. Babies have drives before they can speak. Are they evil little lactomaniacal subjectivists until they learn to quote Rand? Of course not. I don't believe that you hold this view, or at least would not be so bold as to attribute it to you without asking you first. But there are some people who think that every single one of their preferences even in the realm of the optional - music, food, art, - is proof of their philosophical supremacy. Because I see the absurdity of making all values matters of philosophical argument and thus matters for denunciation and excommunication does not make me anti-objectivity. It makes me anti-intrinsicist and anti-rationalist. All that is required for people to get along in a society is for them not to initiate force against them. Some people, and I do not include you in this, are apparently only happy when denouncing others. (Fred Weiss comes to mind, but if anyone can show a post by him where he was not criticizing someone, I will withdraw that.) Some people actually put forth their values in their blogs and offer values to be shared from the pure joy that this gives them, without having to denounce those who do not share their values. (Jason, Jennifer come to mind.) I can denounce with the best of them, but it is not my first joy.

Sometimes, a disagreement is just a disagreement.

Ted Keer, 18 November, 2006, NYC

Jeff: “This Freudian view…as a form of determinism, is self-refuting.”

I didn’t make any claim to originality, nor was I advocating determinism. I referred to a “tendency” for us to favour our own case. Nothing determinist in that.

It’s commonplace to assert that we favour our own views, which also says nothing about the truth or otherwise of those views. But this tendency does have a great deal to do with the way we go about not just our daily lives but also the way we think about our lives and the world.

To do that, we need to be able to take into account the perspectives of others, because they can provide insights that might otherwise escape us. But since we have an apparent inbuilt tendency to resist ideas that we find uncongenial, it’s probably useful to analyse the reasons for this resistance.

Brendan

"[I]t seems to me that many of the social constraints we place on individual behaviour are designed to compensate for our tendency to favour our own case.

I’m not sure how that view stacks up with egoism, but I think that when the force of these constraints is diminished, the primal drives are unleashed and it’s game on." Brendan Hutchings

The title of my post says it all. Well, perhaps not all. This Freudian view (as does Ted's) makes objectivity impossible in principle. The view, as a form of determinism, is self-refuting.

"[E]goists must realize that each of us has his own nature, and that disagreements may not come down either to mistakes or whim worship but simply to differences of experience, choice, disposition and constitution?" Ted Keer

Similarly, this is a denial of the possibility of objectivity. On the same grounds, it is self-refuting.

Ted: “May I quote you?”

By all means, although as I said earlier, I borrowed the general notion from someone else. But there’s no copyright on a good idea.

I also think the mechanism for much of this sort of conflict comes down to a near-universal tendency to believe that ‘what is good for me is the good’; which in turn is probably based on the physical and psychological drives of the organism and their contribution to its survival.

When it comes to social behaviour, I guess the trick is to learn to take these drives into account when dealing with other people. Easier said than done, but it seems to me that many of the social constraints we place on individual behaviour are designed to compensate for our tendency to favour our own case.

I’m not sure how that view stacks up with egoism, but I think that when the force of these constraints is diminished, the primal drives are unleashed and it’s game on.

“Or do we all have to derive [rationalize] our choice of sex partner from axiomatic principles?”

Like “Me Tarzan–you Jane”? Well, worked for Johnny W.

Brendan

is another one of his drunken rants. At least then, you've got something entertaining to say, ya fat slippery fucker.

Well, that puts him one up on Linz.

"I'm sorry I wrote it and I'm sorry you guys got to read it."

That sounds very much like an apology to me.

Jeff

or he can cease popping Viagra before every occasion he talks about Diana.

I'm also curious to see if Phil accepts Wakeland's "explanation" for his bizarre comment on The Forum. According to Phil that's what we were supposed to wait for, right? Wakeland's explanation. Well now we have it...or something.

Who wants to bet that Phil will bend himself into a pretzel to defend it? Actually, he's got to. It's imperative. Otherwise he has to admit that Diana was right and I don't think he can do that. I truly think he'd rather die.

Maybe he can ask Jack to shoot him.

P.S.: "Nasty" of course doesn't cut it. The problem with what he said wasn't that it was "nasty". I say plenty of nasty things - as I am constantly reminded - that I don't feel obliged to apologize for.

Also does anyone ever believe when someone says, "I didn't mean it"? Of course you meant it! Admit it. Then fucking apologize for saying it.

Anyway, I don't want to say anything more about this. It's too depressing. It's like watching someone you respected admit that he's a drug addict or something.

From Jack Wakeland, on The Forum for Ayn Rand Fans:

Jack Takes It Back

"I'm sorry about my nasty comment.

No, I didn't really mean it.

It was part of a general statement of my hostility to the true danger in American politics--the moribund, but far from deceased left. I was in a dark mood after the leftists obtained control over all the levers of power in Congress and a half dozen additional state governments. I got carried away.

It's in print, so I can't take it back. I'm sorry I wrote it and I'm sorry you guys got to read it."

Don't run from this one, Phil. Behind the jab about niceness and the witting or unwitting double standard you practice, there's the simple matter of truth in representation: you're disguising insult as niceness. That's a smokescreen I'm seeing through quite clearly and substantively, thank you. All of a sudden you want to cut and run from an argument, you, Phil, the one who preaches to no end about this kind of thing?

What's your point in using the DMBH, Phil?

Fred and Chris:

Non-substantive smokescreens ignored.

Phil, you've got to be nice to Diana. She's explained that her name isn't Diana Mertz Brickell Hsieh, and yet you persist in ignoring her requests to address her properly. Moreover, if it's intended as an insult, jab, or stab, it's bizarre and ineffective. Didn't you learn anything from the Bissell Steamer on how to do name-flames? WTF is your purpose in the continued usage of DMBH? It ain't funny, it ain't natural, it's not based in some purported semblance of the truth, it doesn't add anything to your crusade to tag Diana as exemplar of everything wrong with the Objectivist movement today, it ain't even assholery to a good end, it's just plain assholery, and under cover of being nice, civil and respectful, yet. And that's just not nice. Especially where niceness is the highest intellectual virtue.

If you want to insult Diana, then just come out and do it. Don't hide behind a sorry excuse for a name-flame and pretend that it's not a form of insult.

May I quote you?

Might I suggest that a mistaken essentialistic view of human nature* is at fault for all the drama behind Objecivist schismaticism, and that Brendan's argument points out eloquently that egoists must realize that each of us has his own nature, and that disagreements may not come down either to mistakes or whim worship but simply to differences of experience, choice, disposition and constitution?

Or do we all have to derive [rationalize] our choice of sex partner from axiomatic principles?

Bravo!

Ted Keer

*Or just plain old drama-queenery.

What's the likelihood that Philip Coates could calmly and respectfully debate the issues without looking for a way to "slime" Diana with something new on a weekly or monthly basis?

Now if one were to take Jack Wakeland's comments at face value - the way that the Linzinskis are taking Peikoff's - there's really no issue about the concern they raise. Diana is of course perfectly justified in her response. Btw, has Phil or any other Linzinski thought to ask Peikoff to clarify his comments? Noooooo. They just leaped for the kill, fangs out with drool coming down their chins.

(There is no comparison with your wife being killed as Stephen is painfully and desperately trying to suggest. Such a loss is *irreplaceable*. Financial ruin, while horrendous, can be recovered from. Furthermore, killing the regulators - the people - who were responsible is an extraordinarily primitivist response, since it accomplishes nothing. It is not the people who were responsible for your loss. It was the regulations themselves which empowered those regulators to go after you. In fact, the moral thing is to work to change the laws - as for example the people at the Institute for Justice are doing in regard to eminent domain and other laws.)

Btw, can you just imagine how Coates would respond if either Diana or I ever said something like Wakeland did! The mind boggles. He would be like a pig in shit.

Currently on NoodleFood, 11/17/06 - "Not Just Wrong, But Scary", Diana has issued yet one more moral attack on one of her most serious and most articulate intellectual opponents in the great theocracy debate, Jack Wakeland (of TIA Daily and Forum for Ayn Rand Fans): She says "Mr. Wakeland declared himself to be a grave potential threat to law-abiding citizens. I can only hope that he is treated accordingly."

What she doesn't do is what the more responsible Mr. Speicher did, ask him to clarify what he meant by killing a regulator or a government aggressor who violated his rights when no legal recourse was possible.

Asking for clarification (or repeated instances of a misstatement) is appropriate: Did he mispeak, was it a "rant"? Would he *literally* do it or was he mean to say he would *emotionally feel like* doing it? Did he mean it literally? Would he consider it murder? Would he do it if the courts were working? Can he give a concrete example?

