See Jimbo's talk page, and the [[Ayn Rand]] article which I have rewritten. The bet is how long it will stay in its rewritten state. I love the remark that 'Aristotle was sorely over-rated'.

Wow, already "She has attracted an almost fanatical popular following in parts of America" is changed to "She attracted a popular following, particularly in America"

Excellent point Peter. Welcome to Wikipedia: the slum of all human knowledge.

Er, thankyou Moulton.

The other argument that is being trotted out on the Jimbo page with monotonous regularity is the tired old chestnut about the magic of the Internet, which means we have so much space on the Internet that we should be adding material on Homer the Greek, rather than deleting material on Homer Simpson.

Dead wrong. Of course there is space on the Internet, it's called 'the Internet'. Everything is there, of course. But with no indication is to verifiability, neutrality, and most importantly, no indication of notability. Indeed, there is a probable inverse correlation between something being on the internet (and Wikipedia), and its notability. Reference works proceed by a careful process of selection and weeding out. And much of the chaff that is rejected naturally ends up on the Net.

And then on Wikipedia.

A true educator does not add knowledge.

A true educator takes away ignorance.

I win the bet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=263203466

That was quick.

I still find it absolutely unbelievable that people subscribe to Ayn Rand's abhorrent views, believe that that nonsense is applicable to real life, and even worse, read her awful, awful writing.

Uh, actually, this is kind of off topic for the thread. Oops. This sort of thing is pretty sad. To be kind of on topic.

Well, awful or not, Jimmy has come out for Rand on his talk page. The article has been 'restored' to its former glory, and Lar has left a threat on my talk page. This one is actually worthy of a ban (probably my final ban, but, yes, worth it).



Hicks, by the way, also received a grant

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1917-S_hicks.aspx

from the Objectivist Centre.

More of a prediction, really. Since you're cruising for a block, I shall not oblige you. But not to worry, someone will soon enough.

'Cruising for a block' is an obvious threat. And what is the block for? 4 academic philosophers on the Rand page supported my re-write of the introduction. 1 idiot troll opposed. Wales supports the troll. I lose the battle. As for the war...

No, it's an observation of your behaviour. I don't threaten.

Guess what, you might be right about the Ayn Rand article. But if you actually want to fix it, you're going the wrong way about it. And you know it, since you stated:



We get it. You're not there to write an encyclopedia, you're there to count coup, make bets, score points, posture for the viewing audience there and here, and the like. Spare us.

If you were there to actually write an encyclopedia, you would not be going about it this way.

You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it... So stop the posturing. It's not worth your time or anyone else's. Most everyone's on to you already.

No actually I have some very deeply held principles involving conflicts of interest that prompt many of my, er, dramas on Wikipedia.

And on writing an encyclopedia, I have today written a new introduction to the Rand article, plus a rewrite of the whole of [[Rational egoism]]. Prior to that I put a considerable amount of work into [[Neurolinguistic programming]] that involved a lot of emailing experts on the subject, library work and so on. The new article won praise from a number of people. oh yes, and [[NLP and science]].

All you care about is the crappy civility thing. Well fuck off, Lar.

Is that the sole reason you're there. Lar, to write an encyclopedia?

No. But it at least is one of them. I'm not sure Peter can actually say that and have it be true. Regardless of how much good writing he does! It's not, based on my observations, very likely that his reasons for doing the writing are to advance the project. Of course that means I may have formed an incorrect theory of mind.


{{citation needed}}

As charming as ever, aren't you?

Gee, Larry, how is this supposed to "build an encyclopedia"?
Other than an Objectivist encyclopedia?

He's trying to point out a real problem. WP has an obvious pro-objectivist bias,
because Jimbo does. And so do a few other high-ranking admins.

And you're waving your hands and going "pish tosh".

Yes, Larry, you don't threaten.
Or do you?

Other people apparently do your backstabbing.
Funny how things just vanish.

I suspect most people, whether Christian, Muslim, atheist, Buddist, whatever, would take a look at statements like
and say, this is the opinion of a crazy person.

