what threats have I made? I am a contributor as are you. but we all get to manage our posts. thanks for the deep analysis. give me a day to digest and respond. :)

Now that was not an ad hominem but a question and a little bit of history about the way Rand would treat those who disagreed with her.

Is Objectivism such a undefensible philosophy that some possibly alt-right guy can turn individuals away from it? I see that Mr. Perigo has been attacked for his homosexuality and for having been a Marxist until he was 30. I do not like his alt-right comments but do not see him as destroying Objectivism any more than those who will not check whether a proper standard for morality is "man's life qua man" which is a floating abstraction where the 'qua man' is an abstraction floating there like a platonic ideal without any means of defining it other than maybe as a 'rational animal' which implies something like an animal with a consciousness capable of awareness of reality. "qua man" can only mean whatever mankind is capable of which includes both good and evil and all of the discarded middle ground which Objectivism claims as not useful in making choices.

Objectivism is an excellent philosophy but should not be such that it cannot be questioned, being the property of the late Ayn Rand and now of Peikoff. Let's open it up and clear up some of the stuff that has been questionable to some "students of Objectivism" who remain so since Peikoff remains as the only Objectivist left. Remember how the second most powerful Objectivist, Branden, was no longer an Objectivist due to not relating his affair with another student while and after stopping his affair with Rand. Being an Objectivist was and probably still remains as being ordained by the top Objectivist. Being declared one would not be necessary if it were an open system which anyone could follow without asking permission to do so.

Sorry for the rant, but you are not the administrator and your threats of taking away points and other things that might happen to the poor, possibly unimpressed with a tiff, poster.

"Rand clone" well you start with an ad hominem. this has nothing to do with the closed system of "excommunication" the site has a mission, however. go read it. The point system has a purpose as well. check Faqs. this is not a free for all.

Is there a Rand clone here? Just like in the old Collective where a student of Objectivism would be excommunicated for any questioning of the required dogma or for wrongly phrased questioning, making one a morally inferior to never be seen again.

thank you, Zero

So, Scary, help me out here.

Do you contest that Perigo should be called a racist?
That there is insufficient evidence to make that claim?

Or are you saying that Cresswell has not made a strong enough argument that racism is anathema to Objectivism?

Often, to my admittedly ill-educated mind, I have thought OBJ rifts have been tempests in teacups. Much ado about very little.

But this is not that.

There can be no place for Racism in our ranks. It must be called out and denounced. Ayn Rand called it the most primitive form of collectivist thought.

Surely you agree?

Perhaps classified under confirmation bias, I guess I can start with the general tenor of your post to establish my point. Your post is not what I would call friendly. The wag comment, for example, was not calling you a dog, and you have to really search for some ulterior nasty meaning in my comment to then twist what is a commonly stated cute phrase into an insult. On the other hand, maybe you work for CNN and this is standard protocol. [This, too, is humor is case you can’t figure it out.]

I did not understand what “alt-right movement” meant, so I looked it up on Wikipedia, which says:

“The alt-right (short for "alternative right") is a loose group of people with far right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in the United States.[1][2] The alt-right has no formal ideology, although various sources have stated that white nationalism is fundamental.[1][2][3] It has also been associated with white supremacism,[4][5][6] Islamophobia,[7][8][9][10] antifeminism,[1][11] homophobia,[12][13][14] antisemitism,[1][2][15] ethno-nationalism,[16] right-wing populism,[3] nativism,[17] traditionalism, and the neoreactionary movement.[4][18] The concept lacks a consensus ideology, and has further been associated with multiple groups from American nationalists, neo-monarchists, far-right leaning men's rights advocates, and people who oppose mainstream conservatism.[19][20]”

Perhaps I missed the posts that were “alt-right” at the Gulch. I say that because I did not see any. But, then, more and more I check in less and less at the Gulch, so there may have been such postings. I suppose if I were vain, I would think your alt-right comment was directed at me — as you apparently did regarding wagging the tail.

Now, as to “geometry or newtonian (sic) physics.” The point you are trying to make escapes me — if your point is other than to divert the focus of my question and not answer the question. It is a simple question. I asked: What is the defining difference between a "self-proclaimed Objectivist" and a non-self-proclaimed Objectivist?

