Dismuke

KESG - I am curious - what name did you used to post under when you were on hpo? If you don't want to answer, I understand and apologize for asking. Also, since you are from Fort Worth - do I know you? I can think of three other people from Fort Worth who used to be on hpo - but none of them were there for very long.

Except that I don't think the possibility of ARI "screening its employees" could even be applicable in this instance since the employee in question, Dr. Yaron Brook, happens to be the Executive Director - i.e., the top dog. He is the person that all of the ARI staff answers to - so any "screening" would basically involve Dr. Brook screening himself. Sure, he does answer to a Board of Directors. But there are very few organizations where a board of directors is going to actually meet and micromanage what is basically a matter of routine day-to-day operational minutia. I can think of a number of potential reasons why ARI might want to review and approve such a transcript. One possibility strikes me as being extremely likely: rather than looking to edit out certain passages, my guess is that they might want the opportunity to add additional comments and clarifications to the transcript. One of the problems inherent with any live Q&A session is one's answers must be formulated extemporaneously - and such answers are NOT always going to be as precise as they would if the person had the time and opportunity to answer them in writing. I suspect that, because of the limitations and pitfalls of speaking extemporaneously, ARI may very well want the opportunity to look for potentially unclear or inadvertently misleading answers and to provide corrections and/or clarifications for inclusion on the permanent record. It is not at all uncommon for people who agree to be interviewed for print publications to request an opportunity to review the transcript and make corrections on what will be quoted. I can also think of several other possibilities as to why ARI might want to review the transcripts - but mentioning them would be pointless and inappropriate speculation on my part.

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: 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: 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.

Gee - I'm from Fort Worth too. That makes at least 3 of us! Plus someone else from Plano. Did anyone else here besides myself attend the debate on Virtue of Selfishness that Andrew Bernstein participated in when he was in town a couple of weeks ago? I used to head up the local Objectivist community club for the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex but it has been inactive for the past couple of years and I no longer have the time to spend on something like that as I once did. However, an Objectivist in the Dallas area is looking to organize a Dallas/Fort Worth area Objectivist social get together of some sort either in the late spring or early summer of this year. If anyone is interested, feel free to drop me a line with your email address and I will make sure that you get an announcement once plans have been finalized. You can contact me through the personal message feature under my membership info or at [email protected]

Yes, that is the rational and just way to go about it. Who would want to spend much time around a person who went around arbitrarily jumping to the conclusion that people are irrational without giving them a reasonable benefit of doubt? Sometimes it takes a while before one has enough evidence to reach such a conclusion about someone. But there are occasions where a person's behavior or viewpoints are so outrageous that it is possible to come to such a conclusion very quickly, if not instantaneously. If someone attempts to be an apologist for mass murderers such as Hitler or Stalin, if someone tells me that they have nightly conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt, if someone clearly and consistently refuses to acknowledge and address highly relevant and important points I have raised and instead attempts to evade and change the subject, if someone tells me that he considers Janet Reno to be sexy and the concretized essence of femininity - well, I will almost immediately conclude that the person is beyond the reach of reasoned argument. But that does not mean that I have taken any sort of short cut as far as the steps you identified for giving them the benefit of the doubt. All it means is that I have previously encountered or contemplated such views and patterns of behavior and have already considered the possibility of them being the result of honest error. Obviously, every person is an individual and every set of circumstances is unique - but that doesn't mean you can't draw on the lessons learned and conclusions reached from your past encounters with similar individuals and circumstances. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt does not mean that you have to necessarily re-invent the wheel when it comes to the principles of judging people. After you have encountered the same form of irrationality enough times, I think you will find that it won't take you as long to recognize it. On the other hand, the possibilities for irrationality are virtually endless so there will always be some new variant that will come along and, as a result of your benevolence and sense of fairness, it is very possible that you will give it more benefit of the doubt than it deserves. But that's ok - it is certainly better than allowing oneself to become a jaded cynic. Thanks! I am glad you are enjoying it.

