Confidence
There's been a bit of a ruckus in the Gulch recently regarding who should and shouldn't be here, and what they should and should not be posting.
We hear you.
And, we actually have a new tool on the way that we think is going to add a whole new level of "Confidence" to the goings-on in the Gulch. But, before we talk about that...
First, let's just summarize the recent banning of a long-time Gulch member - let's call him "MemberR."
1. MemberR was vocally anti-Rand.
2. Because MemberR was anti-Rand, MemberR's request to be a Gulch Producer was denied.
3. In retaliation, MemberR spammed the Gulch with numerous cloned comments claiming religious discrimination.
4. We banned MemberR for attacking Gulch moderators publicly via spam and false assertion.
Now, on to another troubled member, let's call him "MemberC" - who is a bit of different case.
We're going to have members with all levels of understanding. On a scale of 1 - 10, MemberC is a 1. Not a 0, a 1. He's read the books, likes them, but has yet to take the ideas to their logical conclusions.
On the road to Objectivist enlightenment, some are going to require a little help in their personal journey. MemberC is a prime example. MemberC is ignorant, inarticulate, contradictory and groping. MemberC is the "doesn't get it" poster boy. But, he is not anti-Rand. He's just stuck in a fog that has not yet been lifted.
We're either going to kick him to the curb, essentially saying, "We're glad you enjoyed the books. Too bad it didn't take. Now, how about you go f**k yourself.", or we're going to say, "We understand that it's harder for some to fully grasp the ideas than it is for others. Welcome to the Gulch. We're glad you made it this far. We're going to now show you the pieces you're missing... Dagny."
C'mon now. I got you there. You know I did. No, I'm not comparing MemberC to Dagny. But, Dagny entered the Gulch with half-knowledge at best. And, not a single Gulch resident turned their back on her. They were overjoyed that she made it that far. And they were all more than willing to spend their time helping to complete her education. Do I have to draw the analogy any more explicitly?
Before you go into attack mode, again no, I am not comparing MemberC to Dagny. I know that Dagny was well on her way to understanding already. I know who Dagny was. I know Atlas. I'm just trying to make a point. You get it and you need to shut up and give me this one.
So, here's the thing - disagreeing on the issue of politics is not grounds for banning. Politics is a corollary - a conclusion. Stated more clearly, disagreeing on conclusions is not grounds for banning. Objectivism is not about checking conclusions - it's about checking premises. If it was a requirement here in the Gulch that we all agree on our conclusions, we'd have no members.
Guys, let's all take a breath. If nothing else, our job in and out of the Gulch is to spread the word and educate. We've got a war to win. It's a war of ideas and we're not going to win if we can't articulate them consistently, without tiring.
MemberC, get your shit together already. You're a walking contradiction, and everyone's patience has worn thin. No, you can not sign up as a Producer. Producers are advocates of Ayn Rand's ideas - which you have not yet fully grasped. We do however hope to have you in the ranks eventually.
Now, to the new tool. Another one from Producer Eudaimonia, the "Confidence" meter. Only Producers get to vote on "Confidence." And, a member's "Confidence" level rises or falls on those votes - publicly. That's all I'm going to say about it for now. We're still a couple of weeks away.
P.S. If any of you are contemplating attacking me for anything I said in this post, make sure there's some meat on those bones. Some of you newbies with the "Atlas Shrugged is not about self-sacrifice! I'm more Objectivisty than you!" crap is just... no.
- - - - -
"If you are seriously interested in fighting for a better world, begin by identifying the nature of the problem. The battle is primarily intellectual (philosophical), not political. Politics is the last consequence, the practical implementation, of the fundamental (metaphysical-epistemological-ethical) ideas that dominate a given nation’s culture. You cannot fight or change the consequences without fighting and changing the cause; nor can you attempt any practical implementation without knowing what you want to implement.
"Speak on any scale open to you, large or small— to your friends, your associates, your professional organizations, or any legitimate public forum. You can never tell when your words will reach the right mind at the right time. You will see no immediate results—but it is of such activities that public opinion is made."
- Ayn Rand
Philosophy: Who needs it? "What can one do?"
We hear you.