Note DMBH's alternate approach (as in the Betsy Speicher and other cases, no clarification but an instant and sudden purging or strongly worded personal denunciation): Attack and condemn immediately. Don't ask for a clarification. Take everything literally...and if it's an intellectual opponent, wait till he says something wrong or over-the-top. Then condemn him morally.

Note the most telling point: Of all the opponents of Diana in this debate, Jack Wakeland is one of the most thoughtful, intelligent, and philosophical, like Betsy Speicher and Stephen Speicher. And it is EXACTLY THESE PEOPLE, BY ENORMOUS COINCIDENCE that Diana has chosen to cast buckets of slime upon.

is that really a coincidence?

Gee, what's the likelihood that -all- of Diana's main critics and intellectual adversaries on the Vote For Democrats debate -- Betsy Speicher, Stephen Speicher, Jack Wakeland, Rob Tracinski -- are bad people? Anyone willing to bet that she already has or will soon find something immoral or vile about Mr. Trancinski, the only one of the articulate four...all ARI supporters, by the way...who she has not attacked for moral or behavioral reasons outside of the issue of the debate?

What's the likelihood that Diana Mertz Brickell Hsieh could calmly and respectfully debate the issues without looking for a way to "slime" someone new on a weekly or monthly basis?

Phil: “Unfortunately, people don't cut each other some slack on making mistakes, and people translate the disagreements into moral issues all the time.”

And why would they do that? If every fact implies a value, then every aspect of human behaviour, no matter how trivial, potentially becomes subject to a value judgement.

And in the Objectivist context, that means there is an objectively-correct solution to every problem, from waging war to voting to circumcision to taking sugar in one’s tea.
Furthermore, since one’s values are the means to preserving one’s life, the mistakes of others, however honest, act as a threat to one’s values, and by extension one’s life.

It’s little wonder that with so much at stake Objectivist debates so quickly degenerate into snarling invective. And since attack is the best form of defence, attack sooner rather than later.

Brendan

Having just read that, I feel that the following is the only appropriate response since it is everybit as stupid and devoid of meaningful content as Phil's philandering diatribe.

LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!LORDS! LORDS! LORDS!

Thank you,
Adam Buker

Music Composition
www.adambuker.com

Sorry Diana, "stile" was a typo, have walking pneumonia (waltzing matilda's cousin) and wasn't trying to make any equestrian remarks. I would suggest that Phil have the good grace to start his own forum whence he can ban any whom he likes.

I would also like to say that I see the Hsiekovian thing as unfair, (Package Deal, Argument from Intimidation??) as I did Pross's babyish and very poorly done "caricature" of you which I protested about on OL. Given that you were smudged out shortly thereafter and that Victor immediately went on the attack against me for 15 straight posts, I'd like to take some credit.

In any case, I still strongly disagree with Peikoff's recent actions and find Diana's support for his position a mistake. I am on 8a of DIM, so will get back on that later.

Ted

Oh, and Phil, its her damn forum, and you have got to have bigger fish to fry than her?

Ted said: "Diana, I did ask you several times whether you were the same Diana Mertz Brickell who had posted to Kirez Korgan's moderated list in the 90's I recognized your stile, and was not surprised by your choice not respond, and assumed that alone was proof."

Um, I don't recall you ever asking me such a question; I must have missed it. (If I had noticed such a question, I would have answered it.) I am the same person, although I do believe that you recognized me by my "style."

For the record, Phil has been unwelcome to post in the NoodleFood comments for some time now. His condescending sermons are a waste of perfectly good electrons.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

Diana, Phil,

Diana, I did ask you several times whether you were the same Diana Mertz Brickell who had posted to Kirez Korgan's moderated list in the 90's I recognized your stile, and was not surprised by your choice not respond, and assumed that alone was proof.

Phil, has Diana banned you? If not, why don't you shit on her lawn rather than Linz's. If she has, just choose to take it as a compliment and let go...

Ted

Who the hell died and made you the expert on your own name? As you yourself mention, this is the second time you've argued this point. If you can't be any more persuasive than this.....

> The historical recurrence and persistence of Objectvist schizmatics implies there is a problem with Oist epistemology.

Orson, Oism is a hard philosophy for many reasons. It goes against what people were taught in early life from schools, parents, churches, newspapers, etc. It takes *years to master* and has lots of aspects, areas requiring application and integration. So people are going to misapply it, even those with many years exposure....as would be true of math, physics, medicine, the lessons of history....or material from many other areas besides arriving at philosophical wisdom. Regarding the quarrels and schisms you see in -any- ideological or philosophical movement, that doesn't mean to you that it is invalid to have a philosophy, a code of values, does it? It doesn't mean you throw up your hands and say "philosphizing is too unpleasant and quarel-filled, I'll just throw up my hands and blow with the prevailing wind, let my ship's course be blown in any direction", does it?

Unfortunately, people don't cut each other some slack on making mistakes, and people translate the disagreements into moral issues all the time. Don't blame that on the ideas but on the people who may not fully have integrated the ideas (or make other mistakes).

> Perhaps Popper's school of modest trial-and-error testing is, in fact, more open and successfully resilient.

Trial and error testing is a good method in many scientific areas but not all. Popper's mistake is to universalize the falsifiability principle to every field. You don't have to apply falsifiability to 2+2=4 or to man's proper moral goal is to pursue his own happiness.

Orson wrote: "Perhaps the socialist billionaire Gorege Soros is fairer than PhD seeking Diana Mertz Brickell Hsieh?"

Like Fred, I'd appreciate knowing WTF you mean by that claim, since I suspect that you don't mean that he's a pastier shade of white than me.

Also, did I not just explain that my name is not "Diana Mertz Brickell Hsieh"?!?

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

Boy, Orson, you really are on a roll this morning mangling logic.

Note how it's lose/lose for Objectivism whatever we do. If we always agree about everything it proves we're a cult. On the other hand when we disagree it proves that it can't be right.

As for Popper's "school" (with its "schizmatics", I might add), I'll refer once again to its demolishing by D.C. Stove in his superb book, "Popper and After: Four Modern Irrationalists".

So much for Popper

Apart from this, I found your reference to George Soros in this context a stunning jaw-dropper. WTF are you talking about?

The historical recurrence and persistence of Objectvist schizmatics implies there is a problem with Oist epistemology.

Perhaps Popper's school of modest trial-and-error testing is, in fact, more open and successfully resilient than Objectivism's certain moralism? Perhaps the socialist billionaire Gorege Soros is fairer than PhD seeking Diana Mertz Brickell Hsieh?

> I would assume they will work this out between them

What part of I'll never again speak to such people (and total, unequivocal condemnation) did you miss?

....
Those who are willing to look at what I've presented here objectively by now have already done so. And those who avert their gaze and clap their hands over their eyes or say that character assassination and the unjust vilification of other Objectivists is no concern of mine or "Hey, Dude, Who Cares?" are no concern of mine.

So, I'm pretty much winding down on what I meant to point out on this thread: 1. One more example of an unsubstantiated tendency to character assassination of those who disagree. 2. The tendency for any criticism of this to be met with vilification and furious anger and attacking the person who raises them... 3. and the willful refusal to actually type in a few keystrokes and look up the facts or offer hard evidence AND ACTUAL FULL SENTENCE QUOTES. 4. And the double standard of shrugging off any character assassination (or the sophistry of reducing it to 'my yard, my rules'). 5. and also the "selective outrage" of saying hey, anything goes on your website and we can't even comment or criticize.

But if it takes place on the Forum or HPO we can (and Chris and others did) criticize. They didn't say "their yard, their rules".

Double Standard, Much?

Oh, and here's my favorite!!!

6. LET'S TALK ABOUT TOC OR THE BRANDENS INSTEAD!!!!!!!

But I do have one more point regarding double standards: One of the reasons D purged B was because she claimed the Forum was suppressing debate (deleting posts, etc.). D made a big deal of this being unfair and a major reason to cease all dealings with someone. That's not honest debate. But by ejecting Betsy who, remember, was unfailingly logical and polite and her most persistent and articulate opponent....she was herself suppressing the motor of a lively debate (go look at B's posts on NoodleFood). That's not honest debate.

Hypocrisy, much?

