Friday, 11 May 2007

"Who am I to judge?"

A shop girl is sacked for stealing from her employer ... and there's outrage and public support for the thief, and a call taken up by all quarters of the blogosphere to boycott the franchise they see as responsible. This morning the website leading the charge for the thief trumpets to loud applause that "the charges have been dropped, but Subway still need to he held to account for their actions." Sorry, Subway needs to held to account!? What about the goddamn thief?

This is just dumb, but it's a kind of dumb for which this example is just a trivial one. It gets worse, much worse -- with that clue, see if you can find a common thread here:
  • An Otara couple are convicted of beating the woman's three-year-old son to death "for continually soiling his pants" -- beating him to death with baseball bats, an oar handle and vacuum cleaner pipes ... and when the verdict is announced from the well of the court comes the supportive cry: "I love you, Sis!"

  • For a prank, for an afternoon's 'fun', an Otahuhu fourteen-year-old drops a concrete block on to a speeding car, killing the driver instantly... and people express sympathy for the killer. His friends call him "cool." When asked how he felt about the accident, the 'look-out' for the killer said, "Sad. Not for that man, but for [the killer]. He's my mate." Few point out what it means to have a mate who's a killer.

  • A drive-by gang shooting kills a two-year old, the gang refuses to give up the killer (and the police appear powerless) .... and an MP admits that "the killing of a child is appalling," but said it would be "wrong to blame gangs." "Just like I'm not prepared to say the police are all rapists,' said the MP, 'I am also not prepared to say that all gangs are criminals."

  • A young man drives his car at full speed through a crowd of packed party-goers, killing two ... and his cousin tells sympathetic television reporters that he is "a good man," and the mother of one young girl whom this fuckwit killed says she "feels sorry" for the killer. For the killer!

  • A student shoots and kills 32 of his 'fellow students' ... and a brainwashed dimwit says she feels "incensed" because the murderer isn't memorialised with his victims. "Who am I to judge who has value and who doesn't?" asks the moron. "I am not in that position. Are you?"

  • A "green think tank" says children are bad for the planet" and another environmentalist (one beloeved of many local environmentalists) declares mankind a 'virus' ... and instead of outrage, condemnation and denunciation, these statements are met with yawns. "Haven't we heard this before?" people say -- and of course they'd be right.

  • Islamofascists commit atrocity after atrocity, and outrage after outrage ... and the chattering classes condemn, not the fascists, not the bombers, not the killers, but those who have the temerity to express outrage at atrocity. Or anger at the killing. Or those who draw cartoons expressing derision at the culture in whose name the atrocities are committed.
Why am I listing these events in this way? Because I suggest there's a common thread to them all. Do you see it? Can you see what ties these events together? Specifically, what is the common factor in the reactions to each of these outrages?

Could it be, do you think, the inability to pass moral judgement? Rather than moral condemnation of a wrong-doer or sympathy for a victim who is wronged or killed, what is expressed in each is sympathy for the perpetrator.

Have people gone mad? Have some of us completely lost the ability to discriminate between good and bad? To make moral judgements? Are people no longer able to condemn anybody? Not thieves, not people who kill their kids, not even stone killers who show not an ounce of sympathy for those they killed or would have killed? What's gone wrong?

That first girl is a thief -- trivially perhaps, but a thief who is wholly undeserving of this collective outpouring of bloggish sympathy. She's a thief. The second two are killers. They're bad bastards. All of these killers or would-be killers are scum. Why can't people say that! They're evil. Can't we identify good as good, and bad as bad, and -- when it's so clearly bloody obvious -- wicked as wicked.

People wonder why few youngsters appear to have any sense of values; yet when their elders demonstrate their absolute refusal to state the obvious, to evade the moral responsibility of passing judgement when they need to ... well, it's little wonder, is it.

Like the characters in Frank Miller's '300', they hear King Xerxe's appeal -- Leonidas asks them to take a stand -- and they decide instead to kneel in supplication.

People continue to commit outrages such as these and people continue to excuse them with talk about "root causes" such as poverty, testosterone, mental illness, drugs and alcohol, sexual or physical or (Galt forbid, the only thing worse than murder these days) racial abuse .... as if any of these is an excuse to commit atrocity.

