Ban Communists?

[DavidV]

That said, as a person who has not YET specifically declared himself a full-fledged Objectivist, I would hate to be relegated to some small area of the forum reserved for the neophytes.

…and I certainly don’t want to restrict this site to some level of knowledge of Objectivism. In fact, I only discovered Ayn Rand a few years ago, and have yet to read most of the non-fiction. This is a learning experience for me as well.

To suggest that the objectivist philosophy suffers and wouldn't be worth pursuing because one was banned from this forum is illogical.

That’s a good point. If someone honest and genuinely interested in Objectivism is banned by mistake, he should not consider that experience as indicate of the philosophy.

[RationalBiker]

…and I certainly don’t want to restrict this site to some level of knowledge of Objectivism. In fact, I only discovered Ayn Rand a few years ago, and have yet to read most of the non-fiction. This is a learning experience for me as well.

Thanks for addressing that concern. I should clarify that it wasn't that I actually thought you were considering doing that so much as that it was one of the suggestions (or very similar) I had read earlier in the thread.

VES

[Betsy]

Here are some of the questions I consider to determine who is a troll:

Are they overwhelmingly negative, bitter, or sarcastic?

That is VERY important. One of the two main things I look for in assessing whether someone is Good Objectivist Material is whether or not he is VALUE ORIENTED. Is his primary motivation the things he loves and wants, or is he only concerned with the evil of other people, the difficulties and dangers of life, etc?

Do they offer intelligent responses to their opposition, or just keep repeating the same thing?

Do they ignore an intelligent response in one thread and start another repeating the same point?

That depends. Some people have an immoveable agenda unaffected by facts and that is bad. Others persist because their questions have not been answered to their satisfaction. Since I am often the court of last resort ("I give up. Betsy, YOU talk to him.), I persuade many an opponent by actually listening to him, finding out what his REAL issue is, and answering it. Of course, not everyone has the interest or patience to do that -- or ought to. My point is that many difficult, stubborn people are not hopeless.

Do they twist and fabricate common-sense facts?

That is VERY BAD. That is something an honest person, no matter how screwed up, just doesn't do. My second criteria for Good Objectivist Material is being REALITY ORIENTED. Twisting facts indicates someone for whom there is something more important than reality. The chances of gaining values from such a person is doubtful and dealing with him may be risky.

When I rebuke them, do they claim that I am obligated to provide them with a forum to express their views?

Personally, I do not like to watch someone being rebuked even if he's really a schmuck. I would rather see his false ideas challenged in a forum like this, and the personal assessments left to private e-mail between the affected parties. OO certainly is your forum and you don't owe anybody anything.

If they disagree with Objectivism, are they here to learn or to spread propaganda and insults?

If the latter, I would point them towards humanities.philosophy.objectivism instead.

[dondigitalia]

If the latter, I would point them towards humanities.philosophy.objectivism instead.   

I used to read h.p.o until I discovered this forum (I came across your posts quite frequently, Betsy )

The insults and hostility are exactly the reason why I left and came here. Such behavior is uncalled for in intelligent discussion.

[Dismuke]

The insults and hostility are exactly the reason why I left [humanities.philosophy.objectivism] and came here. Such behavior is uncalled for in intelligent discussion.

Intelligent discussion can be difficult in h.p.o. which has close to zero moderation. I say "close to zero" because postings are screened for mentions of a certain organization that basically flooded the older alt.philosophy.objectivism newsgroup with spam messages and made any form of discussion, intelligent or otherwise, all but impossible. Hpo was formed in response to that takeover and virtually all of the former a.p.o posters moved over to h.p.o.

Other than that, virtually anything goes on hpo. Want to say something positive and constructive about Objectivism? That's on topic. Do you want to attack and/or misrepresent Objectivism? That's on topic too. Want to assert that shock jock Howard Stern is more knowledgeable about Objectivism than certain top Objectivist scholars - well, such an assertion has been made there and it, too, is considered on topic.

You won't learn very much about Objectivism on h.p.o - but you will learn a lot about the methods and motives of various types of people who harbor hostility towards Objectivism. Posting there can be instructive too - that is if you have a thick skin and are prepared to deal with the flames and arrows which will inevitably be thrown at you. The main value of hpo is what Ayn Rand once referred to as "learning in reverse." Responding to a posting by an anarchist, tolerationist or a nihilist forces you to focus on the nature of the falsehood and to identify the correct answer to the issue at hand. It forces you to apply your understanding of Objectivism and to formulate it in your own words. If you are not able to clearly articulate your understanding of an issue in your own words, that's a pretty good sign that you still lack a sufficiently complete understanding of all the relevant nuances of it. There were a number of times during my hpo days when I would stumble across a position that I knew was totally absurd but I couldn't quite answer off the top of my head. Thinking about why the other person's position was absurd and about the best way to objectively demonstrate to others that it was absurd actually helped me apply and deepen my understanding of Objectivism. In that sense, h.p.o. can be a positive and productive experience. But if you are looking for the level of quality and civility that you find in moderated forums - well, that's never going to be possible in any unmoderated forum about a topic as controversial as Objectivism.