For a guy who went around to the news media, bragging about hacking Lego's website, you've got a lot of nerve to criticize Damian for hacking Wikipedia's damaged editing process. He may be doing it in an "uncivil" fashion, according to your relentless standards of Randian logic. But you're no prize either.

Please note that I have confined my criticism to only what's available on WP or WR. If you'd like me to commit to a proper ad-hominem criticism, based on your personality and character vis-a-vis Mr. Damian and qualifications to discuss Ayn Rand's status as a philosopher, please feel free to ask for it.

Ah, you funny man. That all depends on how you define "encyclopedia," now, doesn't it?

Wikipedia is a giant changable vulgar online Baedeker, Who's Who, Book of Lists, Dump of Trivia, mass of misconceptions, remarkable linked nuggets of truth, repository of popular culture, biography, tabloid, cultivated corporate directory, and mega-almanac of various kinds of stuff. Really, it's not like anything that has previously existed. It only calls itself an encyclopedia when some semblance of respectablity-by-proxy-word is needed. Usually in order to win some kind of grant, or accolade or award from the clueless world which hears "encyclopedia" and has memories of "Britannica," or feels some ghost of idealism born of Voltaire and Diderot and the Enlightenment.

But Wikipedia is not that. Not now. When not dressed up in white-tie, tophat and tails for the establishment, Wikipedia is happy to point out all those ways it isn't at all like Britannica. But it won't give up the idea or term "encyclopedia," because in the Wiki-world, words mean exactly what you want them to mean, no more and no less. And if you want to work the words extra hard, you can do that, and you don't even have to pay them more for it, as in Alice In Wonderland, because it's all done by volunteers.

So, since the world "encyclopedia" is defined privately by Wikipedia, and amounts to whatever they want to define it as (and it changes regularly), the phrase "I'm here to write an encyclopedia" actually translates to "I'm here to write whatever I want to, and can get away with writing, according to my political power on this site." But that doesn't sound nearly so cool. Or noble.

And just as definitional authority on a given website flows from the power of administration, so also does truthiness. Does an "encyclopedia" have to be "true"? No, we don't go there, either.

The accusation: "You're not here to write an encyclopedia" means "You're not here to write Wikipedia" which in turn means "You're not here to do as we tell you to do."

To which the answer has been given above, already, I think: "So fucking what?" Convince me that you're smarter than I am, or know more, and then I'll be embarrassed at my answer on that. Okay?

Milt

Great post, Milton. WR has missed you.

I might add that if you compare the article edits of Lar, Peter and Milton it is quite apparent who comes in a distant third in adding encyclopedic (using either the real world or WP definition) content to Wikipedia.

Lar, I was puzzled by your comments about LaRouche on the BLP board, but now it begins to make sense, because I can see that you are in fact sympathetic to Ayn Rand. Rand and LaRouche are pretty much diametrical opposites, and I think that this is the underlying basis for the rather extraordinary treatment of LaRouche at Wikipedia.

This randy-ism seems to be in essence LaVeyan Satanism, which LaVey himself described as

"just Ayn Rand’s philosophy, with ceremony and ritual added."

This Randism's not necessarily my particular thing. There's no romance in it.

I'm scratching my head trying to envision somebody the diametrical opposite of Ayn Rand. Timothy Leary? Maybe if you could take the Dalai Lama out on the town, and somehow get him drunk enough to be really stupid.....

Golly, is that what LaRouche is like?

In Basic Principles of Objectivist Epistemology there isn't, for sure. But her novels are extravigantly, unidimensionally, cartoonishly romantic. Nietzsche-shrillly-protesting-Wagnerishly romantic. There's even a bodice-ripper scene or two. There was a side to Rand that Taxwoman would have liked, and vice-versa.

Boy, does that explain a lot.

LOL.

I don't see a threat there.



I read those links and I don't think that's an accurate description at all of what happened. Anyway, I don't know much about Rand. All I can say is that I liked the movie, "The Fountainhead" which is like saying I don't know the Bible but liked the movies "The 10 Commandments" and "Ben Hur". By the way, I think that the intro for the Rand article is NPOV as written.

Why, thank you. It’s good to be back alive. I’ll reply a bit more in the vacation lounge thread.