The way you deal with it depends on what it is you wish to accomplish. If your objective is to persuade Y in your example - well, that's not possible as he is clearly evading and not open to reason. In that case, the best bet would be to just walk away from the conversation. On the other hand, when you have an audience such as in a conversation where there are several onlookers or in a discussion forum such as this one and you wish to make a certain point about the other person's viewpoints or character, then it might be worth your while to continue the exchange. But if you choose to do so, your objective should not be to persuade the irrational person but rather to expose and underscore his irrationality to those watching who are open to persuasion. In most online forums you will find that lurkers usually far outnumber active posters - and many of the lurkers will not have as strongly developed opinions on the matters under discussion as the participants. Therefore, there are times when it can be productive to take on irrational people in a public venue even though it would be an utter waster of time to do so in a private conversation. In the case of this thread, I think the engagement was very productive and the result was quite the opposite of what RCR wished to accomplish. Not only has his approach to interacting with others been exposed, so has Deavers Branden's.

Yes. I didn't see your second posting noting this fact until after I put up my reply.

I wrote: I didn't read the articles mentioned at Noumenalself.com until after I had put up my postings. Wow. It seems that my little prediction, in fact, already happened some time ago.

I know a good reason to take joy in it: they promote a false message and the fact that they are in financial trouble means that they are having a difficult time getting people to buy into that message and motivating them to support it. How can that be anything but good news to anyone who regards their message as false? Wouldn't it be entirely rational for the Republican Party to be happy at the situation of the Democratic Party being in dire financial trouble because they are unable to attract support for their position? I can understand your position of not taking pleasure out of other people's misfortunes if it is nothing more than a matter of people you simply happen to dislike. But in this case, the issue is much more serious than simply disliking Kelley and TOC. Objectivists have significant ideological disagreements with Kelley and TOC - and ideological disagreements are serious business. The war of ideas is like any other kind of war - in the end, there are going to be winners and losers. One defines victory over a false ideology by the fact that people no longer take it seriously. The collapse of TOC would be evidence that people are no longer willing to support it and that would be welcome and wonderful news to any genuine supporter of Objectivism. Actually, it woudn't be at their expense. Unless you propose to become a deep pocketed contributor, whether you are happy about it or not will have zero impact on TOC's financial situation.

It doesn't really surprise me that TOC would eventually stall out - though it does seem to be happening quicker than I would have thought. I kind of figured that it would gradually fade away once Kelley retired and left the picture. TOC was ultimately doomed because that which held the organization together in the first place and drew in supporters was ultimately defined not by what they were but by what they were not. I remember when Kelley first started his organization someone gave a speech on its behalf and described it along the lines of a "home for homeless Objectivists." In other words, it was a home for anyone who had a grudge against ARI or who disagreed with some aspect or another of Objectivism but still wished to call themselves Objectivists. Amongst its rank and file supporters one will find the full range from people who are, by and large, rational and have simply made an error of knowledge on issues such as toleration and sanction to individuals who can only be described as being hostile to Ayn Rand and Objectivism. When the main reason for an organization's existence and the primary thing which unifies its supporters is the fact that they are NOT ARI, well, after a while, the better sort of people who actually wish to obtain some sort of positive values from their participation in it will eventually lose interest and drop out. The other factor at work has to do with the nature of compromise. Compromise on basic principles tends to necessitate further compromises in the future - and from the very little that I hear anymore about such things, that seems to have been very much the case with Kelley and his intellectual standards. The result is that Kelley and TOC have become too wishy washy for even many of their own supporters. I also wonder if 9-11 might have had an impact as well in their ability to attract support from newbie Ayn Rand fans. Somehow, Kelley's warm and fuzzy talk about the virtue of intellectual tolerationism towards false ideologies seems to sound so much more ridiculous in a post 9-11 world. While many in the general public have, unfortunately, yet to learn that false ideologies can KILL, I think the sort of people who are attracted to Ayn Rand have likely grasped that fact. I think that most rational people, on some level, recognize that the War on Terror is a battle for civilization itself and that it will not be won through a sort of United Nations approach where everyone seeks to "understand" and play nice with each other. What is needed is an uncompromised dedication to the values which make Western Civilization possible and not being afraid to openly identify and denounce certain people, groups, cultures and philosophies as being EVIL. In other words, what is needed is moral clarity and uncompromising courage. Ayn Rand was certainly an example of both. In light of current events, I think it is more apparent than ever that ARI has lived up to her example while TOC is wishy washy and morally timid. If TOC survives, I suspect that, rather than positioning itself as sort of rival to ARI, it will basically become the Ayn Rand camp under the Libertarian umbrella. It will draw in new supporters not so much from people new to Objectivism but rather from people who consider themselves to be Libertarians. Fortunately, the contradictions of Libertarianism are also starting to become increasingly obvious in light of 9-11. Many prominant Libertarians have taken a position on the War on Terror that is actually somewhere to the left of Howard Dean. That will cost the Libertarian movement its more honest and rational rank and file supporters - the very people who are most likely to be open to Ayn Rand's ideas.

