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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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:
Knowledge and values should be based on reality, not on “God” or anyone’s whims.
The process of gaining such knowledge is through observation and reason
Morality can be derived by the use of using one’s mind, and can help one live more happily
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.
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.
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.
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.
An interesting, perhaps off-topic, question is: Which forums do the members here use?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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! 
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.