And, we actually have a new tool on the way that we think is going to add a whole new level of "Confidence" to the goings-on in the Gulch. But, before we talk about that...
First, let's just summarize the recent banning of a long-time Gulch member - let's call him "MemberR."
1. MemberR was vocally anti-Rand.
2. Because MemberR was anti-Rand, MemberR's request to be a Gulch Producer was denied.
3. In retaliation, MemberR spammed the Gulch with numerous cloned comments claiming religious discrimination.
4. We banned MemberR for attacking Gulch moderators publicly via spam and false assertion.
Now, on to another troubled member, let's call him "MemberC" - who is a bit of different case.
We're going to have members with all levels of understanding. On a scale of 1 - 10, MemberC is a 1. Not a 0, a 1. He's read the books, likes them, but has yet to take the ideas to their logical conclusions.
On the road to Objectivist enlightenment, some are going to require a little help in their personal journey. MemberC is a prime example. MemberC is ignorant, inarticulate, contradictory and groping. MemberC is the "doesn't get it" poster boy. But, he is not anti-Rand. He's just stuck in a fog that has not yet been lifted.
We're either going to kick him to the curb, essentially saying, "We're glad you enjoyed the books. Too bad it didn't take. Now, how about you go f**k yourself.", or we're going to say, "We understand that it's harder for some to fully grasp the ideas than it is for others. Welcome to the Gulch. We're glad you made it this far. We're going to now show you the pieces you're missing... Dagny."
C'mon now. I got you there. You know I did. No, I'm not comparing MemberC to Dagny. But, Dagny entered the Gulch with half-knowledge at best. And, not a single Gulch resident turned their back on her. They were overjoyed that she made it that far. And they were all more than willing to spend their time helping to complete her education. Do I have to draw the analogy any more explicitly?
Before you go into attack mode, again no, I am not comparing MemberC to Dagny. I know that Dagny was well on her way to understanding already. I know who Dagny was. I know Atlas. I'm just trying to make a point. You get it and you need to shut up and give me this one.
So, here's the thing - disagreeing on the issue of politics is not grounds for banning. Politics is a corollary - a conclusion. Stated more clearly, disagreeing on conclusions is not grounds for banning. Objectivism is not about checking conclusions - it's about checking premises. If it was a requirement here in the Gulch that we all agree on our conclusions, we'd have no members.
Guys, let's all take a breath. If nothing else, our job in and out of the Gulch is to spread the word and educate. We've got a war to win. It's a war of ideas and we're not going to win if we can't articulate them consistently, without tiring.
MemberC, get your shit together already. You're a walking contradiction, and everyone's patience has worn thin. No, you can not sign up as a Producer. Producers are advocates of Ayn Rand's ideas - which you have not yet fully grasped. We do however hope to have you in the ranks eventually.
Now, to the new tool. Another one from Producer Eudaimonia, the "Confidence" meter. Only Producers get to vote on "Confidence." And, a member's "Confidence" level rises or falls on those votes - publicly. That's all I'm going to say about it for now. We're still a couple of weeks away.
P.S. If any of you are contemplating attacking me for anything I said in this post, make sure there's some meat on those bones. Some of you newbies with the "Atlas Shrugged is not about self-sacrifice! I'm more Objectivisty than you!" crap is just... no.
- - - - -
"If you are seriously interested in fighting for a better world, begin by identifying the nature of the problem. The battle is primarily intellectual (philosophical), not political. Politics is the last consequence, the practical implementation, of the fundamental (metaphysical-epistemological-ethical) ideas that dominate a given nation’s culture. You cannot fight or change the consequences without fighting and changing the cause; nor can you attempt any practical implementation without knowing what you want to implement.
"Speak on any scale open to you, large or small— to your friends, your associates, your professional organizations, or any legitimate public forum. You can never tell when your words will reach the right mind at the right time. You will see no immediate results—but it is of such activities that public opinion is made."
- Ayn Rand
Philosophy: Who needs it? "What can one do?"
I think what we are seeing in member C is not an error of knowledge, but I trust you, Scott, and hope you are correct.
Most of all, thank you for addressing the issue.
"..."
I am really impressed at all the improvements that have come in lately and the ones still in the works.
