Bill Bucko

Bill Bucko, Diana Hsieh, and ARI

84 posts in this topic

When I make my annual contribution to the Ayn Rand Institute, I specify:

"for any project with which Diana Hsieh is NOT associated."

In my opinion, such an utterly foul-mouthed Generation X'er should not be associated with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion, such an utterly foul-mouthed Generation X'er should not be associated with.
Bill, are you saying you don't want to support her because she's a "foul-mouthed Generation X'er" or is there another reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Principally because she's a foul-mouthed Generation X'er. When someone so repeatedly expresses a gutter attitude toward human sexuality, I think decent people who don't share that attitude should avoid her. See Dr. Peikoff's OPAR, for an explanation of sex's philosophical significance. I don't think her smutty attitude toward sex is a sign of a healthy or rational personality. Nor does it indicate much self-respect. Or dignity.

But she also has a history of nasty quarrelsomeness toward at least one long-time genuine Objectivist whom I respect. To me that indicates, at the very least, a lack of maturity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Principally because she's a foul-mouthed Generation X'er. When someone so repeatedly expresses a gutter attitude toward human sexuality, I think decent people who don't share that attitude should avoid her. See Dr. Peikoff's OPAR, for an explanation of sex's philosophical significance. I don't think her smutty attitude toward sex is a sign of a healthy or rational personality. Nor does it indicate much self-respect. Or dignity.

But she also has a history of nasty quarrelsomeness toward at least one long-time genuine Objectivist whom I respect. To me that indicates, at the very least, a lack of maturity.

"Qarrelsomeness" is the least of it.

I did not know about the sex issue, but before her malicious personal attacks on the Speichers and on the Forum I had already stopped paying attention to her. Despite initial expectations and hopes, after reviewing her writing I found it to be not very good, uninteresting, and immature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Principally because she's a foul-mouthed Generation X'er. When someone so repeatedly expresses a gutter attitude toward human sexuality, I think decent people who don't share that attitude should avoid her. See Dr. Peikoff's OPAR, for an explanation of sex's philosophical significance. I don't think her smutty attitude toward sex is a sign of a healthy or rational personality. Nor does it indicate much self-respect. Or dignity.

Is this something you've noticed at her blog, or elsewhere? This is the first I've heard of a "gutter attitude".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Principally because she's a foul-mouthed Generation X'er. When someone so repeatedly expresses a gutter attitude toward human sexuality, I think decent people who don't share that attitude should avoid her. See Dr. Peikoff's OPAR, for an explanation of sex's philosophical significance. I don't think her smutty attitude toward sex is a sign of a healthy or rational personality. Nor does it indicate much self-respect. Or dignity.

Is this something you've noticed at her blog, or elsewhere? This is the first I've heard of a "gutter attitude".

Perhaps he means things she wrote like this and this and this and this and this and this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Principally because she's a foul-mouthed Generation X'er. When someone so repeatedly expresses a gutter attitude toward human sexuality, I think decent people who don't share that attitude should avoid her. See Dr. Peikoff's OPAR, for an explanation of sex's philosophical significance. I don't think her smutty attitude toward sex is a sign of a healthy or rational personality. Nor does it indicate much self-respect. Or dignity.

Is this something you've noticed at her blog, or elsewhere? This is the first I've heard of a "gutter attitude".

Perhaps he means things she wrote like this and this and this and this and this and this.

The fourth link doesn't work because THE FORUM's obscenity filter replaces the "s-word" with "######". If you want to see the article, you'll have to change it back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps he means things she wrote like this and this and this and this and this and this.

Yes, I hear that kind of stuff a lot from my non-Objectivist friends. It's very annoying and immature. I guess I've become a little desensitized though, I put up with it because most people around my age are like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I make my annual contribution to the Ayn Rand Institute, I specify:

"for any project with which Diana Hsieh is NOT associated."

Given the content and tone of certain pronouncements she's made, one would think that Miss Hsieh would go out of her way to make sure that any ARI project she's involved with isn't funded by FORUM members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given the content and tone of certain pronouncements she's made, one would think that Miss Hsieh would go out of her way to make sure that any ARI project she's involved with isn't funded by FORUM members.

Far more importantly, ARI should be way more fastidious about its associations and endorsements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I make my annual contribution to the Ayn Rand Institute, I specify:

"for any project with which Diana Hsieh is NOT associated."

Given the content and tone of certain pronouncements she's made, one would think that Miss Hsieh would go out of her way to make sure that any ARI project she's involved with isn't funded by FORUM members.

Do you really think that ARI is going to keep track of which contributors participate in which internet sites? Hardly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you really think that ARI is going to keep track of which contributors participate in which internet sites? Hardly.

Then a woman of integrity would have but one recourse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you really think that ARI is going to keep track of which contributors participate in which internet sites? Hardly.

Then a woman of integrity would have but one recourse.

????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you really think that ARI is going to keep track of which contributors participate in which internet sites? Hardly.

Then a woman of integrity would have but one recourse.

????

