Religionist, Apologist, Collectivist, and Trolls
Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 8 months ago to Philosophy
I recently posted what I thought was a relevant and interesting post concerning the misinterpretation and following supposed analysis of what AR said about Objectivism by supposed intellectuals. The question asked was, what does that mean for the growing popularity of AR's philosophy and was it something that advocates would have to always have to put up with.
But the next thing I know, religionist proselytizers, apologists, collectivists and maybe trolls (though I have a problem with that definition) are using that as an opening to argue their world view and and others apologize for and try to minimize those commenting as such, instead of addressing the content and questions of the post. Why are these people attracted to this site? Is it just proselytizing or is it sincere?
Is it just an annoyance, or is it a true challenge to the Objectivist? Or is it more confirmation of the increase of AR's and 'Atlas Shrugged''s influence in our world that we should be pleased about? Is it something Objectivists should address, ignore, or attempt to dispute?
But the next thing I know, religionist proselytizers, apologists, collectivists and maybe trolls (though I have a problem with that definition) are using that as an opening to argue their world view and and others apologize for and try to minimize those commenting as such, instead of addressing the content and questions of the post. Why are these people attracted to this site? Is it just proselytizing or is it sincere?
Is it just an annoyance, or is it a true challenge to the Objectivist? Or is it more confirmation of the increase of AR's and 'Atlas Shrugged''s influence in our world that we should be pleased about? Is it something Objectivists should address, ignore, or attempt to dispute?
And I'm amused at your use of "acceptance" and "intolerable" in the same sentence. I'm glad someone other than me can recognize that tolerance is not acceptance.
THIS IS NOT AN OBJECTIVIST SITE.
If you want to cocoon yourself in Objectivist thoughts, there are plenty of those sites out there. Those of us here are here for stimulating discussion centered around AS and the themes of AS. We are not all mind numbed robots that can only regurgitate whatever pap that AR spouted, but are our own rational, thinking beings.
If anyone is a troll, it is him who cannot stand having his idea challenged logically and rationally and pouts about others that think for themselves.
that is not promoting the ideas of Ayn Rand which is clearly part of the mission of this site. It's one thing to disagree with specific Objectivist principles, but your statement above is not rational. Objectivists on this site spend exhausting amounts of time patiently explaining and re-explaining parts of the philosophy. My goal is to get people to dig further. No one is asking you to numb your mind, rather to open it.
The whole truth is you made disparaging remarks about Rand and Objectivism. Several people, including Zen (whose post it was) asked why. Your original points about morality were answered. Your responses were not completely rational. This post isn't about you. There were several people on his post who were challenging and the topic veered off-track. The number of comments usually gives an indication that the post doesn't stay on-track. I am not going to take away a point here, but I will from now on, every time you say stuff like the quote from above. We all can have an emotional response now and then, but this site is NOT tolerant of baseless claims disparaging Objectivism or Rand with no logical support.
I did not make disparaging remarks about either AR or Objectivism, I pointed out that I see it has flaws and described those flaws.
Every time I see a comment like "this is an Objectivist site" that to me is an indication of a "mind numbed robot." As you identified elsewhere, and is clearly stated in the home and about pages, the principal purpose of the site is to promote the movies. Neither the book AS nor the movies, to the best of my understanding, explicitly espouse Objectivism per se. They do promote Capitalism and freedom, and have many Objectivist themes, but I don't think that it is accurate to say that they are Objectivist movies - I point to the large number of theists who agree with much of the content, if not all.
There does seem to be a lot of ‘tell me only what I want to hear’ going on, which is frustrating for those who like me who come here with an open-mind to read for clarification to develop an understanding of objectivism in a community-setting. I want to read something ’new’. So many here want to be heard, but aren’t really versed on the subject of objectivism.
If I relied on this site only, I would not be any more educated on the ideas of objectivism then I was when I first joined.The debates just go astray too often. I do, think those who don’t agree with or have knowledge of Ayn Rand’s philosophy should try to read more and write less.
If it's okay to edit the money speech to comparatively nothing for the sake of time, is it all that much more wrong to edit it to keep from offending a sizable portion of the audience?
Consider; I'm still not offended by what I said. But it's still recommended that I self-censor in order to appease elements of the population here.
Is that hypocrisy?
And... another vote for echo chamber.
So is this site an echo chamber?
if so, let me know, so I (and others) can vacate.
Disparaging or otherwise... A=A. Rand was a moral despot. Rand's philosophy is at odds in places with reality.
"this site is NOT tolerant of baseless claims disparaging Objectivism or Rand "
We have words to describe such intolerant people:
Obamabots
Nazis.