Thank you for the hard work.
Now its up to us to hold up our end.
Do not include marketplace entries in Hot, just New if they're New... for, say a week or some amount of time?
Featuring what are basically ads in the Hot Zone strikes me as a sort of version of Net-Neutrality but in a negative way.
If the Gulch is a marketplace for IDEAS and conversations, I'd venture that the marketing/sales side is a bolt-on and not a capstone.
imnsho.
Fire away...
Let me take off my "Eudaimonia" hat for a second and put on my "rpoach" hat.
Please, know that the real people making these upgrades happen are jbaker and sdesapio.
Seriously.
I come up with a good suggestion every once in a while, but these are the guys pulling it all together.
I just try to help them out and not to break too much shit along the way.
And there are others making it happen too, like awebb and dfish.
Do I need to mention John & Harmon?
So make sure that all these guys get some of the love too.
Rpoach? Interesting. Would have never guessed!
What I see in this article is a real but vaguely defined threat and/or promise of a purge. Obviously anyone who seriously dissents won't dare speak up.
Let the purge happen. Either I'm wanted or I'll move on to someplace where I am.
No jdg. "Outsiders" as in anti-liberty, anti-Rand.
RE: "What I see in this article is a real but vaguely defined threat and/or promise of a purge."
Wow. Really? Where? In all seriousness, can you point it out specifically? This was an open letter to my friends here in the Gulch jdg. And, it was an anti-purge letter.
RE: " Obviously anyone who seriously dissents won't dare speak up."
Dissents to what? Why wouldn't they speak up? In the 3 years the Gulch has existed, out of the 20,000+ members, I think we may have banned 2-3 people. What was said that has you so spooked?
Soon.
My question is (dare I ask?) - is it a Tool tool? --giggles--
My thought is this. Some people are never going to get beyond the "1 or 2 out of 10" stage, or may take a long time to have it sink in and show growth. Although our Gulch is changing and maturing, cutting people off from it totally - save those who have obvious and blatant malicious intent - will inhibit their potential for growth.
I will admit - some of those people here can BE PITA's, some will never get it, some are flat out trolls. But I also think to those who have decidedly non-objectivist thought processes that are here - and then someday "get it".
It would be like "You get to read AS one time. If you get it, you can read it again, if you do not, then you are banned from reading it again". Some people (and I include myself in this group, unashamedly) can be quite stubborn and hard-headed about this - exposed to something, but have the sense and logic of it not sink in until they're surrounded by it for a while, and it processes something internally that shapes them.
Some trolls - deserved to be banned, as they expose themselves as having no other purpse here than being destroyers, looters, and miscreants. But others - well, even IF they never become "hardcore Objectivists", still provide both an outside view and a counterpoise that enables the rest of us to check OUR Premises. That there is value in that is unmistakable, and losing that would, IMO, be a detriment to these hallowed halls....
In a word:
Trolls with malicious intent => OUT
Other rational parties => Their presence in the Gulch may be valuable to both us and them
Jan
Jan
I see your moniker here? . delightful!!! -- j
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unfzfe8f9...
p.p.s. just checked the lyrics -- nothing literal
here;;; just a good-sounding song.......
I really like the 'confidence' idea. +1+1+1+1
You are the man on the beat. ...a temporary freeway jam... no major collisions here... Lets get the traffic moving; shall we? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfN-APKK...
I like my Hot button (its back) and look forward to tooting my horn!
Respectfully,
O.A.
Respectfully,
Ed
online gulch is seeing things from others' perspectives --
others who think straight and check their premises.
it's a breath of fresh air when I can come here
and "let my hair down" with you fine folks!!! -- j
The Gulch is reality therapy for me. ;)
One of the things that this virtual Gulch is good for is as a crucible to evolve how we would act in the real world. It is interesting to see what criteria we draw and what mechanisms we implement.
Jan
If my son, for instance was a serious socialist, and active or vocal in trying to change the Gulch, I would ask (tell) him to leave, experience the real world and I'd contact him when appropriate, like John Galt did to others. It would be sad, but not different than my real life experience telling him he cannot stay in my house until he apologizes to my wife (step mother) for his behavior to her through high school.