I have to second Phil and Lindsay here: NoodleFood is Diana's yard, and anyone who plays there does so by her leave. Same goes here (for Lindsay), and that's why I have defended Lindsay in similar circumstances, more than once, and with vigor (and I was right to do so, each time). I don't see why this even need be brought up in an Objectivist environment.

On another, more positive note: Diana's NoodleFood is one of my favorite blogs, and if you're not a regular visitor there...why aren't you? And she links to The Anger of Compassion, which means...she's an extraordinary judge of blogs and bloggers.

Adding to the ever eloquent Lindsay Perigo, please provide proof (with full sentence and paragraph quotes)of the active posters on this site expressing outrage at MSK or Joe Rowlands or Ed H banning someone. I seem to vaguely recall a few instances where we thought it was funny - or maybe it was just me. But outrage?

Why should we care? Frankly, I'd take the position that anyone who associates with those guys deserves whatever they get.

As for Betsy, she is quite capable of speaking for herself and she doesn't lack a forum where she can do it. She also doesn't exactly need you as her self-appointed Great Defender. Betsy and Diana are both strong, self-confident women. I don't speak for either of them, but I would assume they will work this out between them in some fashion, if not now when the dust is still flying, then eventually.

Anyway, what the fuck business is it of yours? Especially when one cannot fail to notice the truly massive evasion going on in your own associations. So in lieu of dealing with that you obsess about Diana.

Diana may ban, from her turf, and never speak again to, anyone she damn well pleases. Doesn't have to justify it to you. Same goes for MSK, Joe Rowlands or Ed H. Your crowd tries to ban folk from posting on other folks' turf, e.g. the Brandens' directive not to post on SOLO on pain of being shunned like Tibor. Double standard, much?

Still waiting for that proof (with full sentence and paragraph quotes) of the "viciousness" and "injustice" that justifies banning Betsy and never speaking to her again.

If it had been done by MSK or Joe Rowlands or Ed H or someone the active posters on this site don't like, they would be all over this expressing outrage and would be VERY interested in providing evidence.

Double Standard, Much?

I don't give a flying flip right now about who is right about all this. But I do want to second PRODOS's comment that a couple doesn't always work publicly as a couple, but as individuals. Anyone who has been around here long enough should know that I was a part of a couple that had very different individual styles. It wasn't like we planned it. It was just us. So unless you have real evidence that Betsy is being nice to play along with Stephen's mean, I think it is right to assume that she is just being herself, as he is.

By the way, PRODOS, do you remember me? I was the girl who told you that I would sit in my room and knit and listen to your radio show and be glad of my 1 hour a day that made me feel like I lived in a rational and fun world. Now I live in a rational and fun world most of the time, but I needed you then, and you helped.

Kelly

Okay, the above should have gone on its own thread (and has). Mazza's attempt to change the subject is a smokescreen for the fact that he hasn't gone over to the Forum and read the discussion and is (apparently) willing to take Diana's character assassination of the Speichers at face value.

Or doesn't care.

[on the 'Newsflash' thread] Mike Mazza, you suggest I should not point out Diana Hsieh's smearing and character assassination of the Speichers since that is only trivial "blog moderation policies". Instead I should have been attacking her on her more substantive philosophically based attacks on TOC, on David Kelley, etc.

1. You mean like where Kelley discusses quite clearly the existence of two factors: "the proper weight to assign consequences on the one hand and motives on the other" and two paragraphs later she has already injected new content and distorted what he said: "the mental and physical aspects of human action are treated as fundamentally separate and distinct parts, as only related by chance"?

2. Or this: "To claim that only one element matters...accepting the standard framework of motives versus consequences" when K has just said and she has quoted him as saying -both- elements matter?

3. Or where she devotes many paragraphs quoting Rand and explaining that mind and body are integrated as are thought and action, not one word of which her opponent would disagree with?

4. Or where she says "Ayn Rand's broad integrations -- like the inevitable peril to human life of rejecting reality and reason in favor of fancy and whim -- are discarded" when he does not 'discarding' something simply because he takes it for granted his readers understand this...and when he *nowhere defends thinking or acting on the basis of 'fancy' and 'whim'*?

5. Or perhaps here where she puts words in his mouth and claims he would excuse marital infidelity: "What does all that mean in practice? It means that if John's wife threatens divorce if she catches him in bed with yet another hooker, John can be morally condemned as irrational for soliciting the in-home services of "Bunny" only to the extent that he evades the risks of detection and the pain of divorce. He cannot be condemned for ignoring his past promises of fidelity"?

.
.
.

[David Kelley's Mind-Body Dichotomy in Moral Judgment, Diana Hsieh, NoodleFood, March 17 2006]

Phil Coates once said:
Following up on my last post, I don't think TOC should let Diana Hsieh's sustained critical attack on it in her blog go unanswered.

This is not a task that can be delegated outside of TOC.

Is this thread what Phil means by "taken seriously and engaged intellectually?" Why has Phil chosen to respond to Diana's blog moderation policies(!?) instead of, oh I don't know, this essay?

- Mike

I was not precise enough in my last post. The part that is character assassination is not everything I discused but centers more around the morally condemnatory and personally vilifiying rhetoric. Calling someone vicious or unfairly characterizing everything they do as suppression of opposite viewpoints, for example.

> not watched the other Oist forums as well...You regularly participate on those forums.

Fred, pay attention and try not to deliberately misunderstand: this discussion was about FARF (and OO)...not OL or RoR

For the record, my name is not "Diana Mertz Brickell Hsieh." I've never used that name in my whole entire life. My name used to be "Diana Mertz Brickell." Then I married Paul Sek-Bin Hsieh almost eight years ago. Ever since then, it has been "Diana Mertz Hsieh." So I am properly referred to as "Diana Mertz Hsieh" or "Diana Hsieh" or "Diana" or "Mrs. Hsieh" or "Ms. Hsieh." I specifically chose to omit "Brickell" from my name because I didn't like how it sounded with "Hsieh." (It's not a slight to my family.)

As for the rest of Phil's comments: His reconstruction of events -- particularly the psychological motives he ascribes to me -- are on par with the conspiracy theories of Robert Campbell.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

"I knew there was something cute about Phil's valliantly coming to the defense of Mrs. Speicher, but couldn't quite place it at first. But then I remembered. Mrs. Speicher was referred to from time to time on HPO as a schoolmarm. (Referred to, that is, in a name-calling form, 'Schoolmarm' preceded by 'Bimbo.)"

der... Excuse me, but I do believe that, if you wade through the traffic of HPO in detail, you will find that "The Bimbo Schoolmarm" was my original tag for That Woman.

I recall "Plan Speicher", of course. That was utterly horrifying. Her Husband is as thick as a brick and just hopeless.

I stand by every word that I wrote about either one of them, as well as my conviction that Betsy is exactly right about this Peifkoff thing on Christianism.

As for the Speicher forum matter, I haven't laid eyes on any of it, but I'll buy it at face-value because I've seen Mr. Speicher at work before, and it was very impressive.

Y'all fight nice, now, hear?

Phil-ibluster tells us, "I'd like to return to the reason I put up the thread."

But it's been perfectly clear all along: to engage in the character assassination of Diana. You refer to her "tendency to use some sort of morally condemnatory language such as vicious, unjust, deliberately unfair...and ranging up to evil." Precisely the language you direct toward her.

Amazingly, you declare "I haven't watched the other Oist forums as well as I have Solo and Noodlefood, so I can't really say whether this is rife elsewhere."

WTF???? Are you sleepwalking? You regularly participate on those forums. You return to them to be patted on the head and to be carried around on their shoulders, while they all shout, "Phil, our hero!"

And let's be perfectly clear here regarding the massive evasion on your part. Participating on these forums are Barbara Branden, Robert Campbell, and MSK (and that merely scratches the surface) - none of whom you apparently have any fundamental problem with.

All of a sudden you are rushing to the defense of the Speichers who are longtime staunch Objectivists and supporters of ARI - and for one blatant reason and one blatant reason only. They are a convenient club by which you can bash Diana. You eagerly rushed to the defense of "Mark" the anti-semite also for one blatant reason and one blatant reason only, he had jumped in to join you in bashing Diana. Your hatred of and obsession with Diana is clearly so profound that it doesn't matter to you what means you will choose to attack her.

Then you lecture us on morality.

As Diana would say, Blech.

I'd like to return to the reason I put up the thread.

There is a decades-long tendency to cause schisms and exacerbate quarrels within Objectivism by being thin-skinned, casting people out, eventually step-by-step raising any particularly acrimonious or prolonged debates to the level of moral issues or unforgivable "attacks" and permanent breaks.

