Ayn Rand and the Internet

[IchorFigure]

Now and then while reading the different internet websites I visit on a daily basis I'll come across Ayn Rand references. Inevitably it leads to the typical internet diatribes and arguments. My question is when do you think it would be proper to defend or debate in these situations? I've done it before, and it can be decent to learn some debating skills. However debating over the internet always seems to decompose into utter stupidity or involves so much misinformation it takes a considerable amount of time just to address the issues. And so quite obviously someone has to pick and choose. What are the more opportune situations to be aware of? Thanks.

[KevinDW78]

Being currently enrolled in an online philosophy course, I am dealnig with this same question myself. Ultimately I am finding that it is pointless because if somsone hasn't read substantial amounts of Rand's writings, they simply will not grasp the concepts. It's too difficult to cram into a small post the evidence and support for the core concepts of Objectivism which we understand to now be givens but those foreign to Rand wouldn't have a clue and don't accept those givens.

[softwareNerd]

There's the question of when to respond. Part of that is clearly personal. Other than that, audience receptivity and audience size are factors.

I think how one responds is more important.

The first rule ought to be: "do no harm". That means if you cannot defend the Objectivist position, don't do so. One can still respond by questioning a position one considers to be wrong or by a very brief statement accompanied by a link where someone else makes your argument better than you can.

Resist being perceived as a troll. If you convey nothing concrete about Objectivism, but can leave your audience thinking "That guy sounded sincere and sensible; maybe those Ayn Rand fans aren't the extremists I thought they were", you would have accomplished something.

There's a lot that can be written about this. I think there are other threads (like this one) that explore the issue further.

Edited July 15, 2008 by softwareNerd

[eriatarka]

Debating over the internet is more productive than debating in real life sometimes I think, because you can actually take time to cite sources and check the claims the other guy makes rather than getting bogged down in "thats not true"/"yes it is" arguments over factual matters. Also the fact people can take time writing their responses means that arguments are likely to be more carefully worked out than they are in real life (especially for people who havent had much practice in debating).

[JMeganSnow]

Also the fact people can take time writing their responses means that arguments are likely to be more carefully worked out than they are in real life (especially for people who havent had much practice in debating).

Really? I'd say that depends more on the nature of the site where you engage in a debate. If it's a site with little moderation, it usually degenerates into a lot of "ur a fag!"-type comments because the *anonymity* of online argument allows people to behave in ways they would never get away with in person.

In my mind, that's one of the reasons why the mods and admins on Oo.net work hard on making this place not just a forum, but a community. There's precious little anonymity here for anyone but newbies--which is why newbies get judged much more harshly than established members who have no choice but to take responsibility for their words.

[khaight]

In cases of egregious misinformation, it may be worthwhile to do a quick 'high-altitute bombing run', in which you post a brief correction of the misinformation and a link to a decent web resource with more information. For example, if you find someone claiming that Rand was a fascist, you could quickly quote something brief of her attacking fascism and post a link to the "Fascism" section of www.aynrandlexicon.com. This makes clear to innocent bystanders that Rand's ideas are being misrepresented and provides a vector for them to investigate further if interested, and only takes a few minutes. You don't need to stick around and get drawn into a debate.

[IchorFigure]

Really? I'd say that depends more on the nature of the site where you engage in a debate. If it's a site with little moderation, it usually degenerates into a lot of "ur a fag!"-type comments because the *anonymity* of online argument allows people to behave in ways they would never get away with in person.

I'd say this matches this particular case, a mostly leftist college age crowd (shockingly someone who's vehemently anti-rand but has never read her work). The only reason I'm tempted is there are a few people making pathetic attempts to defend Objectivism or their position and it's frustrating how totally off the mark they are.

[softwareNerd]

I'd say this matches this particular case, a mostly leftist college age crowd (shockingly someone who's vehemently anti-rand but has never read her work).

BTW, that forum requires registration even to read. Also, it won't let me post in that forum unless I already have 1 post elsewhere.

Given the tone there, an argument would be a waste of time. If you want to post, I would suggest an informational post, that surprises the uninformed by the apparent simplicity and obvious sense of what Rand says. So, leave out all controvery and jargon. A good way would be to do a variation of the "standing on one leg" description of Rand's philosophy, perhaps with a link to the more complete ARI version.

