I'll bring the truncheons.

We used to have a sign up at TVNZ in the 80s - "The floggings will continue till morale improves."

In my office at Radio Liberty (1995) I had a sign up: "Sexual harassment will be graded."

Both apply to this day on SOLO, of course.

The scary thing about the Hitler Youth Thought Police, and the academics who twisted them into what they are, is that the whole world of banter, mock-shock, teasing, piss-taking and what-not in daily life, not to mention satire, hyperbole and the like in literature, is alien to them, and not to be permitted. Yet they don't think twice about disputing someone's honesty straight off the bat.

Slimy fucks.

Should be flogged, of course.

Absolutely.

Hey Mike, welcome to SOLO. I tend to agree with Glenn, your presence here sets you far above the smart ass cynics on the Salient forum. Thanks for having the integrity to actually engage us.

I was talking to a friend the other night [Henry Holderness, jealous Linz?] about political correctness. We were trying to define it because the term gets thrown around so much - especially by people like us - that it might be losing its meaning. But it does mean something and I do think your post exhibits the consequences of it. The broad definition of Political Correctness I came up with was ‘the erosion of context.’ Basically, Political Correctness is when you judge a person purely on the words they have said regardless of who the person is, what views they’re known to actually have, what situation they said those words in, etc etc.  It doesn’t matter if they’re trying to be satirical; it doesn’t matter if their just saying something a little off colour around friends in complete jest, it doesn’t matter if you have every reason in the world to believe they don’t really mean it. Society has decided that certain words and views are un acceptable, that’s it. End of story.  

This rigid attitude has slowly become institutionalized in our school systems and is now beginning to find its way in to legislation. Speech is on its way to being regulated by the standards of political correctness and that’s why people like us throw the PC label around a lot. It really is real and it really is dangerous. The response at Salient to Lindsay’s article had all the hallmarks of anal retentive PC attitude masked in ‘intellectualism.’

You’d have to be an idiot to think Lindsay wasn’t joking about the beating of students or shop assistants and I don’t think anyone at Salient did for a moment think he was serious. But even if he was serious, he’s talking about personality types he thinks should be beaten. People who wear annoying nose rings choose to do so, so while the flogging policy may be intolerant it’s still a degree or two away from beating people for their gender, something they can’t help. So sure, saying that section of the article is different actually does have some logical basis…too bad he was obviously joking, given the tone of the article up to (and during) that point not to mention Lindsays background.

All one needs to do is visit this web site and to see that Lindsay doesn’t have a bigoted bone in his body. He’s obviously on good terms with several women who post at this site. Any generalization he makes about woman is obviously in jest and just another sentence to be thrown in to ‘the battle of the sexes’ category. It’s like if a woman says, ‘All men are pigs.’ Do you get upset? Well not unless she’s actually seriously campaigning to exterminate all men or something. If it’s just a woman commenting on an observation she’s made that a lot of men tend to be chauvinistic sometimes, you would take it like that without insisting she phrase it in that way specifically. Why can’t you give Lindsay the same benefit of the doubt?

Political Correctness.

James V.: "...the burned rationalist may end up resenting Rand herself for having been his "prison.""

Yes, that is a similar point. But, I do think that there can be really well meaning people that get caught up the powerful force--like the moth to the flame.  Like Cheryl Taggart. She was wonderful character, just way out of her league.

http://www.MichaelNewberry.com

Leonid

I think that many people hate Rand because she is very unconventional.Objectivism requires paradigm shift,totaly new approach to the life issues and that apparently cause that people feel uncomfortable with it even if they agree with philosophy.They may explicitly accept Objectivism but they cannot digest,internalise it.Their preprogrammed subconsciousness objects,doesn't accept new values and creates conflict between their explicit philosophy and implicit believes.So they feel threatened.They project it to Rand.

"And Glenn, you know better than most how low they are, having dealt with their self-righteous neo-puritanical save-others-from-their-evil-thoughts behaviour on their site."

Yes I do. Which is why I think Mike is NOT one of "them". He's not the first to mistakenly think you were serious about an outrageous statement, and he won't be the last.

The true test of his character will come (or not come) in his reply to your reasonable umbrage taking.

1) The cult of rand, scary some times.. is it her fault, I doubt it.
2) Attempting an objectivist definition of what art is (in my opinion art is a subjective thing)....

Hence why I'd describe myself as libertarian leaning, even though I'd agree with 99% of what rand wrote.

As for hating however... not the case at all.

the looks of him he does not require converting.

Oh! hang on...did you mean libertarianism?

And I don't think he was accusing you of dishonesty. The lack of a sense of humour shouldn't make him a total write off. At least not right away.

Oh but it it does. It's in the Credo. "Lack of a sense of humour makes one a total write-off, right away." Keep up man!

