Bomb-Throwing, or Sense and Sensitivity
Posted by deleted 10 years, 2 months ago to The Gulch: General
Guess who I just got off the phone with? None other than our own sdesapio.
He was (quite rightly) concerned with my comment regarding the... well, I won't repeat it, but it was in the "Proposition: America couldn't have been founded by Objectivists" post.
It seems I touched a nerve. This is difficult for me to recognize, because in my youth I taught myself that there are no thoughts that are unthinkable, because then you limit your perception and ability to learn. Thinking a thought is not the same as advocating what it may represent.
Unfortunately, this has made it difficult, sometimes, for me to discuss matters with people, because I inadvertently offend them without meaning to. It's made worse because there *are* times when I try to offend people, usually to get across the idea of how something *they* think is mainstream thought offends me.
I'm *not* apologizing for what I said. However, what I said was something dangerous in this day and age, especially with the discovery of government monitoring of the internet. It is important to realize that I did not advocate what I described, and find it as horrible an idea as anyone else here. That was kind of the point.
I could almost certainly have used a different, less offensive metaphor. But, as I told sdesapio, I had earlier been watching an episode of "Law and Order SVU" (I like watching Marisa Hargitay on the show, so sue me). I won't describe what happened in the episode, but the suspect was justifying his behavior in a very similar way to the metaphor I made (Or was it an analogy.... I get those mixed up sometimes).
I never, ever "bomb-throw" just to agitate people; it's either, as I said above, to slap someone into awareness of his/her own offensiveness (such as I attempted in the "Christian Mystic" argument of the Galt as libertarian Jesus commentary), or because I don't realize that the argument I'm making is going to evoke outrage rather than provoke thought.
I'm making this post because sdesapio asked me NOT to delete my original offending comment, but to take my lumps and explain myself here (and yes, MikeMarotta, I complained to him about the lack of italic and bold tags).
Had he attempted to bully or boss me around, I would have told him to catch a flying fish (or words to that effect) and stormed off in a figurative huff. So credit to him for that.
I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes:
"Between midnight and dawn, when sleep will not come and all the old wounds begin to ache, I often have a nightmare vision of a future world in which there are billions of people, all numbered and registered, with not a gleam of genius anywhere, not an original mind, a rich personality, on the whole, packed globe."
-- J.B. Priestly
He was (quite rightly) concerned with my comment regarding the... well, I won't repeat it, but it was in the "Proposition: America couldn't have been founded by Objectivists" post.
It seems I touched a nerve. This is difficult for me to recognize, because in my youth I taught myself that there are no thoughts that are unthinkable, because then you limit your perception and ability to learn. Thinking a thought is not the same as advocating what it may represent.
Unfortunately, this has made it difficult, sometimes, for me to discuss matters with people, because I inadvertently offend them without meaning to. It's made worse because there *are* times when I try to offend people, usually to get across the idea of how something *they* think is mainstream thought offends me.
I'm *not* apologizing for what I said. However, what I said was something dangerous in this day and age, especially with the discovery of government monitoring of the internet. It is important to realize that I did not advocate what I described, and find it as horrible an idea as anyone else here. That was kind of the point.
I could almost certainly have used a different, less offensive metaphor. But, as I told sdesapio, I had earlier been watching an episode of "Law and Order SVU" (I like watching Marisa Hargitay on the show, so sue me). I won't describe what happened in the episode, but the suspect was justifying his behavior in a very similar way to the metaphor I made (Or was it an analogy.... I get those mixed up sometimes).
I never, ever "bomb-throw" just to agitate people; it's either, as I said above, to slap someone into awareness of his/her own offensiveness (such as I attempted in the "Christian Mystic" argument of the Galt as libertarian Jesus commentary), or because I don't realize that the argument I'm making is going to evoke outrage rather than provoke thought.
I'm making this post because sdesapio asked me NOT to delete my original offending comment, but to take my lumps and explain myself here (and yes, MikeMarotta, I complained to him about the lack of italic and bold tags).
Had he attempted to bully or boss me around, I would have told him to catch a flying fish (or words to that effect) and stormed off in a figurative huff. So credit to him for that.