And very, very seldom keeping things on the level of respectful disagreement among people who are basically allies or friends. Or wanting the same types of philosophical change in the wider world.

This is malevolent rather than benevolent. It is destructive to a tiny, tiny movement which needs all the amity and cooperation and goodwill it can get. It is a false way to look broadly at other people. And to view disagreements with them. It tends to get the movement ridiculed as an angry backbiting cult.

I haven't watched the other Oist forums as well as I have Solo and Noodlefood, so I can't really say whether this is rife elsewhere.

But I find that Diana Mertz Brickell Hsieh is particularly bad on this issue and her behavior is destructive in this regard. And her methodology is too often either shrugged off or actually imitated and defended.

Diana, while asking for fair and open debate from others has a tendency to vilify (and in this and other cases jump to the extreme and final measure of banning from further contact or discussion or from her list) those who most strongly take her on, rebut her positions. She has a tendency to use some sort of morally condemnatory language such as vicious, unjust, deliberately unfair...and ranging up to evil (as she did with Bush). Often when called on it (as Betsy asked, with an innocent "what do you mean by evil, Bush or his policies?") she erupts in furious anger, threatens people with banning, refuses to answer questions.

This goes way beyond incivility. It is character assassination.

I wouldn't have created the thread if this were the first time this had happened, or if it were not the case that other Oists have more and more have started to conduct their debates in similarly harsh and morally condemnatory way. A year or so ago, when the old Solo started out, everyone was so nice and supportive to each other and lots of really good writers were starting to write excellent essays and posts. Since then, one can't keep up with the schisms and steady atomizing into smaller and smaller subgroups, all seemingly warring with each other like the Sunni and Shiite and Baathists tribes in a pre-industrial, pre-Enlightenment culture.

Outside observers of these very public bloodlettings: "So this is what the brotherhood of rational men looks like? So this is what your philosophy of reason leads to in practice?"

One of the worst approaches of the Left (and even of many of the Right) is to destroy the very possibility of persuasion and civilized discussion by seeming to find eventually that every one of your strongest opponents has moral flaws or is actually evil. One way is to say someone has outrageously and viciously attacked you or your side so they don't deserve to have their questions answered or to be allowed inside a forum. That way you don't have to deal with pointed questions or one's that make you mad.

The point is not if Steve or Betsy ever made mistakes in conduct on another Forum or had a policy one might consider too restrictive or were ever unfair during the course of fierce debate. The point is that Diana was losing a debate in the comments of her own Noodlefood and chose an underhanded and highly unjust way of suppressing her strongest and most articulate opponent: getting rid of Betsy.

I don't know if Betsy ever went overboard in a single post or if someone who posts on another forum was ever treated unfairly. But that's not really the point is it?

Betsy has been the person who was politely, calmly, persistently engaging every one of Diana's arguments defending Peikoff's thesis of not voting for any Republican and of the imminence of theocracy.

She has been shredding Diana's position and thereby making her look ridiculous intellectually and humiliating her for weeks on her own website. (As has Stephen Speicher in attacking her arguments and her methodology on his site.) Example after example of how theocracy has not been on the rise, you don't want the Left in power, etc.

So Diana bans her based on an exaggerated, morally condemnatory case. And assassinates the character of her and her husband in the process, vilifying them in the very way she accuses them of doing.

And saying she'll -never- speak to such people again.

Fred, I'm not clear on the meaning of your link. Several people seem to be complaining that posts of theirs have been deleted or placed into a moderator queue. But it's not clear what the -reason- was. We only have -their- statement which is kind of one-sided. For example, were they insulting? Off topic?

Also, one can't immediately jump to the broader conclusion of generally "suppressing debate" if that's what you were implying? Diana certainly was.

I haven't known the Speichers in person, nor, based on what I had seen of them on HPO, would I want to. I'm going on a few years' exposure to them on HPO. As to Mr. Speicher in particular, "there not being a nasty bone in his body" is belied by his conduct on HPO towards a wide array of people he didn't take a liking to.

Granted, HPO is, was, and can be the kind of place where personal attacks and vindictiveness are commonplace. Lord knows I've done my share of attacking of, yes, a wide array of folks on there over the years. ("Attack" is probably not the right word.) In particular, I did my share of bashing of folks who epitomized what Linz refers to as the "ARI culture" of those days, which seems to have dissipated considerably since then. That, I did with considerable justification, though today I'd go about it somewhat differently than I did then. I could be quite the nice little obnoxious asshole at times then. Still, the kind of invective that Mr. Speicher in particular regularly engaged in was something special to watch. It was he who figured it fitting to label HPO, and open and unmoderated-for-content forum, as a "sewer" because of all the "filth" that participated there -- an odd view, to say the least, of a forum that is open and neutral with respect to all oncomers and doesn't have pretentions to being the way a moderated forum would be.

I already went into a little detail about at least a couple incidents representing this sort of conduct, but needless to say the HPO archives are full of plenty more of where that come from. Prodos and I may simply have to agree to disagree. However pleasantly Mr. Speicher may conduct himself in person towards friends, it doesn't show up that way on an open forum like HPO when confronted by non-friends.

Who banned you—Diana or Betsy? I can't keep up with all this.

Good evening!

Chris Cathart writes about Stephen and Betsy Speicher ...
http://www.solopassion.com/node/1880#comment-23240
...that they use a "good cop, bad cop" MO (modus operandi).

I've known the Speichers for many years and number them as two of my most beloved friends and favourite people in the world.

My wife, Sydney Kendall, and I have stayed at their home.

Stephen and Betsy have helped me out personally many times in both spiritual and material ways. They've gone way out of their way to stand up for me and defend me on several occasions when I've gotten myself into trouble.

For several years I worked closely with Stephen Speicher on a physics forum project - http://physics.prodos.org 

Betsy Speicher was the first person I interviewed on my show when I moved from on-air radio to online - http://prodos.com - and she's been a guest on my show on several other occasions.

A couple of years ago I even wrote a song ("The Speicherella") dedicated to them both http://prodos.com/realaudio/speicherella.ram

Now, that was an interesting experience!

One of the Speichers LOVED the song. The other just didn't care for it.

Their starkly different reactions to my song highlights the fact that they really are very different from each other - in their temperaments, in the way they come at the world, in the way they deal with disagreements or disputes - with others and between themselves! I've seen it in action, firsthand - and it's a splendid experience to behold!

There is nothing coordinated about this. I mean it's not a "modus operandi" that they have. There is no design behind it. It's just them being who they are - quite independently.

Stephen and Betsy come at issues - and at people - in completely different ways.

In fact my relationship with them is not from me to them as a couple.

I have a distinctly different kind of relationship with Stephen than I have with Betsy. When I email one of them, I rarely CC the other. The issues I discuss with one of them tend to be quite different from the issues I'll discuss with the other. The way I talk with one of them is completely different from the way I talk with the other.

My wife and I are another example of totally opposite temperaments. Of totally different ways of coming at the world. 

I think I can understand how Chris Cathart might mistakenly see a "good cop - bad cop" thing going on between the Speichers. But this just doesn't match my experience of the Speichers. My experience of them both is that they simply don't do things in any sort of coordinated way when it comes to tasks such as forums and discussions.

I hope this might help to shed some light on some of the misunderstanding a bit. I'm not suggesting that Chris or anyone else should now start liking Stephen or Betsy or agree with either what they say or how they say it. That's a whole other issue.

There's another misunderstanding that Chris has regarding the Speichers.

In particular, about Betsy.

He speculates about Betsy's polite style, but concludes that he "... wouldn't be sucked in by this particular "good cop"'s public politeness."

Chris! The "public politeness" is completely real! Infact, Betsy really is "polite" and considerate both publicly and privately. More so than anyone I've ever known! Keeping a cool head - staying polite - in the face of attacks, is a massive accomplishment in my opinion. Especially when it comes to online communication where it's so easy to just hurl electrons at each other and stay safely hidden behind a screen. But Betsy has been like that for all the time I've known her. This isn't something that can be faked.

Chris refers to a "Toohey-like veneer of politeness"

It is not a "veneer"! It's solid and true!

Even when Betsy gets really angry, she's polite. She once got very angry at me! She phoned me from the USA and told me off for some dumb thing I'd done. But she did it politely, carefully, laying out her reasoning step-by-step.

Chris Cathart: "the public politeness could well be coupled with mean-spirited comments and attacks in private"

But is it? God no! Never!