Quoting the Credo to the boss. Hmmm, now I'm in trouble

More than you know. Your punishment is - to have this boy converted by year's end or be flogged, just like all those women who deserve it so.

He is better than those weasels on Salient, Lindsay. He's here for a start, with his name and his photo, standing behind what he says. In my book that sets him apart from the cowards - by some distance.

But that doesn't stop you from being disastrously wrong Mike. What it does mean is that we have a little more work to do. Not only do we have to change your philosophy, we need to get you a sense of humour.

Another thing, we're not "rightwingers". Well at least, I'm not. Take the quiz at the bottom, you'll find out where you sit, as well as where Libz and Objectivists do. It definitely isn't on the "right" with Adolf.

Linz, I think that Mike being on this board shows enough evidence of good faith to warrant this quote from the Credo: "...we acknowledge that Objectivism's critics can be honest, and should be granted more than a perfunctory discussion or two before being dismissed out of hand." And I don't think he was accusing you of dishonesty. The lack of a sense of humour shouldn't make him a total write off. At least not right away.

Quoting the Credo to the boss. Hmmm, now I'm in trouble

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html 

It's a very strange thing indeed, this Age of Umbrage. Folk take umbrage when there's no legitimate cause to, and censor and ban (or flounce) on the basis of their being offended, their hurt feelings. Yet when someone takes legitimate umbrage, as Rand did on the occasion in question, the umbrage brigade are on the side of the provocateur!

Glenn - The guy has accused me of dishonesty, insisting that my piece wasn't intended humorously when it was, and had to be clearly so to anyone but a moron or a PC youngster. He's saying I seriously believe in the flogging of women and hide behind humor, as a coward would, in promoting it. I guess that's slightly different from what the rest of Salient's Hitler Youth Thought Police were saying - yes, it was intended to be funny, but it was just offensive, so we took it out - but not better.

Now, study the subject of this thread. Should an Objectivist just "let it go" as convention would advise? Not *this* Objectivist! When I called those two-bit totalitarians "skanky scumbuckets" it wasn't just for the hell of alliterating. And Glenn, you know better than most how low they are, having dealt with their self-righteous neo-puritanical save-others-from-their-evil-thoughts behaviour on their site.

To paraphrase Jefferson, they have sworn, on the Altar of Adolf, eternal endorsement of every form of tyranny over the minds of men!

The guy said he'd come to learn about Objectivism. Great. Except that straight away he starts relitigating and defending Salient's Nazism. Not an auspicious start.

"Mike, you've just shown me, depressingly, you're no better than those cowardly halfwits who posted anonymously on the Salient website..."

He is better than those weasels on Salient, Lindsay. He's here for a start, with his name and his photo, standing behind what he says. In my book that sets him apart from the cowards - by some distance.

I'm in the camp of being quite comfortable with Rand's forceful responses to critics, but would also be comfortable with a less forceful response. It depends on what you want to accomplish and your personality.

I think the people who resent Rand's forceful responses are used to a social arena where it is culturally taboo to make an uncomfortable scene even over something which you consider nonnegotiable. In the case on the Donahue program, it is clearly the questioner who is the provocateur. I guess many folks consider that a comment from the peanut gallery. Like a classroom teacher, Rand would have her pick of appropriate responses, including the one she chose.

I think the point is that in the positive application of justice, you are within your rights to pursue it or not according to your objectively determined hierarchy of values. Context determines whether a response is demanded based on whether something is sufficiently injurious to your values.

Jim

I do think that what Michael said applies to some people. I would state it differently. Some Rand detractors who call themselves Objectivists have been unsucessful in life and are jealous. They also don't fully understand the philosophy, and a unable to apply it in their lives. That frustrates them.

My post was addressing the high achievers who hate Rand, but call themselves Objectivists.

However Michael's point comes from the view of an artist and has an additional important nuance that I hadn't considered. That is the lack of originality, and jealousy because of it.

I rest my case. The young "intellectuals" are humorless and utterly devoid of intellect thanks to brainwashing. But, sinisterly, militantly, fascistically stupid, intent on making their lumpen, PC moronry mandatory.

As Mark points out, women were to be flogged along with just about everyone else. It was all satire. Only the "women" bit got censored. If these PC fascists were sincere they wouldn't have published any of it.

Sigh.

How the hell did it ever come to this?!

Mike, you've just shown me, depressingly, you're no better than those cowardly halfwits who posted anonymously on the Salient website accusing me of pedophilia and Galt knows what. They're the lowest of the low. You should aspire to better than that.

Socialists have no sense of humour...so you are wasting your time.

We will just have to sigh and endure a series of righteous PC posts of increasing absurdity about the evils of capitalism and other things.