I was pretty lucky. The only time in my entire childhood that I ever went to church services was when by Catholic grandparents in England came to visit when I was perhaps 7 years old and wanted to go to mass. I begged to go with them. I was too young to understand what was going on and I remember that I kept pestering my grandfather, who was trying to focus on the mass, to explain what this and that was about. I remember looking at the statue of the Virgin Mary on the church grounds and thinking it was pretty. Because I was totally ignorant about such things, it was pretty much a secular experience for me. My father's family came from Denmark in the mid to late 1800s and were Lutheran by tradition - but my grandparents did not go to church very often and religion was pretty much given lip service only. My mother was raised Catholic in England and went to a Catholic school where she experienced some rather abusive treatment at the hands of a mentally unbalanced nun. Largely as a result of that, she was adamant that she and my father not "impose their values" on me and that I thought for myself and made up my own mind about things. A great many of the kids I went to school with were Baptists or fundamentalists and they talked about religion a lot. But I always tended to view the whole thing as a sort of Santa Claus for grown ups. The simple fact is that I knew very little about it and never took it seriously or fully appreciated its dangers. The only time it really bothered me was when someone took it upon themselves to try and convert me. The only time I was tempted by religion was when my family took a camping trip when I was perhaps 10 or 11 years old. The campground had posters up advertising a morning of organized activities for kids and I begged to go. The activities were basically led by a young lady perhaps 18 or 19 who was a missionary from some church and I and about three other kids attended. We walked in the woods and colored - but the whole morning was basically a sales pitch for religion. I remember (and may even still have at my parents' house) drawing a cross with "Jesus Loves You" written across the top. I remember enjoying the morning's activities very much - probably because it was a change of pace from hanging around my parents and little brother all day. When I went back to the campsite, I told my parents about how wonderful Jesus was and kept asking why we never went to church. Looking back, I think my mother handled it perfectly. She told me that if I wanted to start going to church, she would be more than happy to drop me off and pick me up every week. But she would do so only on one condition - that I first attend services at a number of different denominations so that I could make up my own mind about which to join instead of being brainwashed (which is exactly how I was acting at the time!) by the first one I happened to go to. That worked and I quickly lost interest in the whole thing. Had she outrightly refused to take me to church I would probably have become religious for that reason alone.

Ayn Rand wrote that in 1972 and she had no way of knowing what would take place after the Fairness Docrtine was repealed during the Reagan Administration. It was the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine that opened the door to the so-called "new media" by making talk radio possible. Prior to the late 1980s, talk programs on radio were very timid and rarely tackled controversial issues. They basically were interview programs with best selling authors and covered topics such as UFOs or movies and such. If a host took a strong viewpoint, the station was on the hook for providing "equal time" - and whether or not they provided such time was, in large part, determined at license time based on letters of complaint from angery listeners. In other words, with millions of dollars invested in their broadcasting properties, station owners didn't dare risk offending anyone for fear it might have consequences at license renewal time. The end of the Fairness Doctrine is what made Rush Limbaugh possible - and think what you will of Rush, nobody can deny that he has exposed to a very wide audience a great many of the dirty deeds of the Left which would have previously been sweeped under the rug by the media Establishment. If you notice, it is the Left and the Democrats , i.e., the members of the old Establishment who are the ones calling for a return to the Fairness Doctrine because there is little demand for their point of view on the open marketplace of voluntary listeners. It is no coincidence that, when one attempt to reimpose it was suggested during the Clinton years, the measure was immediately nicknamed the "Hush Rush Bill." The end of the Fairness Doctrine was the beginning of the end for the big media Establishment.