For example, something like this:

Rand's philosophy was:

1. Knowledge and values should be based on reality, not on "God" or anyone's whims.

2. The process of gaining such knowledge is through observation and reason

3. Morality can be derived by the use of using one's mind, and can help one live more happily

4. Human beings gain a lot from interaction and trade, but this is only moral if it is not coerced. A moral government does not enslave anyone, using force only to protect individual rights.

As for Hubbard, I don't know if he said anything similar.

Given the apparently short attention spans on that forum, if you can make something like that, or still more brief, and provide the ARI link, then anyone who is slightly interested might click through and get more interested.

[eriatarka]

ugh why are threads on that forum upside down

Really? I'd say that depends more on the nature of the site where you engage in a debate. If it's a site with little moderation, it usually degenerates into a lot of "ur a fag!"-type comments because the *anonymity* of online argument allows people to behave in ways they would never get away with in person.

Well yeah I was assuming a site with a decent level of debate. Although I think the anonymity is a good thing overall- it helps people to say what they really think without having to censor themselves, and probably creates more honesty. Edited July 16, 2008 by eriatarka

[aleph_0]

There's the question of when to respond. Part of that is clearly personal. Other than that, audience receptivity and audience size are factors.

I think how one responds is more important.

The first rule ought to be: "do no harm". That means if you cannot defend the Objectivist position, don't do so. One can still respond by questioning a position one considers to be wrong or by a very brief statement accompanied by a link where someone else makes your argument better than you can.

Resist being perceived as a troll. If you convey nothing concrete about Objectivism, but can leave your audience thinking "That guy sounded sincere and sensible; maybe those Ayn Rand fans aren't the extremists I thought they were", you would have accomplished something.

There's a lot that can be written about this. I think there are other threads (like this one) that explore the issue further.

This is a fantastically well-considered post, all of it very true.

Really? I'd say that depends more on the nature of the site where you engage in a debate. If it's a site with little moderation, it usually degenerates into a lot of "ur a fag!"-type comments because the *anonymity* of online argument allows people to behave in ways they would never get away with in person.

In my mind, that's one of the reasons why the mods and admins on Oo.net work hard on making this place not just a forum, but a community. There's precious little anonymity here for anyone but newbies--which is why newbies get judged much more harshly than established members who have no choice but to take responsibility for their words.

I've noticed that, too. Discover Magazine did a piece on what causes some forums to be more respectful and productive than others. Good moderators are good influences, especially on relatively smaller forums like this, but it seems that an even more powerful moderating force are the means of getting a new account. If you can just flame, troll, whatever; then get your account deleted; then get a new account within seconds, there is little that prevents abuse. Sites that you make a person wait some time before he can activate his account, and wait longer still before he can post, tend to have few to no abusers and little need for moderators. Especially forums like Second Life have little abuse because people have to invest so much time and effort into creating a profile, developing network circles, and so forth, that participants have a lot of time and energy invested in their accounts and are more afraid to lose them. You mentioned anonymity--this really saps a lot of the anonymity out of the net.

So if you're looking for more respectful, intelligent conversation, look for forums with those restrictions.

[turboimpala]

I think Objectivists should get involved in online debates as much as possible, simply to inform others about the philosophy.

Even if the existing debates haven't discussed Objectivism, introduce it, explain it, etc.

I didn't find out about Objectivism until I was 27 years old.

I wish I had become familiar with it an a much earlier age.

If Objectivists are afraid to discuss their philosophy in public, on the internet, or even in private, a lot of people like myself may never find out about it.

[aleph_0]

An interesting, perhaps off-topic, question is: Which forums do the members here use?

[The Anthem]

An interesting, perhaps off-topic, question is: Which forums do the members here use?

The only forum I use is the Alter Bridge Band.net forums. Theres a very good community there, all centered around the great music of Alter Bridge. I argue there all the time. Right now there is a raging 72 page thread arguing over religion.

[Tenure]

This is from my experience on blogs. I use Google Alerts looking out for hits on things like, 'Universal Health Care', 'Objectivism', 'Altruism', etc. This does not necessarily include my experience on forums, such as my recent flippancy with that prat on the 'Problem of Universals Thread'.