What about free will? What about choice? Lots of people are poor, or like a drink, or have been sexually or physically abused. Half the people in the world have testosterone. Yet despite that all-too obvious fact, very, very few of them steal, rape, or commit violent acts of murder.

Those people who do are bad bastards. We're entitled to say so. And so too are those who refuse to judge -- in the face of evil, evasion of moral judgement is nothing less than moral cowardice. As Lindsay Perigo says in the latest Free Radical, "Civility in the face of evil is no virtue; rage in the face of nihilism is no vice."

Feel free to judge me how you wish for saying so. Meanwhile, I'm off to Subway for lunch.


  1. I judge this post to be a masterpiece.

    Moral constipation ("the inability to pass moral judgement") is the epidemic of the modern age.

  2. The inability to pass moral judgement indeed. Of course, this is because such people have abandoned philosophy [at least propper philosophy] and or have never discovered it explicity.

    This leaves them unable to explicity formulate moral principles. Without moral principles there can be no basis for proper moral judgement.

    What they are left with is resorting to feelings and unindentified, unproccessed mental guesses that are not convictions or principles but unchecked assumptions

    eg: "Oh, I love that person, shes not evil despite beating the kid to death. Im supposed to think its an evil tbing to do, but I love her, so she cant be evil"

    All they can do to try justify their unprincipled stands (such as oh, its not HIS fault) they have to resort not to moral defenses, but trying to use concretes to replace morality, such as : "Oh but he couldnt be expected to act properly, he didnt have a chance in life, drug users cant be expected to do that"

    But as you say it is evil to refuse to judge in the face of evil. It is evil in your refusal to THINK and to therefore not formulate principles to leave yourself morally blind.

  3. Spot on - the left have a lot to answer for.

  4. My first instinct was to say that moral equivalence and the inability to bring moral clarity to evil is the result of the type of education we have brought into our education systems in the first world over many decades now.

    But that's not quite right.. rather our problem is that we now don't "get over" our educations when we become full adults. Too many of us are now perpetual students.

    It used to be that we left school or university and were thrust into the bottom of the workplace to get our hands dirty, rub along with all classes, drive and maintain old dungers, drink in insalubrious pubs, get married and have kids all by our early to mid twenties.
    In short, we learned to master our environments and make decisions. Petty evil and tyranny was all around us in the mechanic who screwed us (on our miserable wages!) and the officious prick who controlled whether we got a phone in six weeks or month. We learned to make moral judgements quickly and accurately on the small things and easily recognised the evil of theft and murder.

    But now? The perpetual student defers to the supposed "specialist" in anything, especially in child raising, education, social sciences, behaviorists who show how we are really only animals following prescribed patterns.

    And we are proud of our educations and we classify ourselves by them. We leave uni and go straight into IT or other specialist roles and wall ourselves off from the classes "below" us. Even when we describe our diseases we don't say "The doc. says", we say "My neurologist says."

    Thus we defer our judgement of evil to a higher authority who is paid to explain it away in terms of our animal ancestry (which we ourselves have thankfully subsumed), or colonialism, poverty, neglect, racism, other culture (which is equally as valid as our own) or whatever is the latest technicality.


  5. Why does every damn thing have to have a political label slapped on it? Not casting the first stone' is a judeo-christian concept.

    It's good to judge. PC has always been unafraid to step up to the plate and chuck the first stone on most issues...but not smacking kids, strangely. "Who are we to judge someone who cannot raise, discipline, and teach their kids without smacking them?"

    We bloody well can judge people on these issues, an we have every right to. Judging isn't confined to just the 'big ticket' items like murder and war.

  6. Peter, this is a fantastic and insightful commentary. 1984 has arrived.

    Julian Darby

  7. Eddie visits occasionally11 May 2007, 11:25:00

    Actually, the employee shared a $2 drink with her friend, who was upset. The police got called in, and fined her $4. That's hardly on the same moral plane as baby-killing or suicide bombing.

    If I were the employer, I'd give her a warning, but firing her doesn't seem an appropriate punishment.

    You might want to re-think your post. It seems to me you've over-reacted.

