Unprovoked attacks

Website Policy and Announcements
1

Just wanted to toss in my two cents about something I see happening here a lot. People, especially newcomers, often write posts offering bad arguments or ideas. That’s not a capital offense; can anyone here claim they’ve never honestly screwed up? (If it were a capital offense, I would deserve a firing squad composed of the entire population of China for some of the nonsense I’ve spouted over the course of my life.)

The extent to which a person’s ideas differ from Objectivism does not necessarily equal the extent to which they’re intellectually dishonest or lazy. From personal experience, I’d go so far as to say that there’s almost no correlation: I’ve met plenty of people who talked the Objectivist talk, but were astoundingly irresponsible and evasive in practice. Nor does the fact that somebody might think something is compatible with Objectivism which is not imply that they are dishonest. It can often imply nothing more than that they need to do more research.

It’s not an easy thing, usually, to determine that somebody is being evasive. It’s a pretty serious charge. I won’t point any fingers, but I’d like to see people give some serious thought to whether they’ve been unnecessarily dismissive or rude when responding to posts.

This forum isn’t just a place for people to preach to the choir, to talk about things they already know or to apply Objectivist principles they’ve already digested to new issues. It’s also a place for discussion of the Objectivist principles themselves. I’d like to think it’s a place where people who don’t fully understand Objectivism can come and ask questions, even offer up the conclusions they’ve reached for debate. But so long as people treat disagreement as dishonesty, a lot of newcomers will walk away shaking their heads, having reached no conclusions except that it’s useless to talk to Objectivists.

2

I second that.

3

A person who is honestly interested in Objectivism will first read as much material as is necessary to reach at least a basic understanding of the philosophy, and then sign up and ask questions about anything that remains unclear. His tone will be polite and respectful, and he will inquire about Objectivism’s answer to his question rather than simply assert some (false, arbitrary, or unintelligible) “conclusions” he has reached.

It isn’t hard to tell a troll from an honest student if you try, and I would prefer to keep this board one where a small (but growing) number of serious students of Objectivism exchange rational ideas, rather than let it become an empty debating society where every non-objectivist gets to post his favorite excuse for not living qua man.

4

Mistakes can be made, I have made enough of them in the past.

But one simply does not come to a philosphical forum and advocate the very antithesis of reason and rationality honestly.

I think, however, that the Rand’s Razor should be applied more.

Over at the Capitalism forum, people will debate at greta length with someone who has typed hundreds of words and said nothing at all.

State your terms should be the first thing we demand of any non-objectivist.

Anyone who is willing to start with questions, however, deserves answers.

5

Sure, CapFor, a person who’s interested in Objectivism should read about Objectivism. However, I can understand why a person might not read much about it before they want to ask some questions. If, say, a person reads a summary of Objectivism online and wants to know more, they might well decide it’d be more efficient to ask questions here than to sift through the Objectivist literature to try and find an answer. OPAR aside, the works on Objectivism aren’t very well organized for research; the books consist of reprints of essays, and unless you’ve already read most of them, it can be hard to know where to look first to find out about a particular topic. (Even having read all of Rand’s books, I still often have trouble finding exactly what I’m looking for.)

Sabbath, if somebody came on here and said “I think irrationality is ok”, I’d be all for giving them the boot. Or, if they said “Yeah, I just contradicted myself – wanna make something of it?”, I’d be all for giving them the boot. But I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, or, at least, I try to avoid kneejerk reactions. If somebody writes a post stating their philosophical positions, they may just be looking for criticism. They may genuinely hope to be convinced otherwise. (Hell, that’s how I discovered Rand, though it wasn’t on the internet.) The proper response isn’t to say “You’re wrong, go to hell”; it’s to say “You’re wrong, here’s why.”

I fully support encouraging posters to be very clear about what they are talking about, and what they’re asking. If somebody has genuinely made an arbitrary assertion, there’s no reason to argue with them; but you should also bear in mind that they may have reasons for their position that they didn’t mention. The reasonable thing to do is to ask them why they think what they do… and if they refuse to answer, then it’s time to tell them to go away.