If anyone here doubts the need for active moderation, spend a couple of days reading hpo and you will quickly become a convert.

As to the issue of whether or not to ban communists, my question is this: why just single out communists? There have been a lot of good arguments put forth about why communists are bad and potentially disruptive to the forum. But, if you stop and think about it, the exact same arguments can pretty much be made about environmentalists, animal rights activists, anarchists, supernaturalists and all sorts of others that I am sure everyone here can add to the list. Why not come up with a policy that encompasses all people who might prove disruptive? My next question is this: isn't such a policy already in place?

Looking at the "Forum Policies" section on this site, one will find the following:

This means that this website should not be used to spread ideas contrary or unrelated to Objectivism.

Doesn't that just about cover the whole spectrum - including communists? It looks to me that such a policy is already in place and the only real question is one of elaboration and enforcement. GreedyCapitialist has provided an example of such elaboration:

Are they overwhelmingly negative, bitter, or sarcastic?

Do they offer intelligent responses to their opposition, or just keep repeating the same thing?

Do they ignore an intelligent response in one thread and start another repeating the same point?

Do they twist and fabricate common-sense facts?

Do they copy/paste mass volumes of their own/others content from other sources/forums?

When I rebuke them, do they claim that I am obligated to provide them with a forum to express their views?

If they disagree with Objectivism, are they here to learn or to spread propaganda and insults?

I think that is a decent starting point - though the basic points would probably need to be reworded to a format more suitable for a statement of policy.

Think about it - if someone who considers himself a Marxist stumbles across Ayn Rand and comes here with a sincere desire to better understand the Objectivist viewpoint and is well mannered, respectful and asks intelligent questions, well, who can object to that? I can't say that I recall ever meeting such a Marxist or that there are very many of them out there - but to whatever degree they do exist, such people are not a problem.

I think the big thing to watch out for is hostility (as opposed to mere disagreement) towards Objectivism, i.e. people who are "overwhelmingly negative, bitter, or sarcastic." That kind of person is a problem - regardless as to whether he considers himself a communist, capitalist or flat earther. My experience, and I suspect most everyone else's as well, is that the overwhelming majority of communists who enter the site will probably fall into that category. That is why such people should be banned - not because they happen to be communists. My concern about specifically singling out communists for a ban is that it gives them a certain visibility as well as a (false) appearance of potency in the eyes of Objectivists that I don't think they deserve or are capable of earning on their own.

[AwakeAndFree]

The main question is: do you see OO as a medium to SPREAD Objectivism to the ignorant masses, or as a place where OBJECTIVISTS can share knowledge and values?

If it's the first - then you should be less strict on dissenting views. If it's the latter, then anyone who interferes and obstructs this goal - anyone hostile or even too far removed from the ideas of Objectivism should not be allowed to participate.

In any case, some obviously evil ideologies, like Nazism and consistent Communism or Egalitarianism, should not be given a stage on an Objectivist forum, in my opinion.

[dondigitalia]

You won't learn very much about Objectivism on h.p.o - but you will learn a lot about the methods and motives of various types of people who harbor hostility towards Objectivism. Posting there can be instructive too - that is if you have a thick skin and are prepared to deal with the flames and arrows which will inevitably be thrown at you.

I never had any hostility thrown at me (because I never posted there), but I did find the hostility counterproductive to my learning about Objectivism, which is the reason I went there in the first place. It is important to hear both sides to be able to correctly assess which is right and which is wrong, but personal attacks and hostile language don't provide intelligent arguments.

In short, my opinion on the question posed in this thread: Yes, David should allow communists to participate in discussion on this forum, provided they can debate in an intelligent, respectful, and mature manner.

[Dismuke]

I never had any hostility thrown at me (because I never posted there), but I did find the hostility counterproductive to my learning about Objectivism, which is the reason I went there in the first place.