Firstly, welcome to the site Mike, great to have you here.

That said, you're being more than mischievous in your post below, you're being moronic. As I tried many times to post to the comments section of that Salient editorial, all of them censored, Linz's piece was satire (you need to look that up as you're obviously not aware of its meaning). He no more meant woman should in actuality be flogged, than Jonathan Swift meant, in his A modest Proposal, that the babies of the poor in Ireland should be eaten as a way to solve the particular problems of his time.

As I also tried to say in my censored comments to that thread, when I was doing my first degree over twenty years ago, students would have recognised his article as such, satire, not necessarily 'funny', but hard writing with a point. It is a sign of how PC and rotten our education sector has become that you would say, " It was an attack, plain and simple. It wasn't a joke, it wasn't intended to be laughter producing. Even if one could argue that it was deserved, it was not a joke."

'Joke' / 'satire' two very different things. Please don't wallow around in the shallow depths of tertiary education 101 vis a vis 2007 like this: read, think, get some sophistication.

I look forward to seeing more of your posts in SOLO. You're welcome here.

Perigo wrote about flogging women on the Salient website. It was censored.

BTW Lineberry - if you are involved with Free Radical and Libertarianz you will kill the party.

welcome to the website.

Is it possible to post on solopassion.com without referring to my good self?

With regards to Lindsay...you are going to be even less amused when you read the forthcoming issue of the Free Radical magazine

I missed that one, Mike... where'd that happen?

So what was wrong with Rand's personality? Nothing.

I think people hate Rand because she was a woman. Lineberry, and to a lesser extent  Perigo, seem to detest women. 

Sorry Mr Perigo, I don't think calls to beat women are funny.

don't think this question is one to get too engrossed in. There's a freedom in not getting hooked too deep into guessing people's motives - other's psyches can be fathomless black holes. (Ok, yes I've a little experience here. )

I think James' point on target:

there is a great truth here -- Rand's ideas must indeed be treated apart from her personality

That's the productive approach. It's refreshing, but it's also a hard thing to do, and rare. It's the approach to be cultivated - one Rand was into, and wanted more of. More light than heat. It's the realAdult (TM) world. (As an aside, Linz is to be praised for fostering this here on SOLO.)

Michael's theory has merit. Reckon that's a part of human nature that will always be with us - until we bring back corporal punishment and daily beatings with sticks. There's a book by lit critic Harold Bloom called 'The Anxiety of Influence' whose thesis is that great art gets produced as young artists seek a 'voice' to escape the dominating influence of prior greats. Like seeking an uninhabited world to make their own. (This is perhaps what you mean Michael by 'rediscovering their egos?') This is healthy cross-generational competition I think, and a good thing. (I'd add, a feature that's mostly present in the West, and a reason for its dominance.) Big people will seek to compete with other big people - both respecting & 'hating' them. Small people will just hate & nitpick. (Outside the west they tend to submit & comply - which is why western folk find holidays there so peaceful. )

(As an aside, the truth is you can't 'win' against a Beethoven, Mickyangel, or a Rand. You can only perhaps seek to join them in the first tier. I digress, digress, digress...)

For the record, Rand's response to that woman was spot on, and justly deserved. If that woman has grown up some she'd prob agree; but that takes a bit of maturity of character.

That's a good insight. To take it further, the burned rationalist may end up resenting Rand herself for having been his "prison." (Like Branden himself to some extent.) Even if he continues to admire her ideas, he may hold his own errors against Rand, despite Rand's warnings and pleas. Someone expecting Platonic perfection of Rand might feel equally betrayed on discovering some disagreement with her. Etc.

I still maintain that the enormous effort to smear Rand herself has taken its toll.

Lance,

I sent you PM, I don't want to hijack Bill's thread.

http://www.MichaelNewberry.com

And yes I was referencing a particular discussion on O-living.

Well if it was a naive question, I happily confess to naivety in this instance.
It's just that this:
Instead of stepping out and rediscovering their egos, they look for any criticism of Rand to prove to themselves that they think and act for themselves.
Is a way of putting it where I think 'Rand' can be removed and replaced with X. Where X is anything 'good' that has to be derided to make one feel superior.

Lance,

Sure.

You make me laugh.

Michael

http://www.MichaelNewberry.com

Michael do you find that attitude coming through in 'Objectivist' criticisms of art? The 'Objecti-kitsch' pejorative for instance.

I have a different theory why many people attracted to Rand constantly look for her faults:

Her works are very forceful, they call to mind Beethoven in music and Michelangelo in visual art. Young people become fascinated and awed by her insights. As they grow older they discover that all their important thoughts are derived from Rand. They find that they don’t have anything of originality to add to the discussion. Instead of stepping out and rediscovering their egos, they look for any criticism of Rand to prove to themselves that they think and act for themselves.