  8. Eddie visits occasionally11 May 2007, 11:33:00

    Edit: I got the facts wrong on the criminal proceedings. The drinks the employee shared were worth $4, not $2, and there's no mention in the story you link to about whether she was fined. She was, however, charged with theft. That charge has since been dropped:
    My original point stands.

  9. Thanks for your comments, everyone. :-)

    Eddie, she didn't simply "share" a drink with her friend, if the media reports can be believed (a long bow, I grant you), she "poured two cups of Diet Coke at work without paying for them."

    When I worked in a shop, that was known as stealing from your employer. In fact, it still is.

  10. I'm always happy to judge others but my judgement today is "I feel like Eating Fresh! I think I'll have a Subway for lunch."

  11. Eddie visits occasionally11 May 2007, 12:20:00

    You're not answering the question, PC. How is sharing a drink -- even if she poured it out illegally -- on the same moral plane as baby-killing? I don't think I'm being presumptuous in saying you would decry alarmism on global warming, yet here you are doing the same thing. There must be a name for this logical fallacy, but right now I can't be bothered to find it.

  12. Eddie visits occasionally11 May 2007, 12:28:00

    PC, if you want to say that the employee stole from her employer, then I would agree. I would still disagree that firing her was the appropriate response, but then reasonable people can disagree about things like that.

    However, you cannot draw a straight line from employee theft to baby-killing and suicide bombing. The world is not black and white; not every crime is a sign of the moral decay of civilisation.

    In short, you over-reacted, buddy, and it's time for you admit it.

  13. Also PC, just because you *can* prosecute doesn't mean you *should*.

    Here is a true story which shows how a good business is run...a few years ago an employee stole $7,000 from an international bank here in Auckland. Because the woman had a stressful situation at home with a special needs child (cystic fibrosis), they just sacked her and let her keep the money. That 10k was the equivalent of a 20c glass of coke to a bank with several bil t/o each day, and it was no skin of their nose to write it off.

    Might is not always right - compassion should come into it.

  14. Eddie, nowhere -- nowhere at all -- do I say that stealing a drink is the same as baby killing. Perhaps you overlooked the word "trivial"? I used it twice to make sure readers would see it.

    That crime is in itself somewhat trivial -- there, I've used the word three times now just to make sure it's REALLY clear -- but the example is so instructive since so many numb nuts have been falling over themselves to express right-on solidarity with the thief. THAT is the link with the killers: people so morally constipated that they can't see the clear line between right and wrong, or who prefer to evade what they know and to go instead with what they feel.

  15. "Also PC, just because you *can* prosecute doesn't mean you *should*."

    Can I hear a word of condemnation for the thief? Just one?

  16. Eddie, you say, "you cannot draw a straight line from employee theft to baby-killing and suicide bombing."

    But I don't. What I'm doing is drawing a straight line from PEOPLE'S REACTIONS TO employee theft, baby-killing and suicide bombing.

    As George Carlin might say: "Difference! Difference!"

    You also say, "if you want to say that the employee stole from her employer, then I would agree." Phew. Thank goodness. :-)

  17. Hmmm. I half agree with Richard - that this post is a masterpiece - and half with Eddie - that the first paragraph is an overreaction.

    Yes, the case is dumb and trivial. But it was stupid and petty for Subway to fire the girl and call the police, too. Because of the bad publicity, because of the financial cost, the waste of police time and the fact that they would lose in the Employment Court (in one recent case, a man who regularly took sick days to go fishing, who the court admitted regarded work as an "imposition", received $5000 plus 6 weeks pay in compensation for being sacked. As Luke and I said: "if you can't fire someone for that, what can you fire them for?" Presumably not taking a Diet Coke!).

    But anyway, as a former fast food worker, I would like to give some context to this "theft" case. If you work at a fast food outlet, including Subway, you get free drinks. Free. As much as you want. This makes sense, because it is usually a hot and tiring environment, and the cost of the drinks is negligible - in fact, I believe the marginal cost approaches zero. So the employee was entitled to as much Diet Coke as she wanted, under the terms of her contract. The only rule would have been that she reuse the cup, as the cup is more expensive than the drink. So her "theft" was more like a misinterpretation of the rules - she gave one of her free drinks to a friend, when she wasn't supposed to.