Lar went head-to-head with Fr. Rob Dye from Tulsa OK? Wow - there's a name from the past. I knew that guy too (in a trollish kinda way ) from use(less)net, back in the 1990s. Small world ...

QUOTE(Lar @ Back in the dim, distant past)

I reject altruism and I reject sacrifice, as I have defined it

Dude? That's kinda wacked

But remember that Objectivists have caused endless confusion by redefining altrusim and self-sacrifice (as we historically have used the words) to suit their own purposes, so that they can reject them (in their new definitions) as strawmen and emblems of Kantian evil. The ordinary kinds of antruism and self-sacrifice that we know-- parents sacrifice for children, a soldier's sacrifice to defend his country, is perfectly fine with Randroids. And they'd be fine with self-sacrifice on Gods' orders too, since that would be in your best interest to follow orders of the Big Guy, except they don't believe in him. So self-sacrifice THERE isn't really the primary philosophical problem.

The deal is that Randians believe that a lot of people go around sacrificing themselves for reasons that don't make them feel good as empathetic acts, or supporting of their own beliefs. Kant said that if doing something makes you feel good or satisfied in any way, it can't be moral, even if (especially if) it involves self-sacrifice. Personally, I doubt this kind of Kantian type of morally thing thing is practiced very much in the real world, but Randroids think everybody reads Kant and knows him by heart, and that though Kant's many appologists, there are a lot of suffering unhappy altruists out there, and that this happens a lot, and they're convinced it's completely screwing up the world, taking away people's happiness. And Randroids aim to stamp this non-fun Kantian morality right out.

That counts as a "mad belief." But there it is. You can't convince them it's not true. They believe it on the world of Rand, and that's that.

Duh.

Milt

I apologise for the f--- off remark. On 'citation needed', well you never came into this argument until I called WilyD an idiot for saying that Aristotle was 'overrated'. Is that an idiotic remark or not?

In all your subsequent arguments you never once addressed the logic of my argument - which is that I am not prepared to collaborate with cult followers, because they are beyond reason, and I only work with reasonable people. You just seize on bits of incivility, as though they were crucial to the logic.

You also ignored the way I contribute to articles. If you had bothered to look at the edit trail, you will see I collaborate a lot by making suggestions, encouraging the people who ought to be encouraged by friendly advice, and so on.

Title: Mister Randman
Artist: Peter Damian
Composer: Pat Ballard and Barsoom Tork Associates
Midi: Mister Sandman (Synth Version)
Midi: Mister Sandman (Piano Jazz Version)

Mister Randman, bring Milton a dream
Make it the goodest that he's ever seen
Give him some quips from Nietzsche and Nagel
And let him spend his lonesome nights with Hegel

Randman, I'm so adrift
My best ideas come up short shrift
Please turn on your magic beam
Mister Randman, bring me a dream

Mister Randman, bring Lar a dream
Make it the mootest that he's ever seen
Give him the word that he's not a rover
Please say his dreamless nights are over

Randman, I'm so bereft
Don't have no thinkers to sit on my left
Please turn on your magic beam
Mister Randman, bring me a dream

Mister Randman, bring Jimbo a dream
Give him some vision with a come-hither gleam
Give him a heart so he's not a Nazi
And lots of boogie tunes like Liberace

Mister Randman, bring me a dream
Not this nightmare of geshrailisch scream
Bring me a tune to sing with abandon
And lifetime therapy with Nathaniel Branden

Mister Randman, some ideas to hold
Would be so peachy before we're too old
So please turn on your magic beam
Mister Randman, bring us
Please, please, please
Mister Randman, bring us a dream

CopyClef 2009 Pat Ballard and Barsoom Tork Associates.
Resurrection Hackware. All Wrongs Reversed.

"Give him a heart so he's not a Nazi
And lots of boogie tunes like Liberace "

Love it

And here on my talk page this afternoon I find this:



Why do people like Lar come back to the subject of civility, as though that were the problem of recruiting good editors?

Doesn't this make it perfectly clear that incivility is not the problem? Lar? Answers please?

Cute, and maybe even insightful.


Not so insightful. Rand and Leary were drifting in the same direction.