To which I add, if an Objectivist is not self-proclaimed, then who is it that proclaims one to be an Objectivist?

the evidence is provided in the article and as far as on this site-do you need the direct link? I have paraphrased what was said . 1.6 billion muslims do not deserve to live as they are sub-human. what is your definition of hateful speech?

He must have read a different 14th amendment.
I guess I'm a bit out of it. I know of persons such as Brook, etc. But I have been busy with a variety of life-changing efforts and experiences from '89 to '05.

There are some who inevitably carry cultural acceptance to the point of being counterproductive. Examples: the EEOC declaring that any business that requires its employees to speak English is practicing discrimination of national origin; high school girls who wanted to show solidarity with their Muslim friends by wearing hijabs admonished for practicing cultural appropriation. A little rational thought seems to be in scant supply.

Gotcha there! We don't need nuts like that asserting alignment with us.

he is actually quite prominent in some O circles. in fact, I was in FB (facebook) post last night -O Indian dpsychiatrist , legal US citizen who was told by 1 FB "friend" to go back to India and practice there if he is critical of Trump. another person came on to that thread and said the 14th Amendment "enslaved us all" interesting times...

perhaps I have been indoctrinated to certain phrases, which is a contradiction I should address-so good point. but that thread was particularly alarming to me.

I believe it, but seems like it has gotten better here.

My point was the "hate speech" moniker. This term implies intent, and is often used to quiet people one doesn't agree with. I prefer "disruptive" or "illogically argumentative" or some simple adjectives.

Based upon your examples, I cannot find much in the way of Objectivism in this person's writings. I am unfamiliar with him, but perhaps he came to prominence when I was in the arena, doing things.

Concur.

Hello dbhalling,
"This Solo guy..." Not very O like!
Regards,
O.A.

culture discussion is completely appropriate and interesting. calling 1.6 billion people (including children! sub-human?) weird and evil. as well, this post , through Peter Cresswell's evolution with Perigo implies 0 population growth and eugenic-ism promotion. These concepts are anti-Man and antithetical to Objectivism at its very core-which is different than politics or and pragmatic solutions to systemic problems in the US. .

It's called reason.

Good points. You can criticize cultures, nations, religions, philosophies without practicing tribalism. You can also in personal situations categorize people because of imperfect information. For instance, if you see a black teen with baggy pants following you at night in a bad part of town, it is reasonable to assume that there is a high likelihood he might want to do you harm and to take steps to prepare. It is not okay however to turn around and shoot him based on this fear. This Solo guy is advocating the second.

Hello khalling,
Whenever one fails to make distinction between individuals and their race as well as the predominant culture of their native land they are practicing tribalism. Wide brush generalizations are useless and often erroneous when assessing individuals. One can point out the inferiority of a culture, or the superiority of another, without any racial component, or prejudicial component towards individuals.
Multiculturalism for its own sake is not necessarily the recipe for a superior culture or Philosophy. In fact many of its proponents make false equivalency between cultures and that diminishes/punishes the good for being good. There is a good essay on point in this matter at the end of my copy of Return of the Primitive. There is nothing wrong with bringing the fruits of other cultures into the fold and enhancing our own culture. The problem arises when it is not the cultural fruit that is being introduced, but the poison. This particular aspect is undoubtedly what drives a lot of the immigration/border debate.

The debate should be quite interesting.
Regards,
O.A.

who decides "true believers" of geometry or newtonian physics? and NO, not everyone's opinion in here is valid. It is very fair to call out people who do not support reason or are against the philosophy of Objectivism-else this forum is a free for all and meaningless. "wag more, bark less" if I ignore that I was just compared to a dog, there is no one in this forum who "wags their tail" more than me! critical posts pointing out the alt-right movement and how its insidiousness can poison an objectivist forum is valid.

Thoritsu. I was in a thread on one of my posts in HERE where at least two prominent gulchers said ALL muslims were sub-human and deserved not to live. no kidding

oops, thanks for pointing out the typo. fixed it!

My radar always goes up when someone uses the phrase "hate speech". Frequently, one person's hate speech is another person's declaration of an uncomfortable truth.