    The cost of her actions to Subway was minute. They should have every right to fire her, IMO, but what was the cost of training her replacement? What was the cost in wasted police time? Not huge, but more than a few cents. Employees did worse stuff at fast food place every day. As one of the only non-smokers, I soon noticed how many paid smoko breaks my colleagues took. Other employees stole small amounts of food, even the supervisors and managers bent the rules, and people turned up late or called in sick when they were hungover. No-one was fired. There should have been more discipline, but really, what do you expect when you pay minimum wage? You get what you pay for. (Actually, a worse problem was the dodgy counting of one of the supervisors, who could have been skimming hundreds, even thousands of dollars from the tills over time, but it wasn't proven when I was there). Giving a friend a free drink is just so minor in comparison.

    I don't think the actions of this Subway ex-employee were commendable, but neither will I condemn them. The rational response would be to warn her, and get her to pay for the drinks herself. Its bizarre to have someone charged with theft for "stealing" something which her contract guaranteed her a free supply of.

    That aside, the image of someone wanting to "honour" a mass-murderer, along with his victims, is sickening. In the end, refusal to make moral judgements or or take a principled stand against evil could become no less than cultural suicide.

  18. Ruth : ...a few years ago an employee stole $7,000 from an international bank here in Auckland.

    Ruth, but $7,000 wasn't your money was it? It was that Bank's money. How could you suppose to pass judgment on someone else's money. I bet that if it was your OWN money, then you would have gone straight to the police. Stop being a hypocrite Ruth.

  19. PC, I've read and re-read your post, and I can't help but feel that you're equating the failure to condemn this case of employee theft with the failure to condemn far far worse stuff. Does that mean that Phil, who commented earlier, is guilty of a lack of moral clarity? Or Eddie? Or Anonymous?

    Surely, we can on the one hand believe this girl did wrong but choose not to condemn her, while on the other hand unreservedly condemn gang violence and those other examples you list.

    By your formulation, however, if I fail to condemn one, I'm implicitly approving of the other.

    Doesn't seem very nuanced to me.

  20. It *is* your money if you are a shareholder BTW.

    Of course theft is morally wrong.
    Corporal punishment and hitting kids with riding crops is morally wrong too. Can I hear a word of condemnation, just once, about that?

  21. AS I saw the scenario, I wasn't theft- at worst a small breach of company policy.

    Something I saw that should have been dealt with by way of a warning.

    I will agree to disagree on this being theft, but it's good to see opinions that are based on some rational thought rather than a knee-jerk reaction pro employees or employers- as so many have done!

    Your points on the excusing of criminals for their despicable acts are excellent ones.

  22. 21 comments, and most about the Subway theft.

    PC, one of your points is demonstrated with alarming clarity. A tiny theft, but we all pay close to $1000 per household per year more for everything to cover the cost of pilfering nationwide. Thats close to 8% of total income for some.
    Perhaps we need a specialist to explain how this greases the wheels of social harmony.


  23. It should have the poltical label slapped on it - when was the last time you have heard a right-winger not willing to judge or say something is wrong or evil.

    Hell, most the time the left accuse us of wanting to be judge, jury and executioneer.

    And I think hell yeah!

  24. Certain blogs and bloggers have their particular issues. Just because Jeremy didn't blog on the particular issues that are important to you does NOT mean that what he blogs on is not important.

  25. PC said...
    Meanwhile, I'm off to Subway for lunch

    I never eat at Subway. My first choice would be KFC followed by Wendy, Burger King, McDonald and if none of those are around the area that I am at that specific time, then I buy Chinese takeaways.

  26. PC, you've made a dumb fuck out of yourself on this one. The employ had free soft drinks while at work written into her employment agreement. So pouring the drinks was not theft. The grey area emerges around whether sharing a drink with her friend counts as theft, technically speaking. It's a really big legal grey area that would have to be sorted in a court of law before it could be pronouned theft. Moreover, the charges have since been dropped, so even the police didn't think it was worth their while. On top of all this, the premix soda drinks actually only cost around 3 cents each wholesale. How this trivial issue can be equated with baby killing is quite beyond me. You really are an awful man.

  27. PC, this is BRILLIANT! You must print this in the Free Rad, on SOLO, and everywhere else possible.

    Now to the rest of you...