James: I sympathize where you are coming from - I live in such a part of the country myself, although being in a large urban area provides a good bit of shelter from it. My problem with your position, however, is this: how on earth is giving support, no matter how implicit, to anarchists going to help change people's minds one bit and improve the situation? How is it possible to oppose one form of irrationalism by supporting another? As the old saying goes - the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. There are decent, well intentioned Republicans out there - even in the Bible Belt. The Republican Party has a big divide between its so-called social conservatives and its so-called economic conservatives. Neither side particularly likes each other when you really get right down to it - but they both hate the Left and that has been what has kept them more or less unified. But the Left is in shambles right now. The Democratic Party has been losing more and more control for 10 years and they have absolutely no positive agenda whatsoever. They are simply against Bush, against American self-assertiveness, against the successful etc. If their decline continues, there will eventually be a heated battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party and the better Republicans will be very much in need of rational arguments in order to effectively answer both their opponents in the Republican Party as well as those in what is left of the Democratic Party. Objectivists actually have those answers and can provide the necessary intellectual ammunition. Most economic conservative/social moderate Republicans I have met seem to be decent people and are usually reality oriented in their approach to political issues. They are people who value their own pocketbooks and the benefits of living in a free economy and have no desire to butt in on how other people choose to live their private lives. In other words, most of them are essentially rational and that is the type of people we should seek as allies. In the end, this upcoming election is overshadowed by one issue and one issue only: the war. I don't approve of the way that Bush is conducting it - but the thought of Kerry being in charge scares me to no end. Kerry is nothing more than a '60s hippie who happens to wear grown-up clothes and the man is anti-American to his very core. If he is elected, up goes the white flag of surrender. With Kerry in charge, we might as well just consider ourselves to be a French puppet state. As for the Libertarians - heck, their view on the war is somewhere to the Left of Howard Dean. Personally, I think it is wonderful that the Libertarians have taken such a position on the war because it makes their true nature crystal clear more eloquently than anything any Objectivist can say against them. As to the social conservatives - my biggest fear with them is not that they are going to take over the country and turn the United States into some sort of Afghanastan like Christian Republic. There is simply no way that the American public will stand for something like that for generations to come. My biggest fear is of a backlash against them that will only end up getting Leftists in office. That's why there needs to be principled opposition to them from within the Republican Party. I view socialized medicine and surrender to the terrorists as far greater and more likely threats to my life and freedom than I do being forced to pay homage to the Ten Commandments.

Branden ought to consider herself lucky that she did not get a faceful of pepper spray squirted at her! That's what sometimes happens to people who try to block little old ladies from entering their apartments.

My favorite music is the jazz and dance band music from the 1920s and 1930s. It is completely unlike anything that is out there today. The music was extremely melodic and, at the same time, was highly rhythmic - and a lot of it can only be described as exuberant and even downright hyperactive. Unfortunately, most of the music from that era has been all but forgotten. One of my hobbies and passions is trying to introduce the music to the modern audience I think it deserves. Towards that end, I have a website and an online radio station devoted to the music. I have a huge 78 rpm collection (currently over 10,000 records) as well as a large collection of CD reissues of recordings from the era. If you are not already familiar with the music, check it out sometime by tuning into my online radio station mentioned in my.sig. As an aside, the service that I use to stream my station is called Live365.com and there you will find thousands of other online radio stations featuring just about any musical genre you can imagine. Two stations that I particularly enjoy there are Weimar Rundfunk which features popular European recordings from the 1920s - 1940s and Elite Syncopations which is a station that plays ragtime music. I also like certain types of classical music - mostly the lighter stuff from the late 19th century. In recent years, I have become a big fan of operetta music, particularly Viennese operetta by composers such as Franz Lehar, Emmerich Kalman and Oscar Straus. While I have always been familiar with the existence of the genre, it was Ayn Rand, of all people, who more or less reintroduced it to me and I subsequently became hooked. Because of my interest in both Ayn Rand and collecting vintage phonograph records, I was immediately fascinated when I learned of Ayn Rand's love for a certain type of vintage music which she called "Tiddlywink Music." It was while researching Ayn Rand's musical interests that I discovered Emmerich Kalman (one of her favorites) and rediscovered operetta in general. For those who might be interested, I have a website of vintage recordings that have, in some way or another, an Ayn Rand connection. See: http://dismuke.org/aynrand