Even on those occasions when Betsy and I have exchanged private "gossip" about various people we know, she has never been bitchy or mean-spirited. Not even about those people she greatly dislikes. Not even about people who have been horrible to her! You can't fake such non-mean-spiritedness. Betsy really is one of the sweetest, most considerate, and benevolent souls I've ever had the honour to know.

Chris Cathart: "(or being party to such attacks) behind people's backs."

I'm not sure what "being party to such attacks" means, exactly. Could Chris clarify this please?

Chris Cathart: "one of the two having a particularly nasty public style"

There is not a nasty bone in either of the Speichers. If there is, I've never seen it, and as I've already said, I've known them both for years.

======================================

http://prodos.thinkertothinker.com

Have a hug. Read Atlas Shrugged.

=====================================

Zowie!

Hey Chris!

> you can't expect others to buy into it just because you are snapping your fingers.

Linz, I'm not expecting them to buy into it. Those are serious charges Diana raised and I'm suggesting people look into them.

"When I ask for concrete evidence, actual quotes, which substantiate what she claims"

You ignore them, Phili-bluster

Such as the link to this comment provided by Dan Edge

Evidence ignored by Phil

Also, if you scroll down a bit to Post #166 someone else testifies to a post of theirs also being deleted.

Nice. But if I had thought of it - which I didn't but I wish I did - I would have said Phil-iblustering.

Phil-ibusterer, you accused me amongst others of a double standard; I've explained where I don't hold a double-standard. Is there something I'm missing? Meanwhile, I brought up Diana's stated reasons for her beef with the Forum, having to do with what she regarded as a double-standard there. Not having perused the Forum threads, I only brought that up as the reason that she stated, which sounds reasonable if it's the case. Whether it's the case or not, I haven't ventured to find out first-hand, though given first-hand experience with the parties involved, it's believable enough.

If your beef is with Diana's presentation or interpretation of the facts, take it up with her, not me. Too bad, though, that she's grown bored and/or exasperated with your Phil-ibustering, so you may not have much luck there. Meanwhile, if you'd like to clarify, with as little Phil-ibustering as possible, where you think I'm still holding a double-standard, I'm all ears. (You are well aware that Mr. Speicher has the well-documented reputation for being an abrasive asshole, yes? Well, so you might argue, so does Linz. But there are differences. One being that Mr. Speicher's long-documented style is plain meanness for meanness' sake, along with some peculiar notions of accountability when challenged. I doubt that either describes Linz.) So state in plainest terms, if you can, against which parties and in favor of which parties I've adopted a double-standard, and in what respects. So far, your Phil-ibustering has pretty much left me in the dark.

I know this'll come as a terrible shock to you, but the world doesn't stop just because you demand it. You chose to start a thread presuming to tell Diana whom she should & shouldn't have on her Forum. The chips then fall where they fall. It's not that one may not criticise Diana here. Perhaps you've forgotten already but I've been a bit critical of her myself lately. But in your case it does seem to be a bit obsessive, & you can't expect others to buy into it just because you are snapping your fingers.

Linz

1. When I criticize Diana for calling some other Oists who have calmly and rationally disagreed with her "vicious" and purging them from her site, I get:

An instant storm of abuse, two dozen posts, and people elbowing each other to be on the Rapid Response Team and first to immediately defend Diana, talk about her 'courage', etc.

2. When I ask for concrete evidence, actual quotes, which substantiate what she claims other people said on the FARF webstie, I get:

DEAD SILENCE.

.....

( It's possilble that people have gone over to the Forum for Ayn Rand Fans and are currently looking thru the election, theocracy, and Peikoff threads for those quotes Diana claims are there.

And it has only been half a day, so I'll wait until tomorrow before I conclude people don't need or can't be bothered to provide evidence. )

Chris: “Just keep in mind: the Speichers started a forum of their own because they found HPO to be a "sewer" filled with "slime"…”

That’s true enough, but they made a detour via the site Objectivism Online, where they settled in happily enough – although I think there was some history with some of the other participants – until one day Stephen was moderated by one of the posters with whom he was having an argument.

Having discovered the meaning of conflicts of interest, Stephen made a quick exit – stage right of course – and set up his own forum. You do have to feel sorry for Betsy, though. She’s crawled through the dirt for ARI and this is her reward.

On the matter of forum styles, I must take issue with your likening HPO and Solo. Certainly, the tone and free-wheeling style are similar, but there are major and crucial points of difference: HPO has quite a different ‘ownership’ structure – more cooperative than capitalist – and is moderated by an independent party who takes no significant part in debates. I think these factors account for its longevity, although I was surprised to see it was only created in 1996. How our world has changed.

Speaking of conflicts of interest, a poster on another forum has suggested that Objectivist schisms may have a fairly simple genesis: the desire to explain all human phenomena – thoughts, emotions, character, preferences – by resort to philosophy, that is, a specific set of philosophic propositions.

This in turn offers the possibility of developing a ‘fully-integrated’ personality, where all one's character traits, from opinions to emotions to subconscious thoughts, are not only perfectly consistent with each other, but also consistent with a true fundamental philosophical basis. This ideal would see a perfect harmony from the fundamental to the trivial, both within ourselves, and ultimately between us, which is perhaps why Rand thought that there could be no conflicts between rational men.

But she overlooked one vital possibility: disagreements between Objectivists. If you accept that all human activity has a philosophic basis, then in theory all disagreements can ultimately be reduced to a fundamental philosophic disagreement. And since philosophy is about sustaining one’s life, all disagreements are potentially life-threatening, hence the sometimes baffling intensity of Objectivist conflicts.

Brendan

> partisan moderation methods by the operator( of The Forum...Diana reports that insults and attacks were permitted against her and Peikoff there, but that responses were not given the same airing.

Chris, as I said I just spent hours reading this. Posters who agreed with Peikoff posted time after time from start to the current day. As for "give the same airing", wouldn't that depend on whether or not pro-theocracy threat people -choose- to air their views as frequently as the other side?

What I basically saw was an extremely high quality and respectful debate across hundreds of posts.

So I'm not quite sure what her point (and yours) are here? Can I again request that she...and you, if you are saying she is right...provide a concrete quote (and link/thread name) that exemplifies or clarifies this?

> Diana reports that insults and attacks were permitted against her and Peikoff there, but that responses were not given the same airing. Now, Prissyholic Who Lectures Everyone Else on Double-Standards, what exactly was your problem with Diana's actions in this instance?

Chris, I just spent the entire morning reading several threads and hundreds of posts on this issue and, while I saw strong criticism of Peikoff and Diana, I didn't see a single "vicious" criticism. So far, I'd have to agree with Jeff Perren on this:

"To the best of my knowledge and recollection, and I've read almost all the posts on NoodleFood and The Forum in the last week and change, NO ONE has accused Dr. Peikoff of any moral wrongs. Certainly not Betsy nor Stephen Speicher."

It's possible that I missed whatever spurred Diana to the extreme measure of banning Betsy. So, here's a challenge to Diana...and to you or anyone defending D on this issue:

1. Find at least one unequivocal "smoking gun" example of same, one each by the two people, Stephen Speicher and Betsy Speicher, D is condeming for unjust viciousness and saying she will never tolerate or associate with again. (Quite an extreme reaction that one normally reserves for extreme moral turpitude!)

One quote attacking Peikoff in that manner.

And one attacking Diana in that manner (those were her two charges).

2. Quote it exactly and give the link so readers can check it without having read several hundred posts.

3. Give some indication why you think it is part of a general pattern of vicious or psychologizing or moral attacks against Peikoff and Diana.

....

Please tell me if this an unfair request of those of you arguing against me and for Diana on this Speicher matter.

Priss, Private Phile, Mis-ter Co-oates, whatever your name is, lemme see if I've got you right, after trying to parse your paragraphs of verbiage: your beef isn't with ridicule, insult, and psychologizing (whatever that is) per se, but with some alleged double-standard -- that I amongst others get outraged when it's used against some but not others.

You've got me wrong, Prissyholic. I don't really mind the ridicule, insults, etc.; what I mind is if they're used as a substitute for substantive argument. You'll also note that it was just an instance of a double-standard -- partisan moderation methods by the operator( of The Forum -- that prompted Diana to leave there. Diana reports that insults and attacks were permitted against her and Peikoff there, but that responses were not given the same airing. Now, Prissyholic Who Lectures Everyone Else on Double-Standards, what exactly was your problem with Diana's actions in this instance?

Ridicule, insult and psychologising? Where Phil? You fail to address the points that I made and resorted to groundless accusations.