    PC WAS OBJECTING TO THE LACK OF ABILITY TO PASS MORAL JUDGEMENT. His whole post was about the inability of people to determine right from wrong, and then voice that conclusion. The fact that so many of you are still unable to determine the bad from the good is a testament to the post.

    To those of you who are attempting to belittle the offence of the ex-Subway worker...

    I have also worked in fast food restaurants, and can tell you from experience that when you have a poor/dishonest employee that you want to get rid of, it is near impossible. There are various other reasons for which management most likely wanted her gone, from fingers in the till, to appalling service (which I myself have experienced at George St Subway).

    Now you can't tell me that this girl who stole soft drink was a model employee (she may have had a clean record, but all that means is that she wasn't given an official warning). She would not have been sacked if she was a valued/honest/hard working employee. Think about it!

    People really hack me off when they ignore reason.

  28. It stands to reason that this Woman had done other things that finally lead to her sacking....the drinks being maybe a final straw.

    No manager would take such drastic action over an incident like this if it was a first time offence....

    Unless the Manager is a complete Nazi this seems the most likely case.

  29. This sounds like a gathering at Destiny church.
    Christians decry this woeful amorality.
    No. Destiny church probably has a better grasp of the real problem!
    (I say better, but far from perfect)
    The lack of moral judgment stems from blind faith in Atheist materialism / socialism/ democracy.
    The combination of these things = moral bankruptcy and submission to Nanny state.
    And you mock the state indoctrination centers????
    The plebs are exactly where Clark wants them to be!
    The logical conclusion of all three of these evils individually and in combination is Nihilism not morality.
    Consistent atheism is the mother of nihilism not ‘Objectivism’, not morality.
    The average school kid has figured this much out...and so they embrace nihilism and have no answer to combat Clark and co and our society sinks deeper into social chaos.
    There may be many foolish theists, but there is no such thing as a Nihilist that is not an atheist!
    You accept Objectivism because while you reject the true font of morality (God), your consciences and knowledge of history convicts you of the inhumanity of nihilism and socialism, which are rightly unbearable to anyone with a conscience.
    You embrace Rand because you share her hate of God, and her grand delusions are better than none. She appeals to your religion, and appears to offer you what you hope for.
    (Morality without religion)
    This is to hide behind a false morality sticky taped over you conscience.
    Objectivism is a delusion that you can get morality out of a stone.
    Atheists like objectivists must confess their ethics are merely arbitrary (so mush for objectivity!)
    While these self delusions may be sufficient to keep yourselves ‘socially good’ for your own ego’s sake, it cannot override the consequences of those who hold your religious beliefs but reject your self delusions.
    You Atheists are burying your heads in the sand and decrying the fruit of your own beliefs!
    Amorality due to atheism!

  30. Tim, WTF is your post about? It is not about Subway, is it?

    This sounds like a gathering at Destiny church.

    BTW, isn't the Destiny Church on the same side as your Christian belief? You might as well join Brian Tamaki because he is looking for die hard followers like you.

  31. Objectivism is a delusion that you can get morality out of a stone.

    That is correct, Tim.

    Morality, like theism, has no scientific basis. But you don't need to be a theist to be moral. You can just go straight for the good stuff.

  32. Well...overall this post has gone down like a lead balloon...which must remind you of the distance you have to bridge to even begin to get Objectivism understood by the public.

    I have no issue with passing moral judgement - I do take issue with you cherry-picking which issues it is our business to pass judgement on, however.

  33. I enjoyed that, Tim.

    You nailed one or two facets of the great Crystal of Life there.

    Give those facets a polish and you find pretty well all humans have a spiritual side. Turn it slowly and you find God the Father on one, Jesus on another, then Rand, The Great God Kyoto, Global Warming, Pacifism, an Indian Guru, Alternative medicine, the Greek Gods and so on.
    Threaded in there are fear of death, the need to recognise a Great Something and most importantly guilt and the need to atone for something. Atheism and Christianity are in there scrapping away about which is the more moral..

    And when the Atheists and the Christians gather together, why, we have a Moral Majority.


