A pity no one will see this rare instance of my backing off one of my intemperate remarks, since the discussion has now been consigned to the oblivion below the fold. . .

JR

I am certain that Jeff Riggenbach and I would be able to have a fruitful conversation should we meet at Crab House over 'Killer Crab.' We would start with a toast to intemperance, crush the shells with our teeth -- and end by slathering the table with invective and garlic butter, bonding over epithets such as 'Fraud Weiss' and 'anarcho-saddamanimosity.'

It seems Jeff wishes to press the point that Ed Hudgins' remarks above were of a kind -- not civil. I disagree (bearing in mind there is a scale of incivility rather than an on/off switch). I do have some empathy for Jeff, however. He is a good writer who calls it as he sees it -- and yet is from time to time derided as a mere fustigater. He is not a mere fustigater. He fustigates that and those he finds uninformed or bloated with righteous ignorance.

Let us grant him, for the sake of argument, his premises: Ed's remarks, taken as a whole, tend to be read as an indictment of Objectivist folk; Ed's remarks cross some hot red line into the realm of fighting words.

From this point of view, the isolated adjectives he has plucked from Ed's discourse are odious and intemperate, an incitement. Ed's statement that "I am trying to devise ways to reduce the irrationality and malevolence found in the movement" may be taken as a blanket condemnation of Objectivists.

It takes just a little tweaking of the notion of incivility to agree with Jeff's premises. That which encourages anger and vituperation, that which fuels greater conflict, that which stands as a red flag taunting a bull.

Do I understand Jeff's greater underlying points? Perhaps not. Do I enjoy the tone and register of his remarks? Yes, indeed. It is as if Jeff the Bull trots down the cobbles of Pamplona through thickets of red flags and hordes of jeering idiots.

That Jeff may hook and disembowel the occasional ally in the horde is irrelevant to the pleasure one can take in the rampage. He takes intellectual dudgeon to new heights and makes SOLO even more of a wonderland.

I close with a quote from SOLO's founder and principal:

I always wanted SOLO to be a place where ARIans, TOCites & homeless Objectivists & non-Objectivists & even good-faith anti-Objectivists could engage, since ARI doesn't allow such engagement & TOC qua TOC engages in very little except sleep. We are seeing, in part, precisely such engagement, if I'm not mistaken. But I want to do better than that. I want to see a new Objectivist culture that embodies "rational passion & passionate reason," "the total passion for the total height"

WSS

Okay, Shirk, suppose I write (or declare in a speech) that "W.S. Shirk's behavior is tendentious in the extreme. His statements, moreover, when examined closely, turn out to be the intellectual equivalent of an unwiped asshole. Worst of all, the entire movement with which he has chosen to associate himself is scummy from top to bottom."

I've been "civil," haven't I? I never said anything about you. I only discussed your statements, your behavior, and your movement.

What a wonderful world to live in.

"I find Jeff Riggenbach, for example, belligerent and incoherent . . ."

Of course you do. You're clearly incapable of understanding the simplest thing.

JR

"Calling someone a name is different from describing their behavior."

Boy, you really are thick, aren't you? Okay, suppose I "describe your behavior" as "stupid," "clueless," "retarded," and "moronic." In the wonderful world of Personally Disingenuous Newspeak, am I being "civil"?

"Pulling adjectives from someone's post is as relevant and pulling the letters."

"[I]s as relevant and pulling the letters." Is English your first language?

"Civility is often not hypocritical when you are dealing with the mentally healthy."

Ah, so you believe in "mental health," do you? How about Santa Claus? Do you believe in him, too?

JR

TAS has admitted that other TAS lecturers have been uncivil, including the bizarre-conspiracy-obsessed nut-case, Campbell. These have even ripped on TAS pretty hard -- and with a certain lack of civility.

If TAS had any perspective, they'd be able to see that Ms. Branden's defamation of Linz makes his name-calling seem tame.

But, any bets on whether she gets another invite?

Their motives are as transparent as they are dishonest.

Riggenbach mischaracterized Hudgins remarks. He writes: [Hudgins] says these other Objectivists are "irrational," "juvenile," "undignified," "vulgar," "spiteful," and "malevolent."

Well, no, as Scott points out clearly.

[Hudgins] says . . . Objectivists are "irrational."

No. Hudgins says . . . 'repudiating undignified statements and irrational behavior'

[Hudgins] says . . . Objectivists are "juvenile."