Zealots.
The issue is that you think the claims are baseless. They are not.
Quote the entire sentence:
"We are not all mind numbed robots that can only regurgitate whatever pap that AR spouted"
We
are
not
all
What Zen is promoting is turning this place into an echo chamber, where only atheist Rand worshipers are welcome. Not Objectivists. Not students of her philosophy. Not fans of the movies. Zealots. And Zealots only.
I warned you before about alienating the Christians who participate here. There are more of them than there are of you, and their religion has a lot more practice and a much much better track record of success at converting the non believers. If you want to accomplish any of your Objectivist goals out there in the real world, you're going to have to learn to live with Christians. They're the only allies you'll have.
I can tell you right now; just as conservatives will no longer be the water carriers for the Republican party, Christians won't be the water carriers for Objectivism.
I got sent to Coventry because you, and your fellow atheists, felt comfortable disparaging my belief system, and in retaliation I demonstrated how evil people could hide behind Objectivism just as readily as Christianity. Which was probably more unforgivable than what I actually said in that one sentence.
Particularly when this post goes up in response to his insistence on my delineating my position, which I had twice declined to do as I knew that it was not something that he wanted to hear. So I acquiesce to his request and he throws up this screed that I'm proselytizing. I mean, really. If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.
The 1st question in this post: Why are these people attracted to this site? Your answer appears to be that you like the movie, but consider yourself to be a greater thinker than AR or those of us that find resonance with her philosophy and writings.
The 2nd question in this post: Is it just proselytizing or is it sincere? You state that you are one that is here for 'stimulating discussion centered around AS and the themes of AS.' Yet you take every opportunity to attack the theme of AS and those that find AS to be an exemplary description of the worth of AR's thinking and philosophy.
The 3rd question in this post: Is it just an annoyance, or is it a true challenge to the Objectivist? I think your comment above answers the annoyance part, as to a challenge--you certainly aren't.
The 4th question in this post: Or is it more confirmation of the increase of AR's and 'Atlas Shrugged''s influence in our world that we should be pleased about? The more attacks and the irrationality you show the more pleased I, as one Objectivist am. I take it as just more confirmation of the growing influence of her thinking.
The 5th question in this post: Is it something Objectivists should address, ignore, or attempt to dispute? Personally, I think that anytime irrational arrogance appears on a site devoted to the movies and AR's work, it should be refuted. It won't make a difference to you but it helps to reinforce to those not fully experienced in Objectivism, how easy it is to answer the evil and nonsense influences of those that would belittle AR's achievements and how irrational they are.
Your failure here to address the post and the questions asked and instead to attempt to hijack it into some type of personal attack on the poster, and aggrandizement of yourself and what you interpret in your own mind as rational thinking, just further demonstrates the ridiculousness of your arguments and you approaches in attempt to get others to listen to them.
Maybe you should post describing all of your arguments against AR's ideas and thinking rather than hijacking other's posts. Personally, I have no need to hijack other's posts in order to discuss my personal experiences with AR's philosophy and AS.
they are encouraged to check it out, you will
continue to see a wider range of beliefs and thoughts than on other objectivist forums. I think it 's great to have posts devoted to just discussing Objectivism and also some criticism as long as it stays on topic. After all the site does promote Objectivism as Scott has said now many times. If your goal is the opposite of that you either need to stick to subjects where you have common interests or go to another site. In no way am I supporting no criticism of objectivist thought but if you overall reject all of it or even most of it, why are you enjoying the site?
Someone down-pointed me last night for taking a point away from someone who suggested we strap my ‘butt’ to a nuclear warhead. I just deleted my comment rather than play their game.
We have a Loki-sorts runny around. Someone who takes a point away from another poster in an exchange that is none of their business.
“Maybe we should strap your “butt’ to a nuclear warhead and point you this direction and see what happens” Not exact wording, but close.
I wrote back: “I’m taking a point away because you touched my “butt”
I thought that was a humorous way to point out his post was a ‘personal’ attack. Apparently, another anonymous producer who had nothing to do with the exchange didn’t agree and down-pointed my comment. I deleted my post rather than call them out. You know me, I rarely take points away.
"If you had a nuclear freaking warhead fused to your butt, with a random trigger on it, should we let you into the US?”
Hahaha. See? He touched my ‘butt’. ;)
I wish there were a way to say yes, I agree publicly by pressing a button. I think downvotes should be reserved for real spam or pointless insults. I think most people do that. It's a few people who downvote ideas they disagree with without even commenting about it.
As for keeping people on topic, see Eudaimonia's strike policy regarding getting off topic.
Works for me.