I'm surprised by Lar's post. I had pretty much accepted his stated "I'm a libertarian, but not an "Objectivist" at face value. But run of the mill libertarians don't go on about the evils of "self sacrifice" or "altruism." In fact most (non-techie type) in the US are probably some kind of evangelical Christian and don't mind some kind of "living for others." They just don't want much government and especially want people to be free from government interference in personal matters (although they are often conflicted over reproductive rights.) You don't see Ron Paul engaging in discussion within these parameters.

Lars shows himself to pretty much be an "objectivist." When he says ¡Libertarian, sí! ¡Objectivist, no! he seems to pretty much means he doesn't buy the cult of personality while swallowing her doctrine hook, line and sinker. Just another nice guy buying into techie culture's received political doctrine. Things could be worse as one book that gave me all answers could have been supplied by L. Ron Hubbard and not Rand. Although even Hubbard's writing is better than Rand's.

The Randroids' solution to the problem of Kantstipation boils down to "fuck you, I'm gonna be immoral." A more thoughtful response was provided by Friedrich Schiller, who posited the existence of the Schöne Seele ("beautiful soul",) the individual in which Pflicht (duty) and Neigung (inclination) were united, rather than at war with one another. He called this "educating the emotions," or in the vernacular, "growing up." Great classical art plays an important role in educating the emotions, as we often find in real-life examples of historical individuals who were not conflicted about doing the good.

The Randian tirades against altruism are just adolescent rage. Schiller writes, for example in this essay, that self-sacrifice can be the embodiment of real human freedom. Animals, like Randroids, are incapable of acting against the drive for self-preservation, and are therefore essentially slaves to it.

Bingo. Wikipedia is only an encyclopedia because it needed some cachet of respectability. In reality, Wikipedia is more along the lines of an information dump.

In a cesspool, the biggest turds float to the top. Same seems to be true of Wikipedia.

What I don't understand is why self-interest is supposed to be rational. Why do we single out ourselves? It is clearly irrational to prefer the interests of people called 'Tim' unless there is a reason given for the preference. What makes ourselves different? Of all the people in the world, what makes me special, and what singles me out for special treatment?

You could argue that this is what people naturally do (I admit I tend to). But the point is, what makes this rational? Difficult.

I think a remarkable and IMHO ridiculous statement like this needs some expansion. Compare and contrast, and good luck.

Animals act against the drive for individual self-preservation all the time! Most especially when it comes to matters of reproduction and protection of young, or even the group (in social animals-- think of bees dying to sting for the hive, etc). Rand had no problem with any of this, even for humans, but felt that it had to derive from some internalized set of values (educating the emotions would not be a foreign idea to Objectivists) which furthered the individual's purposes and self-worth. Whereas, presumably, animals do it "instinctively" or without intellectual justification or comprehension. Rand hated the thought of self-sacrifice if it didn't feel good to do it, with the good feeling deriving from a logical reduction of proper action to proper emotion. Basically, Rand sought for a rational reason for individuals to do what animals often do without thinking (as in a mother standing between danger and her children). I think that in this she failed spectacularly, and (as usual) ended up only with "after the fact" justifications for doing whatever she wanted to do, or felt impelled to do. Which things were sometimes selfish and sometimes what the rest of us call "altrusitic," except as regards the last, she refused to recognize both the word and action for anything she did, and merely denied it and called it evil.

Alas, re-labeling something does not make it, in essense, into something else. Randroids again and again sought to remake their world by remaking their language, but never quite figured out that one does not control the other (except, perhaps, in the virtual reality of a computer, which may be why you find so many Randians stuck in online worlds, and down the drain of word-controlled VR).

But look, we need to simply back off and see where Rand came from. She was a Russian Jewish girl whose family store had been stolen by Communists. She was pissed off about this all her life, and had every right to be. She identified the problem as the "State" (particularly the heavily socialist state) seeking to demand the same kinds of self-sacrifice from individuals that ordinarily they are willing only to make to their closer kin-groups, for example their children. The maffia Rand would have understood; the Communists she never did. But instead of merely recognising that the Communists are just a bigger variety of the maffia-- a bunch of psychpathic bastards who demand that you sacrifice you and yours, for them and theirs, Rand went looking for some philosophical underpinnings to the likes of Lenin and Stalin. And for some reason (God knows why) she fastened on poor Kant. But it wasn't Immanual Kants' deathcamps and secret police. Paranoid psychos like Stalin or Saddam don't need Kant to put such things in place. Reality is so much simpler.