If the Gulch became a mature, stable "country", it would seem we could absorb some such infections with our immune system, but perhaps not if it is so weak it must be hidden from the world to exist.
I really don't understand the context of the main question. Someone, just running around throwing argue-bombs is a waste of everyone's time. Basic disagreement/arguments are another matter. I can imagine minor comments about Ayn that could easily stand, like "I don't appreciate her hair style", or how can an objectivist smoke cigarettes?". However, if one doesn't fundamentally agree with her philosophy, then why are they here?
The socialist, OTOH, wants take your stuff by force.
It is not all bad to be challenged by one who is not yet there with the ideas of Rand. It can make us reach deeper into our own understanding of her ideas, If we then can influence another not yet there, we will have made the world one step better for ourselves. If they come and insist on tearing down Rand's ideas with only talking points from outside the gulch, then is the time to request that they leave.
"You can never tell when your words will reach the right mind at the right time." - A.R. And she had enormous patience with people who did not yet "get it", explaining and reasoning tirelessly, looking for the right words at the right time.
Looking forward to your new tools. It will be a lot more enjoyable to have discussions around here. Thank you! I'm with you all the way.
We need to keep in mind that truth is objective, not subject to majority vote. In any disagreement, look at the premises. There are no contradictions, and no conflict of interest between rational individuals. Thanks for airing out the place.
HOWEVER, it might help others see how his obviously off the wall blithering is viewed, and help them understand clearly that his view is not the Objectivist one. That is of use.
AND ALSO, I'm willing to try it because it is - like so many of your ideas - WAY better than the scattered replies to him which was all we had recourse [original typo: recurse] to before.
Finally, I'm with Mamaemma in giving you my thanks for addressing the issue.
And, since we all run up against moments when emotions cloud reason (because we are emotional beings) we have to be able to step back and engage reason, check our premises if you will. Better said by Galt: "If any part of your uncertainty is a conflict between your heart and your mind follow your mind." Not an easy feat.
Personally speaking, for me, the statement d'Anconia makes to Rearden in their confrontation at the home of Dagny is a cardinal truth that points to the human condition: "Within the extent of your knowledge, you are right." Hank was not right. But within the knowledge he possessed, he was right. We all find ourselves in that position.
You cannot disassociate yourself from reason and logic and remain a viable human being. But some of us have a knack for applying logic and the process of reasoning, if you will, and yet some of us struggle continuously. Galt, suffering, almost walked in that night to declare himself to Dagny in the small office of the "John Galt Line", d'Anconia, in refusing the loan to Dagny, agonized and suffered, Rearden, suffered, vacillating continuously between "what should be and what was". Objectivism is a process that must be learned.
I believe Rand knew that she had to "humanize" her characters and yet they had to have the moral fibre required to support her philosophy or, like she stated, it would have remained in a scholastic form on a shelf, a book of philosophy among many and for the few. Rand's characters show such strength, courage and perseverance and she knew that it would take this kind of effort to create and preserve a world where each individual had an inalienable right to the pursuit of their own happiness anchored in the principal of "value for value".
Her philosophy is absolute (A=A) and mathematically profound and who sets out to follow that path has an arduous journey ahead.
I stand with sdesapio's statements on memberC.
And, until the time a line must be drawn, as we are reminded, when d'Anconia says to Rearden: " I came to warn you about the sin of forgiveness." (Hank took years to reach this point) then so say we all.
I will never forget when Rearden said, "I would have forgiven the past- if, today, you had urged me to quit and disappear". Forgiveness is always possible, but it is up to the one who has transgressed to change and deserve forgiveness.
I was coming from the point of view that you cannot keep sacrificing and taking abuse (like Rearden, in particular his family members and his demise of believing he was "his brother's keeper") which is why he earned that statement from d'Anconia. I was applying it in correlation to MemberC. But I believe your comment and mine do cross paths at a certain point and are in agreement.
I always appreciate your comments. Thank you.
I do hope that CG continues to learn, like all of us, if that is his purpose.
Seeking peace and eliminating strife creates a healthy environment.
Helping the weaker members of the Gulch is practice for life.
Just my opinion.