Hello MikeMarrota,

Two thumbs up.

The characteristics she describes can be observed here daily. Humility, patience, tolerance and courtesy should be extended until certain of motive. However, some do not reciprocate. From implied snarky personal remarks, to the explicit denigrations, some create to their own detriment, an atmosphere antagonistic to their assertions. Repeatedly resorting to these tactics, is reasonable cause for others to entertain questions of actual evasion, or motive. When we have uncertainties, we should acknowledge them; this does not mean that certainties don’t exist.

Regarding groups willing to follow a bully who wields the arguments of Objectivism for nefarious purposes: In the past we have for the most part been successful at pointing out and policing these problems. We have here in the gulch an example of the other group she describes. “We human beings find great value in the company of others who see the world as we see it, who share our sense of life and our intellectual commitments, and with whom we can experience the joys of comradeship and mutual affection. This is why young—and not so young—Objectivists seek out Objectivist groups, hoping not only to learn from them but also to be accepted by them, to be treasured as fellow-fighters in the same noble cause.” That is the essence of the Gulch. It is not the group, she warns of. Except for a few, it is composed of generally respectful (until provoked) dedicated intelligent advocates, all independent, but appreciative of common ground. Most here regularly for some time, are arguably fair and tolerant of opposing views, but not necessarily of boorish behavior. Isn’t that what Barbara is saying also?

“Excommunications” from “Objectivist” groups… It should not be so, simply for disagreement, but for trolling, bullying/intimidation, condescension, insolence… yes. Those not civil, expose the weakness of their argument, mastery of emotion and ability to persuade. One may by demeanor alone, excommunicate/alienate themselves, taint reception of arguments and offend. The reaction of the offended group may be self defense.

Like force, initiation of intentional insult towards other contributors should be avoided, but one may be justified in retaliation. It is also reasonable to support others when alerted of undeserved abuse. Arguments inherently offensive are few if handled academically. Aspersions are generally ineffective, if not counter productive. It is in our interest to foster a respectful learning environment and civil exchange. It is wise to practice civil tolerance if we do not wish to alienate knowledge seekers, or hinder understanding.

Overall, on all subjects discussed, Barbara offers wonderful advice on toleration, but like many things, it is a matter of degrees, perception, yet ultimately limits too.

Respectfully,
O.A.

That's very interesting. And, I have experienced that myself.

The biggest error I've seen is when Objectivists connect themselves to the GOP across all ideals. Many who support the GOP are big-government statists and don't even realize it. So, accordingly, I've heard self-proclaimed Objectivists argue passionately for things like a military draft, forced vaccinations, abolishing the 4th Amendment, etc. To see anybody push such ideas with passion, absolutely sure that they are right, just makes me find something else to do with my time...