  34. Falafuli fisi said..."BTW, isn't the Destiny Church on the same side as your Christian belief? You might as well join Brian Tamaki because he is looking for die hard followers like you."

    Yes and no!
    I say if Destiny 'rightly divided the word of truth' they would have signed up with the Libertarianz party instead of creating their own statist party.
    The movies '300' shows 'the God king' is a pagan notion which true Christianity resists.
    Destiny have not consistently applied biblical truth but have assimilated paganism into their faith.
    I wont have a bar of them any more than the catholics!
    As for my post and the Inability to pass moral judgment specifically regarding the Subway issue, I can point to P.C as a candidate in several respects.
    He is right that what happened can be perceived as a crime, yet he has failed to make the moral judgments of circumstance and degree.
    Sacking a good reliable worker over such a minor offence grossly out weights 'the crime', which is what has brought public scorn upon them. The proper punishment ought to have been a warning and a deduction of wages, much like a smack on the bum instead of making your kid a ward of the state!
    P.C has not exercised the virtues of compassion, grace, or forgiveness…all of which he has probably hoped for regarding his own small indiscretions.

    In regard to the issue of inability of our society to make moral judgments as a whole my post sought to expose the delusions of objectivists who refuse to see the consequences of atheism...which is nihilism.

  35. So you're finally confronted with the facts - that this woman didn't do anything wrong - and you lot respond with:

    She would not have been sacked if she was a valued/honest/hard working employee. Think about it!


    No manager would take such drastic action over an incident like this if it was a first time offence....

    The woman in question had a completely clean employment record with no previous warnings, oral or written. If the woman was not performing there are processes the employer can go through to dismiss her.

    Judging by the lack of warnings on her employment record, it appears he didn't. Who knows what his problem was? Maybe he didn't like her new hairstyle? Perhaps she had a new boyfriend he wasn't fond of? Perhaps the fact she was a union member had something to do with it?

    The fact is all evidence points to an employer who completely overstepped the mark and abused his power, and he's been called out on it. People don't like what they're seeing, and they're making clear their displeasure. They're not calling for Subway to be banned, or for the manager to be thrown in prison, they're just excersing their freedom of speech.

    Far from showing an "inability to pass moral judgment", the people supporting Jackie are doing precisely that. I think it's the libertarians and right-wing reactionaries on this blog who need to look at passing some moral judgment - in the direction of Jackie's former employer.

  36. Tane Wilton,
    Dont mistake Not PC as a Libertarian blog.
    It is P.Cs blog, which is primarily an Objectivist blog some of whom just so happen to be Libertarians. (The Libz party of NZ was founded by such folk, but it is a very big mistake to say Libertarianism is founded on Objectivism.
    Libertarianism predates Objectivism by centuries and the truth is Rand got her politics from Libertarianism not visa versa.
    Rand called Libertarians anarchists and her so-called 'intellectual heir' Leonard Piekoff has called Libertarianism evil!
    But just like every religion, Objectivism has schisms and warring sects. The Objectivists I know like PC support Libertarianism.
    It is a big mistake to think all Libertarians agree with P.C...or Me! (I’m a Christian Libertarian).
    The one thing that unites all Libertarians is your right to hold and practice your own beliefs as long as you don’t impose them upon others by force....This is liberty!
    What you are hearing here is Free speech and dialogue and reasoned argument which is the civilised way adults ought to dispute things.
    It is a learning tool.
    But Don’t go equating Objectivism with Libertarianism, that is to fail to understand both!
    Regarding my earlier post
    Anonymous said...

    Well...overall this post has gone down like a lead balloon...which must remind you of the distance you have to bridge to even begin to get Objectivism understood by the public.
    while I bag Objectivism I am no stranger to it. I speak with a good grasp of it and that is why I reject it!
    Thus "the long bridge" has nothing to do with getting the public to understand it.
    It is a long bridge to nowhere! and guys like me don’t want to travel along that road!
    Objectivism is doomed.
    There may exist a small percentage of atheists who will cling to it, yet the majority of them will never embrace it as like Christians like me, they see the glaring absurdities, and the narcissism which condemns this system of belief to the fringes. Many Objectivists love this marginalism as this gives them a feeling of superiority and allows them to play the victim. This is one reason they love to cull their own numbers. They hate it when those they think are unintelligent and they feel are unworthy of their cult start calling themselves Objectivists!)
    This is the ultimate undoing of this cult as they block out ‘the simple folk’ of virtue!
    While they crave Fame…Popularity is something they subconsciously dread!
    So don’t expect them to be nice!
    Don’t expect them to show heart!
    I am not saying that All objectivists are cold hearted bastards, but that their beliefs are not conducive to being nice! They prefer to be what they discern to be is right.
    Which by itself is a lonely cold self-righteous virtue.