And less black and white than Rand painted it.

Oh, where to start with this thread.

First, on my "bragging about hacking LEGO"... don't believe everything you read in the press. Even the techie press.
The "hack" was that some folk figured out that, hey, a particular LEGO Factory file that is held locally is XML and the tags are pretty self explanatory, and you can make use of that information to do a better job of designing models so as to not get a lot of parts you don't really need. No systems were broken into or anything like that. So far the legion of doom hasn't called me.

Second, on sacrifice/altruism. One of the many reasons I'm not the fan of Rand I was over 10 years ago (when that LUGNET thread was written) is the redefinition of things, which I've come to realise is really a bad job. I expect it would be a lot clearer if Objectivists didn't try to make words mean what they wanted them to mean.

I stand behind the notion that I am not keen on sacrifice or altruism defined the way they do or did... but it's not a very meaningful term if no one else even gets what is meant. So it's bad rhetoric.

By the more conventional meaning of the term, we all sacrifice things every day. I sacrifice sleeping in to get up, I sacrifice playing games to post here, and so on. Those aren't very important sacrifices, really, although in every case, we give something up (the sacrifice) to get something else, whether tangible or intangible. More important things, with more meaningful things given up, are sacrifices like giving blood, or making donations to charity, or volunteering to join the volunteer fire department, or the army. (and most people if you ask them, wouldn't call those sacrifices, necessarily, just choices. That's what Randites were getting at but like so many things, they do a poor job of explaining it)

That choosing things is fine, natural, expected, you do it, I do it, we all do it. It's when the guy with the gun comes along and says "your money or your life" (ever been mugged? it's not a lot of fun) that it's a "sacrifice" I'm not so keen on. I don't want to give him either of those things, so it's not a voluntary gift of one or the other. That's the sort of sacrifice that ought to be rejected as not being something I support. (I go along, I'd rather not be dead, but I'm not condoning it)

Or when the person soliciting charity instead of appealing to your desire to help others because they are worthy or because they have suffered misfortune that is no fault of your own, insists that you should help someone despite them not deserving it. That doesn't happen very often in real life, in fact nowadays it's almost a contrived example, but when it does, I don't like it either.

Right now, we taxpayers in the US are all being asked to (apparently altruistically) give up our tax dollars to pay for the TARP. Why "altruistically"? Because it turns out that the benefit touted, that it was going to help the economy... hasn't really come to pass. 300+ billion has been disbursed and no one can explain exactly what good it did. That is altruism, that is a sacrifice, I don't really condone. Can't do much about it short of leaving, but I don't condone it.

I'm not a Randite. Maybe I was once, 25 years ago, but even 10 years ago? No. I'm more like Milton Roe politically, and that's about it. I only voted Libertarian this time because it was safe, Obama was going to sweep my state without any trouble.

Finally The idea that my thinking that the Larouche article needs balance is because I'm some secret disciple of Ayn Rand? That's misdirection. HK, love him as much as I do (and he has many good qualities), has a bit of a blind spot about his beloved LL and doesn't want to see the article be balanced. Kind of like how the Randites have a blind spot about their beloved AR. I think I'm over being blinded, and was a long time ago.

Hope that helps. If not, carry on anyway.



On rereading it, so was I. It was over 10 years ago, after all. People change. I just got done writing a long explanation, but still.

Whatever may be good or bad about the respective philosophies of Rand and Larouche, they both seem capable of atttracting fanatical cultists who don't show a particularly balanced, nuanced view of their idols.

And back to the point of this thread. Adherents of cults are well known to be impervious to any kind of rational argument. That's part of the definition of 'cult'.

So, a question for Lar, why are these people on Wikipedia? There are some easy tests one can apply to identify these people, hint, they are often very civil. Why aren't those with influence on Wikipedia addressing this issue as a matter of concern? Why are they only interested in attacking those who are raising this concern, such as myself, in extended personal attacks such as Lar made above? Answers?

Extended personal attacks? What are you talking about.

If you want me to answer questions it helps not to be too disparaging. Which is the totality of my point about civility. It's not a sufficient condition for contributing, but it is a necessary one (or it ought to be... I know WP has a lot of VestedContributors who get away with stuff and I don't like that one bit).

I'm concerned about people who are impervious to any kind of rational argument. I just don't know what to do about it. I think there have been a number of ArbCom cases about this matter, but as of yet there hasn't been a perfect solution. (or even a fairly good one).

This



I found that all deeply offensive.

I found it perceptively descriptive of the sort of attitude you're taking... and that description would apply also to some others here like Moulton, TheKohser, and Awbrey... all of you are more interested in trying to prove, and score, points, and disrupt and ridicule their enemies, than in making productive contributions.

Yeah, you lucky such and such. Off scuba diving in Palau.
While we're sitting here freezing our balls off and reading Lar's blather.


Well put, thank you. Funny isn't it?

Come to Wikipedia Review, and have reasonably well-mannered discussions with actual, degreed students of philosophy.

Or go to Wikipedia, the so-called "reference", and if you're lucky, and Lar and his ilk haven't fixed it yet.......read crap like this.

I'd like to avoid the extremes of verbosity that often occur in our disputations. Also, a caveat: I have not read Leary in depth (I have, however, read his partner, Richard Alpert/Ram Dass, in depth.) OK: Rand and Leary both reject the idea of a universal human identity, where the individual is primarily concerned with his relationship to history and a sense of responsibility to past and future generations. Alpert/Dass made this explicit with the slogan "Be here now." Leary said he was founding a "new paganism," which jibes rather well with LaVey's take on Rand. I hope that's sufficient.

I think you've made my argument for me, which is that animals have a sense of self-preservation that encompasses more than just the individual, and so does Rand, in a roughly analogous way. On the other hand, the idea of self-sacrifice for an idea, after the model of Christ, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, etc. is foreign to both animals and Randroids.


You said the article needs balance? Why, who could disagree with that! But you also seemed to find it plausible that LaRouche would be classified as a "fascist." I have seen a tendency among libertarians and/or objectivists to use the term "fascist" in a very broad way to describe people who, for example, don't support the decriminalization of recreational drugs, prostitution, or other so-called "victimless crimes." Likewise, persons who advocate federal regulation of financial markets are called "fascists." I believe that this is an incorrect use of the term. The same applies when Moulton calls moderators who limit his posting "fascists." I think that government institutions have an obligation to find a happy medium between giving free license to individual impulses, and protecting the interests of what our constitution calls the "General Welfare" -- it may be fair to call this "Big Gummint," but not "fascism."

There is some progress in that SlimV has taken it to mediation committee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...iation/Ayn_Rand

But I’m not sure how the mediation committee arrive at their judgment. The main question to be deliberated, which has been raging on the Rand talk page, is whether Rand should be considered a genuine philosopher (as opposed to amateur philosopher, novelist-philosopher, commercially successful writer who had philosophical ideas &c).

How are the mediation committee going to decide this? I don’t recognise any of the names on the list, apart from Postlethwaite and Seicer, but that doesn’t fill me with confidence.

Easy - by using a sliding scale, based on votes made by the woman Rand's many fans, and enemies too. For instance........

Genuine Philosopher? : 0.003 / 10
Amateur Philosopher? : 0.102 / 10
Novelist Philosopher? : 0.185 / 10
Commercially Successful Writer Who Had Philosophical Ideas &c? : 1.002 / 10
Bad Writer With Loonie Semi-Philosophical Ideas? : 11.999 / 10

Etc., etc., etc. I have a good feeling about this idea, should it be taken up by those Wikipedia types, as I'm confident that the result will be a victory for common-sense and decency, i.e. a much-shortened Ayn Rand article along the lines of "Ayn Rand was a loonie-bird writer of utter shite with the philosophical skills of a sack of rancid monkey-spunk. It should be noted that her supposed supporters have never actually managed to finish (Hey! Or even start!) the God-awful 'Atlas Shrugged'. Especially our own, beloved Jimbo."