confidence alone doesn't make one a jerk. You have to have that secret sauce of arrogant, name-calling, nose in the air, ignorance (I am hijacking the definition to mean here ignoring virtuous challengers). Also, it's damned hard to keep on the straight and narrow of Objectivism. you can get a little cranky about it occasionally.
ohhhhh whoa-whoa-whoa-whoa

LOL. Yes.

Appreciate the laugh and the retort points ;). Maybe I do care a little about the points (numeric and philosophical).

I'm not sure that Rand attracts jerks in particular. I'd say that because her philosophy is pretty much bulletproof, she attracts people who want to be perceived as having bulletproof philosophies. Those people shouldn't be confused with people who do have bulletproof arguments. If, and only if, you have a bulletproof epistemological proof to discount an argument, and your opponent fails to recognize that, you have every right to tell them they are wrong and proceed to write them off as irrational (hence my desire for a thicker skin here). It's better for us all if you do.

I think it's the people who want to be perceived as 100% confident without having a fully integrated philosophy to support their arguments that come off as jerks.

Lol are you ever going to let that word salad comment go XD

Automatic writing is pretty much quack spiritual stuff by definition, but I tried it for kicks... It's sort of like quieting your conscious mind and letting your unconscious mind write whatever comes, maybe like dreaming on paper. It's surprisingly incoherent, but every now and again, something coherent seems to pop out.

amen or ahem
my comment was directed to wonky though

I agree on high-profile atheists being rude. The ones I happen to know, obviously not a random sample, are nothing like that. My wife and I atheist/humanist, as are many people we know through orgs, our UU congregation, work, etc. We almost never talk about atheism because there's not much talk about. It seems to get famous in atheism, you have to be a jerk.

I think it's the same way with libertarians-- the radical ideas stand out, but the majority of people would accept a program of scaling back gov't influence/spending, even if it cut things _they_ like. I imagine some coalition of politicians drastically cutting military, prisons, food stamps, healthcare subsidies, etc. I would oppose the cuts to things like food stamps and SBIR, BUT if we cut everything and therefore cut our quarterly 1040-ES payments in half and cut all the payroll stuff, we could put some of that money to solving those problems in our community. I suspect most people feel that way-- they give up their favorite gov't activities for a general decrease.

I don't know if this is true for Rand fans. Rand, for reasons I don't know, seems to attract jerks.

Lol it added to my conversation. All of a sudden people are taking this point thing too seriously.

Welcome to the Gulch Wonky.

Word salad. I like that. Welcome to the Gulch.

lol.
wait, if I laugh at a comment is it relevant and adding to the post?

What's automatic writing?

I have this idea that objectivists have more than their share of a$$ holes and rednecks, and that's why people who have never read Rand are certain they hate her. This is unfortunate.

I'm glad you're here.

I get the same feeling from being athiest lol. Richard Dawkins is so rude.