  37. Wow! I've never visited this site before. You guys are really insane and stunningly dumb (and I love your typos!) I'm going to recommend this silly-arse site to everyone I know. Are you being, like, deeply ironic or is this for real?!

  38. $5.00 says Mikes a treehugger!

  39. Tim:"Many Objectivists love this marginalism as this gives them a feeling of superiority and allows them to play the victim. This is one reason they love to cull their own numbers. They hate it when those they think are unintelligent and they feel are unworthy of their cult start calling themselves Objectivists!)
    This is the ultimate undoing of this cult as they block out ‘the simple folk’ of virtue!"

    You won't get any disagreement with me about that!

    Rand was actually dismissive of 'intellectuals', and her fan-base, if you like, was overwhelmingly with the 'simple people of virtue'. After her death O'vism seems to have been taken over by those who fancy they have mighty intellects and are above everyone else.

    I don't think Objectivism is doomed though...but it's hard to be triumphant with your head up your ass.

  40. My friend Mike put me onto this. You guys are Mad! I love "propper philosophy", it sums up th pseudo-intellectual at work so well. I thought the Druid BBS I flicked through to Mike was marginal but you guys take the cake! I honestly thought only teenage girls took Rand seriously anymore but seeing as you do can you tell me how this whole "objectivism" thing's working out for you? Are you uh getting really rich off it or do you do it for the spunky girls do you uh get to score a lot? Come to think of it are there any "objectivist" (such a silly word) chicks at all? I'd love to know...

  41. Dear Mike and Kimmy1ster,

    It can be rather tiresome to argue with your eminent wisdom, but here goes...

    "You guys are really insane and stunningly dumb" and "You guys are Mad!"
    Would you care to elaborate? Normally when "sane" or "intelligent" people make these sorts or comments, they back up with reasons.

    "I honestly thought only teenage girls took Rand seriously anymore"

    Tell me, have you ever actually read Rand, or are you just voicing the sheeple opinion, as per usual?
    If you have read Rand (which I doubt) or will read Rand, you will need the ability to grasp logical concepts. Based on your posts, it appears you're fucked. Give it a try anyway and let me know how you get on.

    "can you tell me how this whole "objectivism" thing's working out for you? Are you uh getting really rich off it"

    Actually there are many wealthy Objectivists, but that's a side issue which I'll go into below. One of the main teachings/principles of Objectivism is to pursue a happy life. This doesn't automatically mean you have to be fabulously wealthy. While we're on the subject, how's life working out for you?

    Back to my side issue. Spreading Objectivism (and living it) can be a bit of an uphill battle. Selling the ideas to very mediocre "mainstream" minds (such as yourselves) is very difficult. You see, trying to get one of you to accept the ideas of Objectivism is like trying to separate a scared sheep from the herd, without using force. Sound difficult? It is. We're working on it though.

    "Come to think of it are there any "objectivist" chicks at all?"

    Check out the cover of the latest Free Radical. Short answer, yes.

    That's all for now, thank you for this opportunity. Over to you, and have a great day.

    P.S. Tim, nice call. In fact I'll raise you. I would say he is also a Islamo-Facsist apologist/appeaser, a Clark/Bradford/Fitsimplesimons lover, a Bush/America hater, and most likely a public servant.

  42. Jeez man no need to get so angsty about it I think Kimmy hit on a sore spot. Oh yeah, I read rand and she was stoopid like, really really can't-add-two-an-two stoopid. I've also gotta say having some generic stock photo of an ass on your cover doesn't mean you've got chicks in your little cult. For true? This site seems a lot like a bit of a circle-jerk for boys with low (and I mean LOW) social skills. See yah, Mike (that's Dr Mike as in "Doctorate of Philosophy" (and not "propper" philosophy either)).