No. Hudgins says . . . 'I've criticized as counter-productive the juvenile name-calling'

[Hudgins] says . . . Objectivists are "undignified."

No. Hudgins says . . . 'one common goal--repudiating undignified statements'

[Hudgins] says . . . Objectivists are "vulgar."

No. Hudgins says . . . 'my interest in fostering a commitment to a mature, civil Objectivist movement [ . . . ] rather than a vulgar and spiteful [movement]'

[Hudgins] says . . . Objectivists are "spiteful."

No. Hudgins says . . . 'rather than a vulgar and spiteful [movement]'

[Hudgins] says . . . Objectivists are "malevolent."

No. Hudgins says . . . 'I am trying to devise ways to reduce the irrationality and malevolence found in the movement'

Even if Hudgins had railed against [some] Objectivists that he found unintelligent, belligerent, incoherent, devious, addled, stupefied by incomprehension . . . as in "I find Jeff Riggenbach, for example, belligerent and incoherent" -- this is still a civil remark. There is a difference between calling someone stupefied by incomprehension and calling someone a tendentious asshole scumbag.

WSS

Calling someone a name is different from describing their behavior. 

Pulling adjectives from someone's post is as relevant and pulling the letters. 

Civility is often not hypocritical when you are dealing with the mentally healthy. 

"If you will take the time to read Ed's post again you will notice that he isn't insulting anyone. Perhaps he has done so in other posts but this one is innocent."

I find this statement fanciful to say the very least. Where, pray tell, do you suppose I got the list of adjectives I used in my original comment in this thread? I'm speaking here of "irrational," "juvenile," "undignified," "vulgar," "spiteful," and "malevolent."

I got these adjectives from Ed's post. Do you imagine that he was applying them to furniture or other inanimate objects? On the contrary - he was applying them to other Objectivists who don't live up to his standards of discussion and argumentation. But he doesn't just say that, does he? No. He says these other Objectivists are "irrational," "juvenile," "undignified," "vulgar," "spiteful," and "malevolent." This is not insulting?

"Do you have a problem with civility when it isn't hypocritical?"

When isn't it hypocritical?

JR

As I wrote in The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, there are two types of attack which, alas, characterize too much of the critical discussion of Rand's work. First is the misrepresentation of what she actually said. A good example is Michael Novak's absurd mention at National Review recently. The second is the distraction of ad hominem and irrelevant excursions into Branden-based accounts of Rand's private life. In PARC, I showed that this had reared its ugly head even in the pages of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.

One early critic of PARC claimed that attacks on Rand's personal life were not much of a distraction at all.

But, since then, many more examples have appeared in various other media and in numerous internet conversations. Some journalists just can't resist.

Closer to home, I find that it interrupts substantive conversation even here at SOLO.

For an example, look at the thread entitled "The Case Against Hume," which has to date 278 posts and 5345 reads. There, I was doing my very best to explain and defend Rand's metaethical position. As you can see, from this post forward, this fellow Brendan, seemingly at a loss for anything else to come back with, felt it a good idea to mention the Rand-Branden affair in lurid and derogatory terms.

After all of my efforts, what must I confront in a philosophical conversation? Rand's private life as a smear.

People yammer away about the evils of schism and denunciation and cult, but the great scars on the Objectivist movement all came from wounds delivered by the Brandens: it was they who first created a "cult" -- it was they who lied to Rand for years, making a break with Rand (of course) inevitable -- and it was they who ripped into the old wounds of Rand's old friends by publishing their self-serving accounts of Rand's private life. (Oh, yeah, and reopening forty year old wounds is all the fault of PARC, according to Professor Campbell.)

You guys at TAS did not require any commitments from the Brandens before they came to speak, but doing so cost you important associations. Haven't you already paid a sufficient price to the Brandens in your own blood without having to reverse an invitation to Linz on hypocritical grounds, too?

[edit.: How do you classify Ms. Branden's accusations, and endorsement of accusations, alleging Linz to be a drunk? I mean, civility wise?]

And you can't invite Linz to speak -- in reality -- because of the pressure coming at you from the defenders of the Brandens -- 'cause, well, he's a "Branden-basher"? (I think we can dispense with the phony "civility" distraction, at this point, don't you?)

Whatever your "final decision" is about Linz, your greatest crime involving the history of your lectures is not your current mistreatment of Linz. It is, of course, your promotion of the Brandens themselves.