The picture is called "Big City" and was painted by Robert LaDuke. I discovered it when I found it as one of a number of default avatars available for users of an architectural discussion board I occasionally post to. Only later did I learn the name of the painting. You can see other examples of his work at: http://www.fine-art-prints-and-posters-for...bert-LaDuke.php I am pretty much indifferent to his more rustic themed efforts - but I am quite fond of his paintings of bridges and art deco skyscrapers.

Actually, that is a very nice problem to have. Imagine working for a company that is plagued with ineptitude and the customers are upset about things that they have every rational reason in the world to be angry about and your employer has NOT empowered you to do what is necessary to satisfy the customers' legitimate concerns - or you find yourself in a position where promises that you make are never followed up on by those who are responsible for doing so. You are probably correct in that your company's policy is costing them thousands of dollars. On the other hand, have you ever considered what it would cost the company to save those thousands of dollars? If a company doesn't satisfy customers, someone is going to have to spend time listening to them complain, often to more than one person in the company - and when you consider what it costs to recruit, hire, train, pay and retain someone to do that, it is not cheap. Disgruntled customers can also be costly in that they represent "word of mouth" advertising in reverse. If a person has a negative experience with a company, real or imagined, he is likely to tell everyone he knows who is willing to listen - and that can be very expensive to a company in the long run as a single disgruntled customer can easily cost a company several potential new customers in the months and years ahead. The other issue is the fact that it requires good judgment to know when it is profitable to "do whatever it takes" to save a customer and when it isn't. It is possible that the company doesn't feel that the majority of the people who are responsible for interacting with its customers are capable of making such a judgment and is not willing to spend extra to hire people who are - so it finds it more advantageous in the long run to always err on the side of the customer even when customers are wrong. There are almost always ways that a company can save money - but some of them would end up being "penny wise pound foolish" in the long run. I obviously have no idea about the specific situation with the company you work for, but those are a few possiblities you might want to consider. My suggestion for dealing with situations where you feel your company's policies are not in its self-interest is to first recognize it is ultimately someone else's company and someone else's capital that is at stake. As a conscientious employee, if you feel you have an idea that could be of benefit to the organization, what you should do is pass it along through whatever formal channels they provide. As a rule, don't simply point out what is wrong - virtually anyone in the company with half a brain will be able to identify most of the problems it faces. What is much more difficult to find is someone who actually has a positive solution to those problems. Once you have passed your suggestion on - then let the matter drop secure in the knowledge that you have done the best you can. One of two things will happen: they will either implement your suggestion or they will chose to ignore it. If they ignore it then one of two things will be the case: Either your idea was good, in which case they are the ones who will end up paying the highest price for ignoring it or your idea did not take into consideration certain relevant facts of reality that you are not in a position to be aware of - in which case, they made the correct decision to ignore it. Unfortunately, in most cases, you will never know the reasons why they might ignore your ideas. All you can do on any job is do your very best at those things which are in your control. As long as you work for somebody else, there will be all sorts of things which will be beyond your control yet can have a major impact on your job, your income and your advancement opportunities within the company. If you find the specific things which are beyond your control are more than you care to put up with, you should keep your eyes open for other opportunities. In the meanwhile, try to focus on those aspects of the job which are in your control and that you derive some level of value from. As for having to deal with irrational people - all I can suggest is make it a learning experience. No matter what profession you go into, in today's world you will end up having to deal with such people and the earlier you learn the dos and don'ts the better. Echoing something Betsy said, a great deal of my education in management has come from observing the ineffectiveness of people I have worked for and asking myself "what would I do differently?"