Go back to the children in the Objectivist Lying playground. I disagree with Linz and Diana on issues (e.g. Iraq War) but I would rather debate them than mix with likes of plagiarising Pross and the odious MSK. At OL there is childish finger pointing and little else - perfect for you!

Of course Phil is venting his anger at Diana. Teacher Barbara should send you to detention - except she won't because she is a raging hypocrite too.

This post is an insult and you deserve it!

What we've seen on this thread is a double standard: Ridicule, insult, and psychologizing (used against Diana in this case -- by Phil), but outrage when it is used against him.

I will continue to **constantly attack Phil** and put a boot to his backside because he is an enormously destructive force on the Objectivist movement & I'll keep up a steady drumbeat of refuting the errors of people who harm Oism. Phil is one of my prime targets because Phil is the one who most frequently writes down or posts major errors in a wide range of intellectual areas. (etc. etc. blah, blah)

I don't know why Phil can't just "get along and play nice". I mean, isn't that the primary Objectivist virtue?

P.S.: It's true. When I see Phil coming I fill up my quiver with lampoons. Phil is such a windbag that by the time he is finished huffing and puffing, he's got himself so blown-up it's fairly easy to pop his balloon. But I can't resist.

What we've seen on this thread is a double standard: Ridicule, insult, and psychologizing (used against me in this case -- by Linz, Chris C., Robert W., Kenny, etc.), but outrage when it is used against someone you like or agree with.

I demonstrated what is wrong with the D's "purging and shunning mentality" on this thread. I have also made it clear why, barnyard and adolescent ridicule to the contrary notwithstanding, I will continue to **constantly attack Diana** and put a boot to her backside because she is an enormously destructive force on the Objectivist movement & I'll keep up a steady drumbeat of refuting the errors of people who harm Oism. Diana is one of my prime targets because she is the one who most frequently writes down or posts major errors in a wide range of intellectual areas. It's actually not an issue of influence, because other than about a dozen of you guys, I don't think she's particularly influential. But she crystallizes and puts down in writing major issues about:

i) benevolence vs. malevolence in viewing the world,
ii) how one deals with adversaries,
iii) moral judgmentalism,
iv) objectivity and fairness in evaluation of the world of living human beings
v) "academic" rationalism and intrinsicism

Her criticism of Bush as "evil" (and willingness to be silent about the idea that anyone who doesn't vote Democratic doesn't know Objectivism) is not inconsistent with D's general way of passing judgment. It is merely the most offensive and recent example of malevolence and over-the-top intrinsicism and rationalism in moral judgment.

To use a historical analogy, she is the Savonarola within Objectivist circles.

Others of you are inconsistent in following her in this; you are not willing to attack the character or honesty of all your opponents in every case but only in some. But within a tiny subculture like this, the person who most consistently applies even a false principle and repeats it ovefr and over emphaticallly in dozens of contexts tends to corrupt or disarm the others who seem more lilly-livered or appeasing or un-emphatic in "kassly" applying the false principle. And then the people closest to the thinking of someone like D tend to ridicule (or at least prod if they are within their own circle) those less likely to condemn opponents as "evil" as not having the balls or courage to pronounce moral judgment of evil equally emphatically.

Diana's use of the term evil to apply to Bush is enormously revealing in this context.

....

Many people grasp the points I've made about unfairness, unjustness, double standards ... and vicious partisan attacks. But there is no reason for me to continue debating on this thread with you guys (aforementioned):

You've proven yourself unwilling to use the same standards for everyone.

You will revert to defending your friends with ridicule and vicious remarks. But will self-righteously defend -them- when they purge OTHER PEOPLE for actual (or even alleged as in the psychologizing good cop, bad cop remark!) ridicule and vicious remarks.

Kenny:

Phil's contributions can be summed up as "I hate Diana". She has fallen out with Speichers and banned them from her blog. These things happen.

And given all of Phil's prissyholics about civility and niceness, the one for him not to side with is Mr. Speicher or those party to his attacks.

Just keep in mind: the Speichers started a forum of their own because they found HPO to be a "sewer" filled with "slime" and that wanted a forum that they could control enough for it to be free of all that "filth." (Okay, maybe it's a bit more complicated than that. I believe that Mrs. Speicher finally left HPO in the wake of the incredibly obnoxious "Michael Bernstein" troll that didn't get banned from HPO since there was no clear-cut provision in the charter to do so [though interestingly enough, "MB" managed to slime off some time shortly thereafter, leaving HPO un-bothered since].) Also keep in mind that there's really nothing wrong with HPO as a forum (which is the best forum for open, uncensored discussion along with SOLO) -- though in something of a fit of irony, it's been a noticeably more pleasant place since the couple left.

Phil indeed is not as independent as he claims. He's not independent at all. He's a stooge of the Brandens, the ghastly Bidinotto and Chamberlainian appeasement generally, via Frord & O-Lying, about whose iniquities he's mute. He agreed with me through the recent election debate only because I was opposed to Diana & Leonard, for very good reasons. And made some truly excellent posts. Shows what he could do if he discovered a moral backbone & declared his independence from the Brandroids. And shows, incidentally, what Barbara Branden herself could achieve if she renounced her own Brandroidism. I wish to hell she would. She's incipiently worthy of so much better than that flaky ghetto to which she's condemned herself.

Phil's contributions can be summed up as "I hate Diana". She has fallen out with Speichers and banned them from her blog. These things happen.

Robert Bidinitto has made some nasty and personal comments about Solo, Linz and Diana on his own blog, Rebirth of Reason, and Objectivist Living. Objectivist Living is full of bitchy attacks on them, including pathetic Pross's disgusting "caricatures".

These people increase the schisms within the Objectivist movement. You post on ROR and OL but do not appear to attack them for their outrageous behaviour. You are not as "independent" as you claim.

This thread is no more than a partisan and petty attack on Diana masquerading an as a plea for justice for the Speichers. Declare your interest and grow up!

And thus Phil's creepy Diana obsession seeps onto another thread.

Here is an idea. From now on, whenever Phil starts a thread that contains the words "Diana" or "Hsieh" or any combination thereof, everyone just ignores it. This way, everyone is happy. Phil can happily delude himself into thinking he's made some kind of unanswerable argument. We can all take comfort in the fact that, though incredibly annoying, no one really listens to Phil. And SOLOP can avoid another useless thread. Think about it.

- Mike

You silly goose—I didn't mean anything formal or permanent by "alliance," just that we found ourselves "allies" on this matter. Why, you even made a joke about it yourself. That must have been one of those rare days when you had a sense of humour.

I'm not quite sure why you have such a *thing* about Diana, but observing your craven crawling after undeniably bad people in the past and your morbid indifference to their nastiness, I offer the same advice I offered the Hsiekovians during the election debate: get a sense of perspective, man!

Linz

Edited to add: You might recall that I didn't go so far as to claim Sciabarra was "fundamentally immoral" as Diana did. I saw him as a fundamentally decent person who'd let himself down. I still think that. What he said about me behind my back and the way he said it were disgusting. You never addressed that. And he's never tried to put it right, which should tell you something.

Diana did not slander and misrepresent him, or anybody. She's followed her conscience (and she has one to follow). That does take courage.

Yes, Mr. Coates!

> Di's undoubted courage. [Linz]

Ridiculous!!!!

It doesn't take courage to move from the smaller and less academically supportive wing of Oism to the large one.

It doesn't take courage to slander and misrespresent what was said by a decent person like Sciabarra and to try to destroy him.

It doesn't take courage to post things on a blog or to take one side of an intellectual debate unless you are standing alone against everyone and your career will suffer, you'll be arrested or harassed, etc.

It doesn't take courage to show ingratitude to people who tried to help your career and educate you like Kelley and Sciabarra.

It doesn't take courage to be a bully on your own website and constantly threaten people who make mistakes or get to angry with expulsion...or to expell them without warning or without trying to work things out in a fit of pique (or because someone was a little too harsh on -another- site).

It doesn't take courage to shoot from the hip...and call virtually everyone who doesn't closely track not merely your philosophical views but the -detailed application- of philosophy to complex issues (from Libertarianism to Republicanism to how to conduct a war to many other issues) immoral or evaders or evil or unjust.

It doesn't take courage to misstate, oversimplify, and mischaracterize the writings of your opponents...whether they be David Kelley or Ed Hudgins or the people who advocate voting for Republicans.

All it takes is a big mouth, a nasty temperament, and a strong dose of moral intrinsicism.

