Probably a necessary discussion would be on the topic of “Truth and Toleration” and “Fact and Value” as relates to the OP.
I hadn’t considered that there would be any particular relationship between what I’ve been talking about and those essays. But presumably you have something specific in mind?
Again, I defer to you as knowing that material better than I, and likely by far. The only thing that occurs to me off the top of my head is to say that I’m not talking about “sanctioning evil,” or deciding to talk to people that one would not otherwise morally talk to – or at least, I don’t think that’s what I’m talking about. Rather, that once one has made the moral decision to engage in discourse, or argue persuasively, that one should suit his means as best as he can towards those ends.
But maybe you mean something else? I await your insight.
Objectivism is an idea that ought to be more popular. But it can’t be sold as a typical commodity. It is an idea that is not going to be welcomed by the majority of people for reasons discussed on other threads. It’s not for everyone. I do hope that will change soon, before it’s too late.
I disagree that Objectivism is not for everyone. You’re right that it will not be welcomed by others – initially. But that’s always the case for some new idea; it must first overcome initial resistance. For if everyone were already Objectivists, we’d have little to talk about here, and those who aren’t yet Objectivists surely must have some reason for their current beliefs.
But what we know is that, despite what they currently may think, it would yet be better for them to abandon false ideas and embrace true ones.
The Rand quote Plasmatic provided, “I want to be known as the greatest champion of reason and the greatest enemy of religion,” is a powerful one. As far as I can tell, Objectivism is the greatest enemy of religion (because it is the greatest champion of reason). This does not make it the greatest enemy of the religious, however, or even an enemy at all, when properly understood. For Objectivism proposes to the religious that all is not yet lost, and that there is a better way.
Reason is man’s greatest benefactor, to a man.
Admittedly, my experience with Objectivists are limited, but my general observation is that they’re either extremely kind and patient people, or people with nasty social habits and trying to “win”. Now, this is on the Internet, and context may impact how one appears. Even still, behaviors I’ve seen on FB, this forum, reddit, etc, are like that. Poor behavior isn’t justified in either case, even if it’s only one context.
My own experiences, both online and in person, are not very dissimilar. From further experiences in other communities, I have come to regard Objectivists as by-and-large having a “rep” for… somewhat surly behavior. It is an obstacle I find I often have to overcome in conversation.
Who we are, and how we behave – even here – radiates.
Sure, the entire Internet has such people, but to me it seems that Objectivists are at major risk for nasty social behavior towards those who disagree. Then ride up the moral outrage to justify that behavior, hiding behind “judge and prepare to be judged” as a free pass to melodrama, or for turning into a diva when judged back (vicious circle), or for simply being mean.
If there are hidden (or explicitly held) premises which lead some Objectivists to conclude that there is some virtue in being mean, I hope to draw those premises out in this thread.
Obviously Objectivists have some point of disagreement with all those who are not Objectivists. There must be some way of expressing and exploring the majority of such disagreements, in the context of discourse, with civility if not bonhomie. I think this is vital for persuasive efforts, for all of the reasons thus far cited.
If we want to talk about communication style and means of communication, we all need examples of the bad. Without fear of it being a “hate off”.
While I appreciate your fearlessness, I’d really rather this not descend into an exercise in fingerpointing – or, yeah, a “hate off.” 
And though I’m sure we all have personal examples which come to mind when we speak of “rudeness” or “incivility,” I’m equally sure that we’re all guilty of those things from time to time. Or if not, I know that I am at least. Furthermore, my current perspective on these matters has been dearly won, and especially over the years I’ve spent as an Objectivist. I haven’t always embraced tact, and thus I’ve been able to observe firsthand what a difference it makes, both to my internal experiences and to the effects I’ve seemingly had externally.
But I’m perfectly willing to implicate my former self if that means being a better soul from here on out, and I’d likewise like to extend the same courtesy to anyone else who might agree. I suspect that this sort of invitation is best served by discussing these matters in the abstract. Because if I’m right, then this doesn’t necessarily come down to the “good Objectivists” versus the bad apples; we can all come to appreciate what is good, and embrace it, in reason.
No time like the present for being better.