People that post on THE FORUM offend Miss Hsieh enough for her to chose not to associate with us. Why would she associate with an organization FORUM members support?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Principally because she's a foul-mouthed Generation X'er. When someone so repeatedly expresses a gutter attitude toward human sexuality, I think decent people who don't share that attitude should avoid her. See Dr. Peikoff's OPAR, for an explanation of sex's philosophical significance. I don't think her smutty attitude toward sex is a sign of a healthy or rational personality. Nor does it indicate much self-respect. Or dignity.

Is this something you've noticed at her blog, or elsewhere? This is the first I've heard of a "gutter attitude".

Perhaps he means things she wrote like this and this and this and this and this and this.

Seems like DH has a response for everyone here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Principally because she's a foul-mouthed Generation X'er. When someone so repeatedly expresses a gutter attitude toward human sexuality, I think decent people who don't share that attitude should avoid her. See Dr. Peikoff's OPAR, for an explanation of sex's philosophical significance. I don't think her smutty attitude toward sex is a sign of a healthy or rational personality. Nor does it indicate much self-respect. Or dignity.

Is this something you've noticed at her blog, or elsewhere? This is the first I've heard of a "gutter attitude".

Perhaps he means things she wrote like this and this and this and this and this and this.

Seems like DH has a response for everyone here.

These people must be pretty sad to get so twisted up about what a few members say on THE Forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Principally because she's a foul-mouthed Generation X'er. When someone so repeatedly expresses a gutter attitude toward human sexuality, I think decent people who don't share that attitude should avoid her. See Dr. Peikoff's OPAR, for an explanation of sex's philosophical significance. I don't think her smutty attitude toward sex is a sign of a healthy or rational personality. Nor does it indicate much self-respect. Or dignity.

Is this something you've noticed at her blog, or elsewhere? This is the first I've heard of a "gutter attitude".

Perhaps he means things she wrote like this and this and this and this and this and this.

Seems like DH has a response for everyone here.

I also recommend reading the comments section. For those Noodlefooders who think that we at The Forum have no sense of humor, I burst out laughing when I read, "Sex might not be dirty, but it is gooey."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Principally because she's a foul-mouthed Generation X'er. When someone so repeatedly expresses a gutter attitude toward human sexuality, I think decent people who don't share that attitude should avoid her. See Dr. Peikoff's OPAR, for an explanation of sex's philosophical significance. I don't think her smutty attitude toward sex is a sign of a healthy or rational personality. Nor does it indicate much self-respect. Or dignity.

Is this something you've noticed at her blog, or elsewhere? This is the first I've heard of a "gutter attitude".

Perhaps he means things she wrote like this and this and this and this and this and this.

Seems like DH has a response for everyone here.

I haven't said anything about this profanity thing until now, but frankly I don't see what the big deal is. Whatever anyone thinks about her thinking, Ms. Hsieh's blog isn't an academic paper or Disney.com - it's a blog. None of the language in any of the posts or comments Betsy linked to would have raised flags for me if I were a NoodleFood reader, other than the last one, which I thought went too far because I didn't find anything offensive in the comment Ms. Hsieh replied to. Even angry I wouldn't have been that crude in that situation. However I have often been even more crude than that in other situations, and not always appropriately.

Here I follow Betsy's rules, because it's Betsy's place. I have no quarrel with that and I'm happy to be here. But my usual manner of speaking is often...let's call it "somewhat more sailor-like," as reviewing some of the posts on my own blog will show (such as here, here, and here - the FORUM software may break that last link the way it did the fourth one in Betsy's post). Whether or not profanity gives offense, is humorous, or is an effective rhetorical device (as intended in my blog posts) depends on the context, and other than the one I mentioned, in the context of the examples offered I found nothing wrong with the language used.

As for the response Paul's Here links to, if it were me I wouldn't expend any more energy on people I don't want to associate with than it takes to think, "OK then, moving on..." I only bothered this time because I wanted to make my point about profanity, and Ms. Hsieh was the context. Now I'll go back to honoring her request to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
----------

I haven't said anything about this profanity thing until now, but frankly I don't see what the big deal is.

-----------------

Nobody has said it was a big deal. There were a total of 4 posts in this thread out of 36 total that addressed Bucko's comment. Bill made a comment, a question followed, Betsy suggested an answer, and I cited what the Noodlers are saying about us. We are now "Objectivist Puritans" who have no sense of humor and are afraid of using foul language!!! Well I'll be!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
----------

I haven't said anything about this profanity thing until now, but frankly I don't see what the big deal is.

-----------------

Nobody has said it was a big deal. There were a total of 4 posts in this thread out of 36 total that addressed Bucko's comment. Bill made a comment, a question followed, Betsy suggested an answer, and I cited what the Noodlers are saying about us. We are now "Objectivist Puritans" who have no sense of humor and are afraid of using foul language!!! Well I'll be!!

"OK then, moving on..."

^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I enjoy the posts of some select members on here, I've become increasingly bothered by what Diana has said, along with what seems to be an apologetic support for members of the religious right. So, I do not believe I will be posting here anymore.