For the record, I think the admins have generally been quite reasonable in their banning policies. My beef isn’t with that, but with people that write posts with no content except “screw off, evader!” I don’t see the point, and I think it’s counterproductive.

6

Matt, I agree with the majority of what you are saying.

The one sticking point I have is whether or not this forum should be a place where we essentially teach Objectivism to people relatively unfamiliar with the philosophy. I agree with what CapFor stated in that in order to have the best discussion on most of the topics we discuss here, one needs to have read a sizable amount of Objectivist literature.

Now of course this does not mean that we should discourage individuals who do not know much about Objectivism by insulting them and calling them evaders. I completely agree that such an accusation is made way too often on this forum. However, in my personal experience, I have found that much of the misunderstandings about the philosophy have come from a person not properly understanding the essentials. In particular, the difference between objectivity and intrinsicism is almost always a major cause for the misunderstanding of the philosophy in my personal experience with other people on the subject.

My belief then is that we should point such people in the right direction by telling them where to go for more information, and by discussing essentials. If however, we have an individual who comes in here and asks us for an honest criticism of communism for example, I believe that that is something that we should not pursue in-depth for the necessary refutation of communism lies ultimately not only in political principles but also their foundation in the other branches of philosophy.

7

Sure, and I support that entirely. If somebody’s asking a question about a fairly basic issue, the best answer is to give a quick summary and a reference for details. And just a reference is perfectly acceptable, since we can’t be expected to answer the same questions over & over.

8

I’d just like to chime in and say I agree with Matt. I always try (although some times it can be very hard) to respectfully disagree with my opponents. As someone pointed out to me (I actually thing it was Matt, but I’m not positive) there are two reasons to argue: 1) to convince the other person or 2) to convince an audience. Being rude to your opponents either 1) puts them in a state of emotional defense, where you’ll never convince them of anything or 2) makes you yourself look like a jerk who can’t really make an argument. Either way you don’t accomplish your goal. As I see it, showing respect is both a simple common courtesy and a good debating tactic.

Another thing, while I’m on this topic of being respectful. As Objectivists, we’re supposed to be operating on a benevolent universe premise. Because of this I usually give people the benefit of the doubt. When I meet someone who tells me they have a view that I think is wrong, my attitude isn’t “Uh oh, another evil enemy to deal with,” but “why does he believe this?” From my own personal experience, I can think of two specific people I know who used to be Marxist-Chomsky-ists(?) who I convinced out of the position (one of them is now reading and thoroughly enjoying O’ist material). Had I had the dismissive attitude instead of the investigative outlook, I probably would have lost two friends and one potential convert. Not a good thing.

Of course, if someone proves himself to be totally irrational, it is perfectly proper to end discussion with them and get rid of them.

9

Thank you, Matt, for bringing this up. I’ve tried to address this problem on several threads, but you’ve been much more succinct in defining the problem.

When I was younger and had less insight into people, I was very quick to jump to conclusions about people. This was a mistake on my part. Most young people, in particular, go through a stage where they try out different ideas, and most of them do so in a very haphazard manner. (I blame irrational educational methods for much of this, methods which fail to teach critical thinking skills in any manner whatsoever. But that’s another subject.) Yelling at someone because he is ignorant is boorish, disrespectful, and counterproductive. Bad manners beget nothing but more bad manners. (I don’t mind throwing someone’s bad manners back in their face, though.)

Consider how Hank Rearden treated Non-absolute. He didn’t berate and belittle him. He chided him, but he treated him with the respect due even an ignorant human being.

We have no idea what has brought any particular individual to this forum. Most of the people here are young and have very little experience in the realm of ideas. What do we do when we yell at them and tell them how stupid they are, or worse, that they are evil? (Very few people are truly evil when they are young.) How does turning away some questioning innocent advance the ideas of Objectivism? If we are ever going to attain the civilization we all want, we need to think about these things.

As for preferring to debate ONLY with other knowledgable Objectivists, fine. Do so. If you don’t want to engage one whose knowledge, understanding, or level of acceptance of Objectivism isn’t up to your standards, there is nothing that says you have to; simply don’t post on that thread. Just don’t insist that others conform to your wishes.

Ultimately, the form the site takes is David’s decision – and only his.