> This debate has seen some unusual alliances spring up.

Ridiculous again--where do you get these crazy ideas of "alliances"? The only thing that matters is the truth. I, for one, am not "allied" with you or the Speichers or Chris Sciabarra or Barbara Branden or ARI or TOC or Leonard Peikoff or anyone else.

"I'm still not convinced by Peikoff and Diana's arguments, but they are definitely being treated unfairly on The Forum."

It's good to see there's another person out there who thinks like me. Thanks, Dan.

Betsy's & Phil's Prissyholics Anonymous dues are up to date.

I knew there was something cute about Phil's valliantly coming to the defense of Mrs. Speicher, but couldn't quite place it at first. But then I remembered. Mrs. Speicher was referred to from time to time on HPO as a schoolmarm. (Referred to, that is, in a name-calling form, "Schoolmarm" preceded by "Bimbo.") "Yes, Mr. Coats," we know Mrs. Speicher is very proper and polite.

Dunno 'bout you, but I find the Sgt. Hartmann style more interesting, all else equal. Politeness is boring.

> it pisses me off when folk presume to dictate what a forum owner's policy should be...Whom she allows on is entirely her prerogative.

Linz, dictating and criticizing are two different things. -Anything- someone does which I consider unfair, unjust, paranoid, or destructive of Objectivism I will criticize.

If people here disagree with me on Sciabarra or TOC:

Tough.

> Phil conveniently omitted the critical point of my comment, namely the actual reason why I refused to answer Betsy's seemingly reasonable question. [Diana]

Nope: "I will not assist your husband in his bizarre new campaign against me." -- Your middle two paragraphs merely elaborate on the idea that this is your reason for not answering, for expulsion, etc.

Case closed.

Quick, call the FBI, CIA, DoD and HSN! Get that Prison barge ready at once - this news is so extraordinary it deserves to be called a NEWSFLASH!

No need to get Diana fitted for some prison clothes Phil, you've been stalking her so long you should know her vital statistics by heart now. I wouldn't be surprised if next week you start reporting on her bowel movements.

OK, you hate Diana, we get it! So just give it a rest, will ya.

You didn't extend the Turandot references far enough for me to put in a gratuitous "Nessun Dorma" joke! I shall now depart in a snit, not to return to the forums for at least five whole minutes.

Sorry, can't resist keeping the Turandot allusions going.

Diana's explanations seem entirely reasonable, though I haven't verified, and won't, that the attacks on Peikoff she refers to on the Speicher forum were indeed "vicious" or simple disagreement. I think Diana thought some of the anti-Peikoff statements right here were "vicious," even though, at least from me, they didn't go beyond "batty" and "deranged" as descriptions of Peikoff's position, with reasons furnished, along with jokes about how he should get out more. That's all part of legitimate cut-and-thrust in my book.

Still, it pisses me off when folk presume to dictate what a forum owner's policy should be. Noodlefood is Diana's property. Whom she allows on is entirely her prerogative (same, of course, for the Speichers). She's under no obligation to justify herself, to Phil Coates or anyone. She operates a stricter policy than I do here, but that's her right, and, as it happens, I don't think she's been unreasonable in her moderating practices. Anyone who does is free to stay away in protest. Or start his own forum—which, I can assure you, is one hell of a learning curve about human behaviour.

This debate has seen some unusual alliances spring up. I am very disappointed in Diana's stance on the election, for reasons that were canvassed during the debate and reiterated in my Epilogue article. Diana has said she won't forget or forgive the attacks on her and Peikoff. Whether that includes me I don't know, but regardless, I want to make it clear that I still think she was correct in the matter of Sciabarra, on which we stood side by side, and that she is essentially correct about The KASSless Society (I disagree with her as to the nature of Kelley's errors), the Brandens, and so on ... matters in which Phil Coates has consistently behaved like a combination of moral eunuch and slut. The fact that Phil and I were in agreement on the election controversy—in fact, I thought his posts were outstanding—doesn't alter that. And I'm already on record as saluting Princess Di's undoubted courage. She's always welcome here, however angry we may be with each other.

Linz

At least with the "bad cop" MO, you know what you're getting out there in the open. A "good cop" MO doesn't guarantee an MO any better than a Toohey-like veneer of politeness; the public politeness could well be coupled with mean-spirited comments and attacks in private (or being party to such attacks) behind people's backs.

At least with SOLO's owner, you know it's all out there in the open what he says and thinks, take it or leave it.

I wouldn't be sucked in by this particular "good cop"'s public politeness. Certainly it's one thing for couples to have disagreements on issues or differences in style, but this goes to one of the two having a particularly nasty public style.

Read it again. The couple has a "good cop, bad cop" MO. The "bad cop" is the one who likes to go out there attacking and insulting people; the "good cop" does act more polite but doesn't seem to have a problem with the way the "bad cop" carries on. Add to that, that they apparently jointly own and run the Forum, so they're jointly responsible for how it's run.

Phil said: "(I've shortened it; feel free to look at it in toto on Noodlefood's Sunday and Monday recent comments section to see if this is representative)"

Just FYI: Phil conveniently omitted the critical point of my comment, namely the actual reason why I refused to answer Betsy's seemingly reasonable question. (It was a short comment. There was no reason to cut it, other than to mispresent the facts.) Phil could have even linked to my comment directly but instead suggests that people wade through hundreds of comments to find out what I actually said.

Nice.

Here's what I said in full, with the relevant link to the discussion on The Forum:

Betsy, you ask: "Diana, I want to be clear about what you are actually saying here. Are you saying BUSH is evil or just his POLICIES?"

Although I could easily answer that question in a sentence or two, I'd rather do about a hundred other things... like poke a sharp stick in my eye.

Your husband is waiting for my answer on this thread on your Forum http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=4804&view=findpost&p=42444 ... so that he can persist in his claim that I'm engaging in "moralistic hyperbole," making "pronouncements from on high, from the perch of knowledge held in an intrinsic manner," and offering only "religious pronouncements: a claim to special knowledge that the unanointed evil or ignorant masses do not process." That's complete and utter shit.

As if that's not bad enough, your husband's new tactic seems to be to attack me for agreeing with Dr. Peikoff's statement, rather than attacking Dr. Peikoff for that statement. I must be easier game.

So no, I will not assist your husband in his bizarre new campaign against me. If you ask me to do so again, you will not be welcome to post in these comments.

P.S. to Michelle: Thank you for speaking your mind.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

> [Linz is] willing to engage the opponents he characterizes as such, on the merits of the arguments. The alternative is a nicely dressed-up kind of cowardice.

Have you actually read Betsy's posts on Noodlefood? Do you think she is NOT engaging her opponents? Is she calling them "filthy" or "low-lifes"?

Wasn't she simply rationally arguing the election issue? Or have you not checked?

....

(Without trying to do a detailed post by post analysis, let me again point out that they are not one collective entity, "a couple", but individual people who happened to be married and can differ on how to debate or can post in a different manner.)

Here is an example of one of the posts (and authors) that have been removed from The Forum recently:

http://forum.objectivismonline...

This gentleman's (rather tame) defense of Peikoff was disallowed, yet there are many, many posts on The Forum attacking Peikoff as "rationalist," "senile," "distorted," etc.  Speicher himself started a thread attacking Peikoff for a two sentence statment he made to the effect that he only reads the first half of articles in the New York Times.  Other threads have popped up attacking his opinion of gay marriage and other issues.

The Speichers are indeed waging a campaign against Peikoff and Diana, unjustly attacking their credibility.  Unlike Jeff Perren, who chose to focus on Peikoff's argument, the Speichers have focused primarliy on the perceived slight implied by his statement.

And now that the Speichers have decided that Peikoff is an uncredible rationalist who has blinded himself to the current state of the world, they cannot be convinced otherwise, and will ban from their website anyone who disagrees.  Both of them are literally famous in the Objectivist world for refusing to admit fault in any way whatsoever, even when it is clearly demonstrated that they are wrong.

I'm still not convinced Peikoff and Diana's arguments, but they are definitely being treating unfairly on The Forum.