  43. Peter, you've yet to respond to my comments. When are you going to admit you were wrong and apologise to Jackie?

  44. Thanks Doc, that explains a lot. Does it ever get to you just a little that you're not a real doctor? Where did you get that doctorate by the way? And sorry for getting "angsty", sooooo like, uncool man, isn't it?

    That comment about Rand makes things clearer aswell. No matter whether they agree with her or not, people who read her work (and understand it) never belittle her intelligence. If you want to do a little more than take potshots (a bit LOW for a Dr, isn't it?), then jump onto for a schooling. Muppet.

    Oh BTW, what's with writing like you speak, like, like like like?

    Lastly, shouldn't it be "POOR" social skills, not "LOW"? But what do I know, I'm not a not-real doctor. And not that it's particularly important, but my social skills are fine thank you. Looks like I got you pegged alright though.

  45. Mike,

    Unfortunately, although there is much of value in Objectivism, it is ultimately philosophically incoherent. Among its other problems, Objectivism relies on Aristotle's doctrine of definition, which was thoroughly demolished by Karl Popper (see, for example, Chapter 11 of "The Open Society and its Enemies").


    Good post PC. A number of commentators on the Madeleine McCann case would do well to reflect on it.

  46. Hey Mike - you're right about this lot. I might use them as a case study. I'd be a little careful with them though - they strike me as being a bit unhinged. Are you going to Jimmy's on Thursday? We were thinking about going to a gig at Mighty afterwards. Cheers, Amelia

  47. Tane, to repeat a point made earlier, this other wise trivial issue is not being "equated with baby killing" -- rather, the reaction to theft and to baby killing is being equated.

    And yes, it is theft. SHE was entitled to a free drink. Her friend(s) was/were not. Theft is theft, however trivial you might find it, and no amount of marching the streets or signing of petitions changes that.

    I rather think the more hysterical posts here really serve to establish my point even more: that some people will do almost anything rather than judge someone as a wrong-doer.

    And those comments establish something else too that's been argued here before: that many people have no idea where morality comes from -- something surely to investigate if morality is the subject in question.

    (Something else, too, that the comments show: that despite my best efforts most of you have not the first clue about Objectivism, but you nonetheless find that lack no barrier to criticism. Interesting.)

  48. Peter,

    To repeat a point I made earlier, the "left" has no problem with making moral judgment, as the protests outside Subway in George Street have shown.

    Indeed, I don't know of anyone on the left who does not condemn baby killing, terror, slavery or whatever appalling practice you care to name. Your entire argument is a red herring.

    Jackie Lang is not a thief. Legally speaking, the police have dropped the charges as they realised there was no case to answer. Morally speaking, it was her drink that she shared with her friend. There was nothing in her employment agreement saying she couldn't let her friend have a sip of her diet coke.

    As I say, it's a very grey area but on balance tends to weigh in favour of Jackie.

    And for the record, I have read Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, The Virtue of Selfishness and For the New Intellectual. I found them shrill, bigoted and unrewarding.

    If you think what happened is theft, your moral compass and sense of proportion are totally out of whack. And if you have the slightest shred of humanity left you'll withdraw your comments and apologise to Jackie.

  49. Amsray! good to hear from yah. I don't think there's too much to worry about from these guys - though they do show clear markers of sociopathy I reckon they're probably wee lads that got bullied too much at school (sorry guys I was a bit hard on y'all earlier). Can't make Thursday 'cos I'm gonna be up north for a seminar but we catch up Saturday maybe?

  50. Amsray! good to hear from yah. I don't think there's too much to worry about from these guys - though they do show clear markers of sociopathy I reckon they're probably wee lads that got bullied too much at school (sorry guys I was a bit hard on y'all earlier). Can't make Thursday 'cos I'm gonna be up north for a seminar but we catch up Saturday maybe?

  51. Tane, you say you have "no problem with making moral judgment, and you then demonstrate that you do.

    Go figure.

    Mike/Amscray: Glad you've found Not PC a useful social hookup site. Pleased that even a sociopath can be of service. ;^)

  52. echoing Richard's sentiments; this article is a masterpiece.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.