Normally, it is not. Though it does reflect the larger society. We have our neighbors who feel they can run their pulse jet engine because they want too, and so they do. Never mind the noise. There are those whose dogma is the only thing, and who will say "You cannot speak, because your truth is not my truth, and you make me feel bad". Normally, discussion is good, there are some good debates, but the absolute rigidity gene is strong in some, and they seek to impose their belief on everyone else. That causes conflict. Look at what is going on out in the real world, same thing. Speak your mind, don't be afraid, a lot of people who do not even know you will stand up to anyone who tries to trash talk you or your position. Respect is owed to everyone till they prove they are not worthy.

I would hope it's slightly right of center, it would be objective to advocate for big government.

That certainly does happen, but what kind of "mantra" and "closed minds" are you referring to? The "Objectivist core" certainly is missing from this forum, in part because so many have no interest in or understanding of what it is.

Our posts here aren't out of line or offensive at all. The systematic 'downvoting' targeting by author while attacking Ayn Rand illustrates the point of your original post opening this thread. Their own posts on this thread smearing the people they oppose -- in the name of supporting "discussion" -- provide all the background comment chains you need for an understanding of what is going on.

There aren't many of them engaging in that behavior -- a couple of 'votes' displayed have little meaning, but even worse is that there isn't much left on this forum countering it.

The personal animosity is not new, it has erupted here in the past and has been a constant undercurrent, but has become more intense recently as the emotional outbursts grow and feed on themselves.

Despite being attracted to some aspects of Ayn Rand they did not pursue the philosophy that made her work possible the way supporters in the past have. In spite of supporting some aspects of political freedom, they don't like Ayn Rand's views contradicting anti-individualist conservative bandwagons and internet fads they are attracted to, don't tolerate being intellectually challenged, do not tolerate straightforward principled explanation, defense and application of Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason, and reveal a seething, festering personal resentment. They don't know what objectivity means and do not want to be judged.

They have become increasingly militant and defiantly anti-intellectual -- even resenting that their targets know too much, smeared as "thinking we know everything". The militancy now copies the tactics of Saul Alinsky in the form of the internet feuding and targeting that can be found almost everywhere now from political and ideological factions across the board.

I think you said a few times that you come from a communist country and know what real oppression is. It must be especially disconcerting to you to see here such intense ugly emotional eruption over such existentially harmless intellectual challenge.

mminnick thanks for making the point.

There is a rule that institutions, even those with objectives ranging from libertarian to conservative, eventually get taken over by statist collectivists.
After a good run this site is following that rule.

We see it when a post recommending the non-fiction works of Ayn Rand gets down-voted. The crusaders are stomping in with bad language, fallacious argument, rudeness, excess apostrophes, and even bad spelling.

The auto-down-voters target the most original and the best Objectivist thinkers. Yes one or two can be rather blunt, I am reminded of Ellis Wyatt, one of my heroes, but an Ayn Rand character would be unknown to the crusaders.

Well I for one am being accused of being a shoelace...? and they don't like shoes or something. Either way, I think my first 24 hours were enough to reply to you about how I'm feeling abut the downvotes and I'm taking my money to a different gulch.

The comments of one person do not "upset an entire community", nor would that necessarily be the source of the problem, nor is the goal necessarily to "create disharmony". It is true, however, that there are such militants here on a crusade, and they aren't here to support Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason.

N, that has been part of the system all along. In WW2 the Germans would take allied planes and fly them into allied formations, to report all their moves, altitude etc, so they could be shot down, It took several of these before anyone caught on. Exact same thing. That is WHY you DO need to care about politics, they count on all the individualists to give up in disgust and then go about their own business, and then when they figure out they now own it all, try to stop it. Kalifornia, New York, DC are all examples. Once they have a supermajority, it is just a dictatorship by the mob and you are doomed to a violent revolution. Venezuela.

Politics is important not to discuss. It offers opportunity to gauge where society is, where its going and how it can be influenced to make the nation (world) a better place. Since we all live in this same world, the influence of Objectivism or the threats to individual liberty need be recognized and worked against whenever possible. I think to ignore such a highly social subject, head in sand if you will, is to allow a noose to be weaved around ones neck without lifting a finger to prevent t.

+1

Why was this post 'downvoted', just to confirm mminnick's point because some angry nihilist likes it that way?

There is a lot to learn that is very interesting in Ayn Rand's nonfiction. Even when discussing politics, she had a unique, philosophical approach making her work timeless.

Welcome to the Gulch! Relatively new myself, landed only a couple months ago.
All the more important to stay civil, polite, and consistent.

There is no "ability to attain the impossible".

And there is your answer mminnick: "So for me it's worth filtering out the conspiracy theories and general mean-spiritedness to find the discussion about how precious and powerful are free people using reason to live their dreams. " Peopel who have promted themselves to the level of our liberal lords and masters, to be able to determine YOUR post is a conspiracy theory, but MY post is truth, and then proceed to have an entire series of rants about how they know all, see all and you know nothing (even when this is a discussion of fusion energy among physicists)because they know everything. When somebody posts a thread, and people respond like that, they attack the validity of the persons premise and data not with facts, but with the infamous "everybody knows fusion is impossible you are just pandering a conspiracy theory and don't know what you are talking about" . That says nothing about the post or the subject but denigrates what the thread is about, the idea of debate and discussion, and the freedom to discuss without having to endure a blast of insults and blind denial of facts and data. Some people have appointed themselves the "I know Ayn Rand" priests and will tell you why you are not being Ayn Randy enough, or are violating some secret Ayn Rand laws, etc. Most people came here because they like real discussion, no one to impose their will on them, and do not want to bow to anyone they do not want to bow too. So, I would propose we ban the use of the term "conspiracy theory" because all that is is a fancy label for something they do not want to discuss, even if you have facts and data to back it up.

You have an appreciation for Ayn Rand that many conservatives here do not.