You say, Ed, that you doubt that either Linz or I would want your responsibilities of fund raising and the like, and, speaking for myself, you couldn't be more right.

But when I am fighting in the trenches of ideas -- trying to convey one of the profound truths which Rand first articulated -- and whenever Rand's sex life suddenly comes up, like this -- I know just who to thank for it: you and your fund raising and all of the Branden bootlicking that you have inspired.

Thanks for responding.  If you will take the time to read Ed's post again you will notice that he isn't insulting anyone.  Perhaps he has done so in other posts but this one is  innocent. 

Do you have a problem with civility when it isn't hypocritical?

If Linz has caused a bunch of good "Objectivists" to unjustifiably "suffer," should he have been invited at all, Dr. Hudgins? I mean, ethically speaking.

If it's so bad a deal as to require some new "commitment" on his part, then why wasn't this caveat included in the original invite?

Was it only the pressure from OL and Ms. Branden which caused you to add this request? (On the surface, this appears to be the case, but please correct me if I am wrong.)

If the folks at OL, including some TAS lecturers, have also been "uncivil," as both you and Mr. Bidinotto agree is the case, then will the same "challenge" be issued to them before they can speak again? And will the same public "commitment" be required of them?

The incivility only seems to be continuing over at OL -- they do not appear to even be interested in either civility or open debate. Neither seems consistent with the instant TAS policy statements... If not, what do you intend to do about it?

I've noticed that many of the more asinine comments on this site begin with the smug assumption that the poster has the slightest idea what he or she is talking about. Thanks to Mr. Personally Disingenuous for illustrating this point so eloquently.

"Civility" is extremely important to those who prefer to insult their opponents by calling them "juvenile," rather than by calling them "asinine" or "smug."

JR

I just held my nose and went to Lying to see what kind of reception Ed's (and Bidinotto's) admonitions had received. Depressingly predictable. The outpouring of implacable hatred continues, with Linz as the Anti-Christ and TAS as his enabler. An exercise "without prejudice" is touted as "kiss and make up" with Linz the Evil One, an act of cosmic prostitution. The Church of the Holy Brandens is aggrieved. The Goddess Babs has been insulted and blasphemed against. Nothing less than a slow stake-burning will do, and even that's too good for The Evil One.

It's all Valliant's fault, of course. He and that damned book. He should be slow-roasted at the same time. It was he who first showed what this latest controversy has reinforced so starkly - that that which the Brandens accuse Rand of is precisely what they, NOT Rand, were and are guilty of, and a lot more besides. I believe there's a name for this in psychology. In ethics it might be called rank hypocrisy and humbug.

And what's going on at Lying is just plain old medieval hysteria.

Linz

I've noticed that many arguments on this site start with misread comments.  Such as the example JR was kind enough to provide. 

Civility is extremely important.

"I helped lead Heritage Foundation delegations in 1989 and 1990 to the then-Soviet Union to conduct free-market seminars. I was under no illusions about the nature of that regime, and I accepted no 'moral equivalence' view between the U.S. and USSR. I was looking for ways to undermine that Soviet regime. I didn’t want simply to denounce it and argue against it from the outside. I looked for other ways to affect change, to actually make a difference. We were criticized by some of our supporters at that time for associating with members of the Communist Party."

Were you criticized for associating with conservatives (the Heritage Foundation)? Were you under any illusions about the nature of their political movement? Why would a good Objectivist lend implicit moral sanction to a bunch of traditionalist authoritarians? It was not for nothing that Ayn Rand wrote, in the very first issue of The Objectivist Newsletter, that "Objectivists are *not* conservatives."

"Some seem to forget that statements published on the Internet are archived forever for the entire world to see, and for future generations to ponder."

Would that it were so. On the contrary, there's all sorts of valuable stuff that was on the Internet as recently as a decade ago that is now utterly gone.

As to "civility," the main thrust of this post - well, it remains unclear to me why it is "civil" to label one's opponents "irrational," "juvenile," "undignified," "vulgar," "spiteful," and "malevolent," but it is somehow "uncivil" for one's opponents to say equally unkind things about *their* adversaries. Is it because they employ different words?

Is it "civil," for example, to label Mr. Hudgins's case for "civility" as "irrational," "juvenile," "undignified," "vulgar," "spiteful," and "malevolent," but "uncivil" to label it as a load of horse shit?

JR