You are certainly correct about hpo - but I would caution people about their expectations of "learning about Objectivism" from any discussion forum, even if it is well moderated and the participants are mostly sincere and honest Objectivists. The best place to learn about Objectivism is obviously through Ayn Rand's own writings. After one has finished with them, one should then branch out to works and recorded lectures that are available by highly knowledgeable and respected professional Objectivists. That's not to say that there is not a lot of value in participating in discussion forums such as this one - and there are people here who are very knowledgeable about Objectivism. The primary value of Objectivist discussion forums is the ability to interact and exchange ideas with people who share your values and are like-minded intellectually. You can learn a great deal by interacting with such people - but you have to always keep in mind that people you encounter in discussion forums or community Objectivist groups speak only for themselves and not Objectivism. I mention this because, over the years, I have run across a number of people who have had a negative opinion about Objectivism or some aspect of Objectivism which was based not on anything that Objectivism ever had to say but rather something that some student of Objectivism once said. I saw a number of people on hpo who had only recently discovered Objectivism end up siding with the Kelley camp based on arguments that were made there. How on earth can one make a judgment about which camp is most consistent with Objectivism when one has barely studied the philosophy?

[dondigitalia]

I agree entirely.

[BlackSabbath]

Think about it - if someone who considers himself a Marxist stumbles across Ayn Rand and comes here with a sincere desire to better understand the Objectivist viewpoint and is well mannered, respectful and asks intelligent questions, well, who can object to that?  I can't say that I recall ever meeting such a Marxist or that there are very many of them out there - but to whatever degree they do exist, such people are not a problem.

I think the big thing to watch out for is hostility (as opposed to mere disagreement) towards Objectivism, i.e.  people who are "overwhelmingly negative, bitter, or sarcastic."  That kind of person is a problem - regardless as to whether he considers himself a communist, capitalist or flat earther.  My experience, and I suspect most everyone else's as well, is that the overwhelming majority of communists who enter the site will probably fall into that category. That is why such people should be banned - not because they happen to be communists. My concern about specifically singling out communists for a ban is that it gives them a certain visibility as well as a (false) appearance of potency in the eyes of Objectivists that I don't think they deserve or are capable of earning on their own.

The ban should apply to anyone who supports totalitarianism.

I've very rarely come across a Marxist who wants to discuss. Given that Marxism espouses polylogism, they don't believe discussion is possible.

It is usually a case of "Rant! Tax! Loot! Smash! Kill! Corporations are Capitalist! America is Capitalist! The rich are Capitalist! Rape! Pillage! Massacre Jews!"

Marxists are the most common form of troll anyway and greens are just commies in disguise anyway.

If we get rid of those who are openly irrational then it leaves those of us who are rational to discuss what is right and wrong properly.

There is no value in debating with an irrationalist.

[Dwendl]

I wouldn't want to share my time with communists any more than I'd want to share it with a skunk. Doing so would make it no less offensive, and I'd feel the urgent need to wash myself afterward.

[soviet_revolutionary]

I must say, this is reiculous. Where is the freedom of speech that you objectivists love?

Communism, Marxism, etc. Is not a horrible. thing as your propoganda machine is setting out to be.

[Thoyd Loki]

The prior post here should be the definitive answer. The mass of facts that fly by in a single sentence from a troll is astounding. It is like fighting a 1st grader in math. That is assuming that some of these trolls are even really making an argument and not blowing time making trouble for trouble's sake.

I've been posting at CapMag for awhile, and when a troll comes we swarm over it like flies on a corpse. The mod will come in later, yell at us for arguing with trolls, and 86 the troll. Seems to work well, by the time the mod gets to it, the troll has exposed himself quite clearly.

[AMERICONORMAN]

Certainly “Communists” should not be banned because of the prevalence of “Good in theory but bad in practice”. But politics is so superficial and there is more fundamental information available on this forum. Also, Kantians shouldn’t be banned immediately because, if he’s a true Kantian, most of us with a certain psycho-epistemology won’t be able to deal with him. We should let intellectual self-interest be our guiding rule. In some case it will be to our self-interest that we accept the challenge from Kantians, for example.

Americo.

[BreathofLife]

If they have an honest interest in learning about objectivism and don't cause any trouble I say let them be.

If they come to argue senselessly and post propaganda- ban them

[aynfan]

As long as people behave, i.e., are polite and not abusive, why should they be banned? Banning ideas is like burning books. Those who don't have patience with specific discussions can simply ignore the posts and respond to the posts that interest them.

If they behave badly, warn, but make it clear why their behavior is unacceptable to you. They may not automatically know. If they don't reform, then ban them. But if any banning is done, David should do it.

[DavidOdden]

As long as people behave, i.e., are polite and not abusive, why should they be banned?  Banning ideas is like burning books.  Those who don't have patience with specific discussions can simply ignore the posts and respond to the posts that interest them. 

If they behave badly, warn, but make it clear why their behavior is unacceptable to you. They may not automatically know.  If they don't reform, then ban them.