I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes:
"Between midnight and dawn, when sleep will not come and all the old wounds begin to ache, I often have a nightmare vision of a future world in which there are billions of people, all numbered and registered, with not a gleam of genius anywhere, not an original mind, a rich personality, on the whole, packed globe."
-- J.B. Priestly
Human beings are emotional creatures, and if you want to achieve success in any endeavor, whether it be in business, at work, in marriage, or even just in a friendship, you have to be willing to acknowledge and accept the fact that people typically respond to things on an emotional level, and then work towards encouraging positive emotions in whoever you want to influence or befriend.
I know Ayn Rand makes a big deal out of disregarding emotions and using only logic, but the fact is that emotions are a big part of what makes us human, and it's not possible to suppress them entirely. Besides, any attempts to do so only end up suppressing the finer and more delicate emotions like love and kindness, while allowing the stronger and more base emotions like hate and anger to take total control of a person's psyche. In his book "The Islamist," former Muslim extremist Ed Husain talks about how radical Islamic groups actually tell their followers to do the exact same thing: disregard your emotions and listen only to logic. This is a huge part of why Muslim extremists are so violent - they have forgotten how to love.
Now Ayn Rand obviously wasn't a Muslim extremist, but I do find it rather peculiar (and just a little frightening) that her own philosophy actually shares such a major tenant with theirs. If you examine Ayn Rand's own personal life, that confrontational attitude of hers actually drove off a lot of people, including Nathanial and Barbara Brandon, who had formerly been among her closest friends. If she had taken a gentler, less confrontational approach, I sincerely believe that her philosophy would have a much wider audience and broader acceptance among the general public. It's a shame, really, because a better understanding of capitalism, entrepreneurship, and free market principles is exactly what our country needs right now. But unfortunately, Ayn Rand poisoned her own well by instilling it with enormous amounts of hate and anger, and as such, many people are rightfully afraid to drink from it.
When it comes to your own life, I would advise that you not make the same mistake. Remember, the way people treat you reflects how they feel about you, and how they feel about you reflects how they feel about themselves when they're around you. So if at any time it ever seems like everyone around you is an asshole, you may just want to stop and take a look in the mirror, because chances are you're being a bit of an asshole yourself.
Anyway, I hope this has been helpful, and I encourage you to continuing striving towards self-improvement. As a side note, here's a little something you might want to listen to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4dxy46Ju...
Enjoy. ;)
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/42...
Show me one person that has been killed in the name of Objectivism.
You proved it better than I could, however.
You requested I post this message; you asked me to say what I said to you on the phone. You further asserted that after I did so you would "jump in" to the conversation.
Remember when you told me you weren't patronizing me?
You were disingenuous on the phone; at the end of our second conversation, you urged me to be humble and apologize.... for having done nothing wrong.
What I attempted here was what you urged me to attempt on the phone; to explain my reason for the comment, and to explain why I make comments that some often find offensive, including you.
I also told you that I'm bombarded every single day by things which offend me, but which I cannot respond to or express an opinion on because political correctness will cause reactions and persecutions such as I'm receiving now. The irony of collectivist persecution in this of all venues is not lost on me.
Immediately after being excoriated for making the comment, khalling post a link to a literally sickening article regarding the same subject. So why was it so beyond the pale for me to briefly reference the subject, if the problem was the subject matter?
Again, it seems to me more like the outrage was generated at the suggestion an Objectivist could be associated with such a subject.
I'm being expected, it further seems to me, to apologize for having a mind that works differently from others, and apparently better than some.
So, from now on, sdesapio, email me a list of comments I am to make, and I'll post them with your endorsement, since I evidently can't be trusted to choose my own words, analogies or opinions.
But, lets, for a change, be honest with one another. What you want from me is to generate traffic. You don't want me to do so by outraging the rest of the membership, however. Especially if I thus drive them off. This is not an unreasonable position. It is why you ultimately requested I make an apology.
That's what you want to get from me. What are you offering me in return?
You are at least an honest debater and keep to honest intellectual argument.
Not sure why you give your time to those who don't deserve it.
Load more comments...