The most simple solution to this problem is to take a stance by what you do.

http://www.MichaelNewberry.com

I think Rand would have responded to an unsolicited inquiry from Toohey just as she had Roark do: "But I don't think of you." Equally, though, Roark on live TV being "asked" - "I used to admire your buildings but now I'm more educated ...." would probably have responded much as Rand did.

Linz

....to withhold your contempt from men's vices is an act of moral counterfeiting, and to withhold your admiration from their virtues is an act of moral embezzlement—that to place any other concern higher than justice is to devaluate your moral currency and defraud the good in favor of the evil, since only the good can lose by a default of justice and only the evil can profit—and that the bottom of the pit at the end of that road, the act of moral bankruptcy, is to punish men for their virtues and reward them for their vices, that that is the collapse to full depravity, the Black Mass of the worship of death, the dedication of your consciousness to the destruction of existence.

In one sense, the art of "letting go" is one of Howard Roark's chief attributes in 'The Fountainhead,' but so is standing on certain principles, which are never -- ever -- to be "let go" of.

Abusiveness serves no purpose.

Strong and well-grounded evaluation is essential.

"Also, to start getting stuck into someone presupposes [you] are correct and they are wrong, which is often not the case...and it would be good if people were intelligent enough to debate things quietly without getting irate and abusive, which is a sign of ignorance."

Well put. People hate to be wrong and will sometimes keep digging themselves into a whole no matter how wrong they are

I haven't studied Ayan Rands Philisophy or Objectivists but have learnt some very valuble lessons from Mister Perigo on talk back, about those subjects, especially about politics. One should always be open to new ideas and not be reactive if they chalenge his current reasoning.

is a tricky one.

I am not a chap to engage in personal abuse, so to start being rude to someone is rather a foreign, unnatural concept.

On the other hand...is 'let[ting] it go' a sign of weakness?

Also, to start getting stuck into someone presupposes [you] are correct and they are wrong, which is often not the case...and it would be good if people were intelligent enough to debate things quietly without getting irate and abusive, which is a sign of ignorance.

I'd say all three reasons you give, Bill, but especially the third. Convention says, "Be merciful." Objectivism says, "Be just." Convention says to Ayn re the questioner who began with an insult, "Let it go." Objectivism says, "Stop the bitch right there and KASS her." Convention makes a virtue of KASSlessness. And most Objectivists are conventional in their actual behaviour. The victor is injustice.

Justice, of course, is what the Brandens dread - hence their song-and-dance routine about being nice to everyone. Except Ayn, of course. Or anyone who disagrees with them.

Rand is reviled and dismissed because of her ideas, as we all know.

However, the critics have not (usually) focused on the substance of those ideas. Indeed, Rand's arguments and integrations are not really understood by most of these "critics" -- they just know that they are opposed to her conclusions -- especially atheism, on the one hand, and laissez faire, on the other. Whether it was Mr. Chambers at 'National Review' or Professor Nozick in the pages of 'The Personalist,' most of Rand's critics have been plainly mistaken about what Rand actually said.

Thus, much of the focus of the attack has been elsewhere: Rand's personality, her "cult of personality," etc.

A comprehensive philosophy, complete with ethics, but rejecting conventional religion? Why, OF COURSE, it's a "cult"! The "Gospel According to Ayn Rand," as one 'National Review' headline put it.

And certain one-time admirers have been instrumental in helping this line of attack along. Murray Rothbard recoiled from the comprehensive implications of Objectivism -- his radicalism was distinctly political. (He also had the good sense to distrust Mr. Branden.) But he proceeded to make up stuff, exaggerate other stuff, and paint an image of Rand and her circle that has been closely followed by such sloppy scholars as Tuccille.

Into this morass of distortion came the Branden split. Exploiting the image already being generated, they suggested that they, too, had been "victims" of the Straw Ayn of those constructions. Their histories artfully camouflaged their own faults, as well as the ton of evidence they have to contradict that portrait of Rand, behind this very image.

This is the atmosphere in which young students or admirers of Rand live. Their souls may be fine enough to admire Howard Roark, but even they do not wholly escape the pressures of social metaphysics. "Sure, many of Rand's ideas are worthy of serious attention, but, you know, she was a deeply neurotic control freak... and her acolytes!"

Why get into all of that?

Surely, there is a great truth here -- Rand's ideas must indeed be treated apart from her personality -- and this has been one the fundamental errors of the critics.

But insofar as these "admirers" of Rand concede the biographical point, sometimes out of sheer social convenience in my experience, they commit a great injustice to both Rand and, in a signifcant way, her ideas.