That depends on what you mean by "abusive". A third and quite valid reason for banning a person is being repeatedly and flagrantly off-topic. There are plenty of places that a person can post anti-Objectivist, pro-communist propaganda. Way too many. What makes this forum extremely attractive is that you actually can have a sustained discussion of Objectivism without having to weed out 95% of the posts that show up because they are New Age nonsense. The problem with the "just ignore it" approach is that once the signal to noise ratio gets too low, it's more efficient to ignore the entire forum (this is the problem with HPO). Knee-jerk banning is not a good idea and an articulate outsider intellignetly challenging the ideas of Objectivism is a good thing: but banning is not an intrinsically bad thing. It can be vital to the healthy continuance of this forum.

But if any banning is done, David should do it.

I don't think it's my place

[aynfan]

A third and quite valid reason for banning a person is being repeatedly and flagrantly off-topic.

Getting off topic is easy to do. I have seen it here on topics I initiated that I just gave up on. But you are not talking about a 'natural drift' or segue to a tangential issue, but a deliberate attempt to disrupt and I agree it should be punished.

I admit to being new to this activity, so I am not as familiar as others with the inherent annoyances.

But forgive me, when I said David should do the banning, I meant Greedy Capitalist, did I get his name wrong?

[aynfan]

Everyone I have met, who is an exObjectivist, which is approximately 50 people, now mostly libertarian, gave as their rational for being exObjectivist as either they were fed up with thought police, or they had to check their premises before smelling a flower or enjoying a sunset, i.e., that Objectivists were no fun.

I repeat, banning ideas is akin to burning books and I will add, being cloistered is not a lot of fun. A site that is a monastic sect of Objectivist schlars will not grow much, but maybe it shouldn't.

[Betsy]

Everyone I have met, who is an exObjectivist, which is approximately 50 people, now mostly libertarian, gave as their rational for being exObjectivist as either they were fed up with thought police, or they had to check their premises before smelling a flower or enjoying a sunset, i.e., that Objectivists were no fun.

That's because THEY took Objectivism as a dogma.

Nobody polices MY thoughts except me. I trust my own judgement and ask nobody's permission to enjoy a sunset or a flower.

And I have loads and loads of fun.

[sean88]

judging by the way all you guys (no girls? hardly surprising...) went off on your communist enemies I would say that that this group surpasses the socialist front in militancy and social coercion. very sad boys, and also very pathetic. still, i'm glad that everybody had a chance to go off on a strawman enemy.

best regards

[DavidOdden]

judging by the way all you guys (no girls? hardly surprising...)

That comment was remarkably lame. Look up, dude.

[aynfan]

That's because THEY took Objectivism as a dogma.

I think you have hit upon the crux of the matter. Why do many react to Objectivism in this way?

My PERSONAL OPINION is that Objectivism is unique in way it guards against the possibility that someone may say something wrong in the name of Ayn Rand. Other philosophers and philsophies just put it out there, let people chew on it, comment on it, drive it around the block, try it out. If a misunderstanding or misapplication results, there will be a clarification by the author, but there is no attempt to prevent a 'heresy' IN ADVANCE.

[Betsy]

That's because THEY took Objectivism as a dogma.

I think you have hit upon the crux of the matter.  Why do many react to Objectivism in this way? 

They do because Objectivists are people and almost all people, from the time their parent's tell them "It's so because I say so" all through their entire adult lives, hold all their moral ideas as dogma. Exposure to Objectivism isn't going to change that overnight.

[aynfan]

They do because Objectivists are people and almost all people, from the time their parent's tell them "It's so because I say so" all through their entire adult lives, hold all their moral ideas as dogma.  Exposure to Objectivism isn't going to change that overnight.

I don't think Objectivism fosters the kind of change you are suggesting. Os beleive there is one answer, the correct one. Personally, I share this belief particularly when it comes to observing the uiniverse and in determining ethical beheavior.

I believe the difficulty arises when Os talk about values. Judgement is a responsibily, but judgement properly belongs to the areas of Epistemology, Metaphysics and Ethics. When judgements are extended to what others value, we are in very complex waters. There can be no single answer, no right or wrong in this area, at best, one can is suggest that a value is questionable and should be reexamined.

An argument could be made, for example, that the value Ayn Rand placed on Mickey Spilane or her 'ricky-tick' music was misplaced. She is, of course, forgiven, because of who she is, but a lesser figure in the movement will often be harshly centured for liking the wrong book or the wrong movie. When judgement is exercised and even an imperative in the realm of values, observers invariably conclude that Objectivism is dogmatic and employs thought police.