I find it's best to ask questions (not too rhetorical like, 'Are you a sodding moron?') and to be succinct - although that latter part is to your discretion, depending on the context. Usually, there is some flawed premise, and unless it's someone who has no bleeding clue what he's talking about, you can address the most fundamental error and simply, well, question it. Don't just state the answer, but at least show that it can be questioned, if nothing else.

As to the idiots who run around writing line after line of nonsense about Objectivism or Ayn Rand, I find it's best to state there are facts, that they have no grasp of them, and to point to the nearest Fire Exit (preferably some essay from the ARI website or the Ayn Rand Centre site).

At best, just try to be friendly, if the context allows it (seriously, don't extend olive branches to knob 'eds - if they really are, then they're too far gone to talk any sense into) and appeal to their minds.

[brian0918]

This is from my experience on blogs. I use Google Alerts looking out for hits on things like, 'Universal Health Care', 'Objectivism', 'Altruism', etc. This does not necessarily include my experience on forums, such as my recent flippancy with that prat on the 'Problem of Universals Thread'.

I find it's best to ask questions (not too rhetorical like, 'Are you a sodding moron?') and to be succinct - although that latter part is to your discretion, depending on the context. Usually, there is some flawed premise, and unless it's someone who has no bleeding clue what he's talking about, you can address the most fundamental error and simply, well, question it. Don't just state the answer, but at least show that it can be questioned, if nothing else.

As to the idiots who run around writing line after line of nonsense about Objectivism or Ayn Rand, I find it's best to state there are facts, that they have no grasp of them, and to point to the nearest Fire Exit (preferably some essay from the ARI website or the Ayn Rand Centre site).

At best, just try to be friendly, if the context allows it (seriously, don't extend olive branches to knob 'eds - if they really are, then they're too far gone to talk any sense into) and appeal to their minds.

Asking questions is probably the best route and the one I usually take. "What right do they have..." or "How does that justify the rights violation...", etc. That forces them to defend their positions.

Edited July 16, 2008 by brian0918

[softwareNerd]

Occasionally, after reading an ARI or FIRM article, I go to Google Blog-search and find recent related blog-posts. I ignore ones that sound partisan. Sometimes, this leads me to a low volume blog where the blogger seems like an intelligent, but "traditionally confused middle-of-road", person. I like posting a brief comment with a link to the article. (Only do this if relevant, never be a troll. Only do this if you think the person would be genuinely open to reading the link.)

Not high-impact...more like having a brief conversation with a neighbor, who doesn't blog, and giving them a link that they might actually follow-up. Comes under the category of "softening up the culture". If the blog has an option of sending follow-up to your email, select that option. Such people are often polite, and the ensuing conversation can be more benevolently life-affirming than posting to some of the more popular blogs (though that has a place too).

Note: All caveats about not being a troll always apply.

[adrock3215]

Perhaps I am abnormal but I have little desire to advocate for Ayn Rand or Objectivism over the Internet. I prefer, if possible, to try to reach people one-on-one who I determine are open to the thought of actually picking up some of Rand's literature. Without this screening process, I have found that many people are interested in committing to memory a few short one-liners about Rand and Objectivism, so that they can say "Oh yeah, she's the one who says selfishness is a virtue and agrees with Bush." (Incidentally, when I am interested in learning about some particular person, belief, or event, I will usually go all out and read everything I can on that subject; the last thing I would want to do when learning something new is read a one-liner or a Wikipedia article on it.) But when I do try to reach people, I tend to follow the advice sNerd gave in his first post.

[Tenure]

Occasionally, after reading an ARI or FIRM article, I go to Google Blog-search and find recent related blog-posts. I ignore ones that sound partisan. Sometimes, this leads me to a low volume blog where the blogger seems like an intelligent, but "traditionally confused middle-of-road", person. I like posting a brief comment with a link to the article. (Only do this if relevant, never be a troll. Only do this if you think the person would be genuinely open to reading the link.)

Not high-impact...more like having a brief conversation with a neighbor, who doesn't blog, and giving them a link that they might actually follow-up. Comes under the category of "softening up the culture". If the blog has an option of sending follow-up to your email, select that option. Such people are often polite, and the ensuing conversation can be more benevolently life-affirming than posting to some of the more popular blogs (though that has a place too).

Note: All caveats about not being a troll always apply.

See, that's what I tend to do with the Google Alerts thing.

I noticed your comment on Zeal for Truth, and agreed with it (as well as thinking it achieved its purpose and was well written).