The attacks on Diana are, as far as I know (As a regular reader of NoodleFood and her essays), totally unwarranted. The only thing I find perverse and hard to stomach is the intellectual and personal dishonesty.

Feel free to delete this post if you are so inclined, I just wanted to make myself known and have an official "auf Wiedersehen".

With All Due Respect

-Ryan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I enjoy the posts of some select members on here, I've become increasingly bothered by what Diana has said, along with what seems to be an apologetic support for members of the religious right. So, I do not believe I will be posting here anymore.

The attacks on Diana are, as far as I know (As a regular reader of NoodleFood and her essays), totally unwarranted. The only thing I find perverse and hard to stomach is the intellectual and personal dishonesty.

Feel free to delete this post if you are so inclined, I just wanted to make myself known and have an official "auf Wiedersehen".

With All Due Respect

-Ryan.

Which concept applies to the post above?

Argumentation: the act or process of forming reasons and of drawing conclusions and applying them to a case in discussion.

Asserting: to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively; to assert implies stating confidently without need for proof or regard for evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Principally because she's a foul-mouthed Generation X'er. When someone so repeatedly expresses a gutter attitude toward human sexuality, I think decent people who don't share that attitude should avoid her. See Dr. Peikoff's OPAR, for an explanation of sex's philosophical significance. I don't think her smutty attitude toward sex is a sign of a healthy or rational personality. Nor does it indicate much self-respect. Or dignity.

But she also has a history of nasty quarrelsomeness toward at least one long-time genuine Objectivist whom I respect. To me that indicates, at the very least, a lack of maturity.

I'm bewildered by the attitude expressed here, and disagree strongly with what I understand it to imply.

I have very strong disagreements with Mrs. Hsieh and have addressed those directly in the past. I find some of her behavior incredibly immoral, specifically her unwarranted personal attacks on Stephen and Betsy. On that basis, I want nothing to do with her.

Being foul-mouthed and having a "gutter attitude" (whatever that means) toward sex is not directly immoral, outside of some particular contexts. It may indicate immaturity, a lack of self-respect, or some other psychological issue, but even if it does, those are not per se ethical violations. I'd regard them, at worst, on par with rationalism in terms of magnitude of moral weight. (In other words, not much.)

In fact, to denounce someone like Mrs. Hsieh for such things when in fact she is immoral in other ways trivializes her real issues. By analogy, it would be like condemning a thief for being a sloppy dresser: to rail against someone for something trivial, when something else they've done is far worse, implies that the worse act is less important. (BTW, I do not think she's a thief, lest any reader think I'm implying such.)

If someone doesn't like swearing and finds it distasteful, that's fine and one is entitled to not socialize with or support such a person as one sees fit. But one is not entitled to treat that as if it were a major ethical issue just because one finds it distasteful. There is a danger that such comments may imply an unhealthy preoccupation with finding excuses to condemn others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I enjoy the posts of some select members on here, I've become increasingly bothered by what Diana has said, along with what seems to be an apologetic support for members of the religious right.
Mrs. Hsieh has a habit of using innuendo and snide comments in place of rational arguments, especially when aimed at members of this forum. Secondly, it is a mistake to attribute support of any kind for members of the religious right to this forum. Members speak for themselves, and though it is possible, I don't recall offhand ANYONE supporting the religious right. There has been disagreement about how to deal with threats to freedom from the Left and the Right, the significance of the threat from the religious right, and the relative immediacy of threats from the religious right. Some of us think there are several cases, even today, in which members of the GOP are worthy of support, if only to prevent the Left from having unchecked power in Washington. Do you think there is enough room to discuss such concrete issues as political tactics and the facts of the current political scene without running into condemnation? If so, then stay on the forum; if not, people like Mrs. Hsieh will be glad to have you along ... so long as you agree with her.
The attacks on Diana are, as far as I know (As a regular reader of NoodleFood and her essays), totally unwarranted.
Then I suggest searching through the archive here for the detailed, prolonged arguments from a while ago. In particular look into the disagreements over the 2006 election and Peikoff's comments about Objectivists who didn't vote Democrat. There are significant grounds for condemning that woman.
The only thing I find perverse and hard to stomach is the intellectual and personal dishonesty.
Then don't take HER word for things, let alone her innuendo. Dig into the historical record and judge for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Principally because she's a foul-mouthed Generation X'er. When someone so repeatedly expresses a gutter attitude toward human sexuality, I think decent people who don't share that attitude should avoid her. See Dr. Peikoff's OPAR, for an explanation of sex's philosophical significance. I don't think her smutty attitude toward sex is a sign of a healthy or rational personality. Nor does it indicate much self-respect. Or dignity.

But she also has a history of nasty quarrelsomeness toward at least one long-time genuine Objectivist whom I respect. To me that indicates, at the very least, a lack of maturity.

I'm bewildered by the attitude expressed here, and disagree strongly with what I understand it to imply.

It won't do you much good! If you read the comments, we are pretty much all condemned across the board for this statement, and in their minds we all believe this. The way noodlefooders imagine members of THE Forum is like the way the Clintons regard Republicans as "the vast, Right-wing conspiracy"... ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites