Time For Solo To Change Its Name
from blogger Peter Cresswell's site: Not PC a scathing critique of SOLO Objectivist (?) Lindsay Perigo. Why is this interesting? Those who like/enjoy Stefan Molyneux are likely familiar with Perigo, who has descended into Alt-Right movement and has quite the followers-many self-proclaimed Objectivists. In February there is going to be a debate between Perigo and Yaron Brook on Amy Peikoff's podcast. Here is a little homework for you before the debate which I will promote in the Gulch after the first of the year.
Now a sidenote: I recently participated in a thread on this very forum which mirrors the langauge if not the intent of Perigo in this article and found it to be more than troubling. Wherever I see anti-human or hate speech in this forum I will call it out for what it is-it certainly has no place in an Objectivist forum promoting the ideas of Ayn Rand. I hope you will as well.
Now a sidenote: I recently participated in a thread on this very forum which mirrors the langauge if not the intent of Perigo in this article and found it to be more than troubling. Wherever I see anti-human or hate speech in this forum I will call it out for what it is-it certainly has no place in an Objectivist forum promoting the ideas of Ayn Rand. I hope you will as well.
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.
"This Solo guy..." Not very O like!
Regards,
O.A.
Perhaps, like the Inquisition, some supreme authority exits which can certify the “true believer” and prosecute the heretic. Who made this authority the keeper of the keys of the true Objectivism?
I agree people should be civil, even with those with whom they disagree. And, in the Gulch, I have had all too many “True Objectivists” invoke an inquisitorial impulse to extirpate heresy, which is whatever the True Believers say it is.
No wonder so many have abandoned the Gulch for more pleasing pastures. I would love to see the Gulch Culture change to one of where the group understands disagreeing with one’s views is not the same as being against the people that hold those views.
When once the forms of civility are violated by the discussion participants resorting to name-calling, there remains little hope of return to kindness or decency. A quick review of previous posts at the Gulch, over any period of time, reveals ad hominem attacks.
Wag more, bark less, and —hopefully— the Gulch will thrive.
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 only thing worthwhile, which I have copied to my hard drive for possible future use as my desktop display, were the header and footer graphics. The rest was drivel between two pseudo intellectuals fighting for the same lawn chair in a rainstorm.
IE: if this is the most substantive thing either of them has to say, then they should remain silent ... the world needs answers, not hissy-fits.
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?
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.
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.
I didn't know this guy, but sounds like he went off the deep end.
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.