[KurtColville]

I used to be really gung-ho about using the Socratic Method, asking questions to get people to check their premises. In informal discussions, I still think it's the best way to guide someone's comprehension. But over time, I discovered that people used it as a weapon of skepticism. My question would be returned with one non sequitur, evasion, and blank out after another. I would think, "I'm not getting anywhere with this approach. I'm not getting my point across, because they're not willing to do their share of the work. They're not willing to think." Unless I can tell that the other person is honest and really interested in ideas, I tend to shelve the Socratic Method and state my position in clear, everyday language. It doesn't guarantee comprehension any more than the Socratic Method, but at least this way, the right position gets stated, as opposed to having to be discovered. If they're open to any intellectual investigation, they will be asking the question, "Is what this guy says true?" versus "Is what I think true?"

It's disappointing, because I would much rather guide people to discover the right ideas and see them identify the contradictions, rather than me just laying it out, but once I saw how prevalent premise-checking was turned into a vehicle for intellectual dishonesty, I had to take a different tack.

If you have frequent success with the Socratic Method, I tip my cap to you. You are definitely doing something right and talking to the right people!

[progressiveman1]

Why do you guys care if you convince a few others of Objectivism? Seems like a selfless service to me, since it isn't going to change the world dramatically in your lifetime anyways. The majority of people currently will reject the ideas no matter what you say and the smaller percentage who would accept the ideas gravitate towards similar ideas anyways.

[01503]

I think it's best to defend Rand and Objectivism on the more popular sites, where more people can see it, and not on the sites that are dedicated to the antithesis of Objectivism, because most will reject it without any thought whatsoever. I know these people, and I've heard them denounce the concepts of fact and reality in direct conversation to me. They will believe what they want to believe without any thought or regard to the the basic axioms of Aristotelean and Objectivist metaphysics.

I enjoyed this thread:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=3...&topic=4909

It's not anonymous, most certainly, being that it's on Facebook, but here's a quick summery (which also pertains to many "arguments" against Rand and Objectivism): A guy named Ryan makes claims with no evidence, and uses a "my time is thin" excuse (which is perfectly plausible, except that, about 72 days later, he has still made no reply after the first day he posted). His claims are outright wrong, and it is obvious that he has never picked up any of Ayn Rand's works. A couple people who know what they're talking about make some quotations from Rand's works, and that seemed to shut Ryan up. Almost all arguments against Rand are all based off of outright lies about her works, hoping that people will believe them without reading further.

[IchorFigure]

Why do you guys care if you convince a few others of Objectivism? Seems like a selfless service to me, since it isn't going to change the world dramatically in your lifetime anyways. The majority of people currently will reject the ideas no matter what you say and the smaller percentage who would accept the ideas gravitate towards similar ideas anyways.

That's not really the idea I was concerned about. For activism see the thread posted above http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=13088

I was mainly wondering when to defend your positions, maybe "debate" wasn't the proper word. Not in an activist sense, just during times that Objectivist ideas are being misrepresented or already in the process of being debated by others. Thanks for the replies so far.

Edited quote into post.

Edited July 17, 2008 by IchorFigure

[Tenure]

I think an essential tool is knowing when to haul anchor (is that the right term?) and get the S.S. Objectivism out of there. This is the case when you have about 50 people whose only intention is already set at ripping apart any argument you present, not with a sufficient argument, but with context dropping, equivocation and weak bromides. You just have to know yourself and know there's only so much you can personally do - don't feel bad because you can't fight 'em all.

Ayn Rand herself was most disappointed, if anything, that her critics were so impotent - that she never had anyone with an intellectual backbone who would actually address her ideas seriously and give her a strong refutation (I'm sorry I can't find the quote; I'm pretty sure it was from 'My 30 Years with Ayn Rand', at least, something by Peikoff).

[D'kian]

Here are some observations and tips I've picked up over the years:

1) Be prepared for evassion on a massive and, often, astonishing scale. Non-sequiturs are common, so are changes of subject (personal attacks as a reply to an argument constitute a form of non-sequitur).

2) Remember nothing is so simple that it cannot be complicated beyond belief. This includes highly unlikely scenarios, contrived scenarios, very unusual exceptions, using the exceptions as standard for rules, etc etc. Tip: keep it simple when possible. No matter how much you want to expound on the ramifications and consequences of an argument, save it for later or use it elsewhere. Concepts don't run away while you aren't using them.