--Dan Edge

The "she's a good cop to his bad cop" was standard MO from that couple on HPO for years, and this scenario (the insults and attacks part especially) is entirely believable based on what I've observed there. The Mr. was harping for years about how the very-open forum that is HPO would permit all kinds of "filth" (a favored term) to post there unabated. (HPO itself was also characterized in such favored terms as "a sewer.") A controlled, moderated Forum would keep out "the filth," but anyone who's run an "open-yet-controlled" forum with any attempts at some form of moderation (I did for a short while some years back) knows that it's near impossible to maintain. "Undesirables" (however they get identified and defined) get booted much more easily on more dubious grounds. Partisan moderation methods are a danger of becoming a norm. There are two stable kinds of forums: You either get a srict form of moderation, which works (the HBL or MDOP/OWL formats), or you get an HPO or SOLO-type forum where someone can come in here and call Linz an asshole to his face without getting booted. The in-between method is like Mises' unstable middle-ground of interventionism -- especially in the case of someone with a typically mean-spirited MO so intent on keeping out "filth" (and the types that this Mr. presumed to identify as "filth" constituted nearly all of HPO) as he defines it.

One thing that the Mr. in particular really didn't like was being called on when he slipped up in purporting to expound upon some point in Objectivism with an air of expertise. One instance in particular (some speil purporting to establish that you could have a "true" conclusion based on the facts available that turns out to be "false" in reality) involving nothing even close to a direct response, but plenty in the way of attacks on the challenger.

For those interested, the "true but false" was a tortured attempt to defend a rather trivial claim by Ayn Rand that turned out to be false, namely, that authors of a pamphlet for FEE back in '46 were reds. [See her letter to Leonard Read in the Letters of AR.] The arguments the authors gave certainly had collectivism-supporting premises in their arguments, and Rand was right to attack those premises as a sell-out of capitalism. But the authors -- Milton Friedman and George Stigler -- were not actually reds. In the course of his tortured defense of the notion that this particular claim was nonetheless "true," the Mr. impugned pretty much anyone who challenged him, including David Friedman [Milton's son] who brought it up to begin with. These challengers, variably, were "ignorant" or "filth" or "rationalistic" or "concrete-bound" or "didn't understand Objectivism" and all that -- all without him actually answering their arguments.

On a larger scale, there was the dubiously-conceived, notorious "Plan Speicher." Controversial as it was, his characterization of nearly all opponents of it was that they were "filth" and "low-lifes" of some variety or other. Now, Linz sometimes does the same thing to large numbers of his opponents, with one main difference: he's willing to engage the opponents he characterizes as such, on the merits of the arguments. The alternative is a nicely dressed-up kind of cowardice, IMHO.

Thanks for explaining. Since I was one of the ones suddenly deleted when it became obvious that I wasn't buying the evidence being presented, I want to add my voice of dissent. I was deleted for 1. disagreeing with Stephen's sudden limiting of debate which was applied ex post facto and 2. formatting incorrectly (I didn't understand how to use the quote function). I left immediately.

Tom

I also don't have the patience for a long debate. But, regarding the point about Betsy having some secret "good cop" ulterior motive to somehow attack..what?...Diana's character?, integrity? in a "vicious" way, that seems a bit paranoid.

Here's an example of the very recent exchange (I've shortened it; feel free to look at it in toto on Noodlefood's Sunday and Monday recent comments section to see if this is representative):

Diana: "President Bush's foreign policy is active, deliberate, and blind self-sacrifice. That's not error. It's evil."

Betsy: "Diana, I want to be clear about what you are actually saying here. Are you saying BUSH is evil or just his POLICIES?"

Diana: "Although I could easily answer that question in a sentence or two, I'd rather do about a hundred other things... like poke a sharp stick in my eye.... I will not assist your husband in his bizarre new campaign against me. If you ask me to do so again, you will not be welcome to post in these comments."

In other words, a simple and legitimate question was asked and D. responds by saying she could easily answer it but won't & threatening to boot her off.

Betsy then responded in the classy and conciliatory way I quoted in my original post above. And then she's suddenly booted off.

I have zero interest in engaging Phil on this issue -- or even posting on a thread created by him. However, for the sake of the non-Diana-hating people, I would like to briefly explain my reasons for banning Betsy from the NoodleFood comments.

Betsy was not banned for impolite behavior in the NoodleFood comments. She was generally polite therein. She was booted based upon the vicious attacks upon me (and Dr. Peikoff) posted on "The Forum," a heavily-moderated discussion board owned by her and her husband. The Forum is not open territory, like SoloPassion. Her husband moderates it quite strictly. And in this debate, he was moderating in a grossly unfair way, systematically deleting posts from articulate supporters of Dr. Peikoff's position, while encouraging and even perpetrating unjust attacks upon him. That's why I cancelled my account on The Forum. After that, the attacks upon me began, including attacks solely based upon my history with TOC. It was nothing but an attempt to intimidate me (via guilt) into silence.

Betsy never objected to any of that. Yet as part-owner, she's responsible for it. Moreover, she was asked seemingly innocuous questions of me in the NoodleFood comments solely for the purpose of clarifying ongoing debates on The Forum, particularly so as to help her husband "determine" whether I was making religious pronouncements from on high or not. She was definitely working with and supporting her husband's attacks, albeit not directly engaging in them herself. She was playing good cop to his bad cop.

So that's why I banned her. It wasn't because she was my most vociferous opponent in the debate. It's because her Forum -- via the biased moderation of her husband -- was viciously and unjustly attacking Leonard and me. It was because she was participating in those attacks by her comments on NoodleFood. By no standard except altruism was I obliged to endure that. And so I booted her from the NoodleFood comments. Those who wish to hear what she has to say are more than welcome to go to her Forum.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

And, Phil, I note that Betsy's response to begin banned and dropped from the FRODO list was one of the classiest acts I've seen in a long time.

And what was that (I'm oddly curious to know)?

It's gonna be hard to keep track of them all, the alignments and so on. The Speichers (the Mr., in particular) and I didn't get along back when on HPO, probably still wouldn't now, the Speichers (well, the Mr. again -- gee, he insulted people he disagreed with? I'm shocked, shocked) don't get along with Diana, I'm currently getting along with Linz who isn't getting along with Diana, who may have left SOLO for all I can tell, so am I technically a party to Linz's alleged attacks on Peikoff? It's dizzying, and I'm pretty well drained as it is. I'm gonna have to start drawing up a map of who is in good with whom in what forums just to keep track. (Is that comment going to get me in hot water with anyone? Okay, let me just go get a bigger piece of paper with which to make a larger map.) Maybe with enough splintering off, it'll be every man for himself, the way it should be anyway. Ideally, everyone goes to HPO in the end to kick ass or get ass kicked completely out in the open. SOLO most approximates that amongst "the forums".

Anyway, where was I getting with all this? Ah yes. I do hope as soon as I can to listen to Peikoff's lecture course and come back with my assessments, as the explanations I've been skimming over on NoodleFood are intriguing. Then I can decide which faction I'm in. No, seriously, Peikoff deserved being heard out on the main bulk of his thesis -- perhaps the idea of "disintegrated' Demos being in charge and the dangers of a Repo theocracy aren't so laughable as I remarked elsewhere. I may well have jumped that gun. Linz, you plan on hearing DIM and not just belittle Peikoff's conclusions? I'm skeptical of them, too, but I'll go into the course with an open ear.

I'm still not going back on my criticisms of the silliness about the implied efficacy of voting, however. Peikoff's morality-talk applied to voting needs justification, mucho clarification, or retraction. I don't think I need to hear the whole DIM course in order to suggest the ways that Peikoff's pronouncements need some cleaning up. Some people have apparently accused Peikoff of bullying or appeal to authority, but I wouldn't go that far, as I don't think it's like Peikoff to do that, as Diana more or less points out.

Turned me into a newt she did! ...Got better

Chris,

To the best of my knowledge and recollection, and I've read almost all the posts on NoodleFood and The Forum in the last week and change, NO ONE has accused Dr. Peikoff of any moral wrongs. Certainly not Betsy nor Stephen Speicher. Questioned their appropriateness at most.

And, Phil, I note that Betsy's response to begin banned and dropped from the FRODO list was one of the classiest acts I've seen in a long time.

Jeff

I've been out of it enough not to have followed all the discussions here much less what must be some good discussion at NoodleFood. But what's this about accusing Dr. Peikoff of moral wrongs? Jeezus Cripes, folks. The guy issued some mistaken proclamations about the election. That doesn't automatically make it a matter of moral evasion on his part, though he's got some 'splainin' to do.

There is a sort of rough "justice" to it, anyhow: his proclamations were unjustifiably infused with moral implications, which seem (?) to have boomeranged back at him. If he's going to start throwing the moral language out there, he's gotta grow a thick enough skin to take what comes back and deal with it.

My bad for not verifying the whole story. Phil, you warmongerer you...