3) Beware of religious details. It's tempting to point out to Bible thumpers that they themselves pick and choose what to believe and follow. For example, the Bible sanctions salvery, selling off family members, forbids certain foods, etc etc. That's irrelevant. They believe in Creationism because the Bible says so, and no amount of Bible quotes saying the Earth is flat will change their minds.

4) For every poster there are some lurkers. So do argue regardless of other considerations, as you don't know who else is listening.

5) Be polite and try not to be patronizing or condescending. That turns off even those sympathetic to your views.

6) Try to avoid emotionally charged terms. Of course taxation is theft, but saying so like that makes you seem like a zealot. Most people do not regard taxation as theft, therefore they dont' react well to hearing described as such (and to the realization that they are willing victims of theft). Mkae the arguments first, then show why taxation is theft. Ditto with other subjects. Save the emotion-laden terms for when they'll do the most good.

7) If you demand consitency then you have to be fully consistent, otherwise you come up, deservedly, as a hypocrite. Whenever you say "That's different!" explain why it's different. Keep in mind Thomas Sowell's dictum: "Of course two different thigns are different, otherwise they wouldn't be two things. But is there a difference in principle?"

8) Very often the mere mention of Ayn Rand or Objectivism will be rejected out of hand. You'll run into people who'll dismiss anything you say because you read Ayn Rand. I don't know what to do when that happens. One thing, though, don't avoid acknowledging her or her philosophy. If you do you also come across as hypocritical or as having something shameful to hide.

9) Asking questions does work sometimes. Try them first and change tactics if they don't work.

10) Stick to what's relevant and don't waste time on other things.

11) When possible you should show rather than tell. Also, do not go demanding references if you don't ahve sevreal ready to back up your positions.

[brian0918]

1) Be prepared for evassion on a massive and, often, astonishing scale. Non-sequiturs are common, so are changes of subject (personal attacks as a reply to an argument constitute a form of non-sequitur).

Even though I've grown up online, I too was taken aback by the amount of personal attacks that come with espousing fundamental human rights. Many will think your posts are trolls or flamebait. Be prepared to use the phrase "ad hominem" ad nauseum.

From my personal introspection and experience with others, people have become accustomed to living by no principles whatsoever, and instead feel they are forced to shoot around in the dark to discover the "right answer". Most often the "right answer" is whatever is most convenient to them. So, when it is convenient to advocate human rights, they will do so, and when rights become inconvenient, they will disregard them.

2) Remember nothing is so simple that it cannot be complicated beyond belief. This includes highly unlikely scenarios, contrived scenarios, very unusual exceptions, using the exceptions as standard for rules, etc etc. Tip: keep it simple when possible. No matter how much you want to expound on the ramifications and consequences of an argument, save it for later or use it elsewhere. Concepts don't run away while you aren't using them.

I've lost count of the number of times I've had the "private property prison" non-argument thrown at me.

4) For every poster there are some lurkers. So do argue regardless of other considerations, as you don't know who else is listening.

This is primarily why I continue on in debates. Not for the purposes of the people I am debating, but for those reading the debate. Occasionally I will eventually get a response of approval from an outside observer. On websites that have moderation systems, expect your posts to be moderated "down" into oblivion, but also expect that certain of your posts will strike a particular chord with readers, and get moderated way "up".

8) Very often the mere mention of Ayn Rand or Objectivism will be rejected out of hand. You'll run into people who'll dismiss anything you say because you read Ayn Rand. I don't know what to do when that happens. One thing, though, don't avoid acknowledging her or her philosophy. If you do you also come across as hypocritical or as having something shameful to hide.

I avoid mentioning Rand/Objectivism outright, but instead root my comments in fundamental rights and moral principles. Usually, I will first get labeled a Libertarian or anarchist, then after correction, occasionally get labeled an Objectivist. Sometimes, however, a discussion will remain devoid of labels, and someone will come along and say they agree with my posts, and then mention Rand/Objectivism/Atlas Shrugged as having a big influence on their lives - completely unprovoked references like these can be very rewarding.

I've even suggested to such an individual to check out this forum for more discussion.

Edited July 17, 2008 by brian0918