More from Manhattan’s Metropolitan Museum of Art’s’s important ‘Unpacking the Archives’ exhibition, unpacking the 150 years of archives of architect Frank Lloyd – this video (part of a series) unpacking yet another delightful artefact.
.
More from Manhattan’s Metropolitan Museum of Art’s’s important ‘Unpacking the Archives’ exhibition, unpacking the 150 years of archives of architect Frank Lloyd – this video (part of a series) unpacking yet another delightful artefact.
.
5 comments:
I just scrolled through many blog posts here and see very few comments. The censorship here obviously has driven many away .why you censor . It is not Libertarian !
very hypocritical of you, I will inform the friend I met while in NZ in Parnell.
Jane
Jane,
I don't find PC's "censorship" draconian in the least, as I've never had a comment denied. Even when disagreeing, shall we say, robustly with the author.
One quick point though: You'll note I put censorship in quotation in my above comment. The reason for that being that the use of censorship in this context is incorrect. The censorship that you refer to is uniquely possible for governments and their representatives. Moderating a blog does not rise to censorship as the blog owner is under no obligation, constitutionally or otherwise, to provide you with a platform.
This is of course perfectly libertarian: PC as the owner of this blog has full ownership rights, which includes the right to deny any activity on his property that he deems unacceptable.
As stated in my first paragraph: PC is not particularly heavy handed with the moderation, regularly even letting through some obvious trolling, so I fail to see how moderation is driving anyone away (at least: anyone I would have liked to see stay)
Back to the topic at hand: Thanks for these videos, Peter. They are quite enlightening, especially for someone like myself with no architectural knowledge.
Censorship is censorship and is totally unlibertarian .
Please don't use straw-men fraudulent statements, et al saying I want a platform or "my definition of censorship".
Its obvious to me that this site has a lot of angry men who are uneducated to the foundations of Ayn Rands Objectivism , like you and this Peter and Mark T who are hypocrites and know nothing of the foundation this most Specific founding issue of Ayn Rands Objectivism which from her own words is (Zero Censorship ). Moderation is just another word for Censorship and
YES, Mr Cressswell can do what ever he wants to do with his blogsite , BUT if he censors he can longer call himself or fraudulently represent himself or this blog as Objectivism under Ayn Rands specific and citated definition.
The censorship has driven me away and I guarantee has driven many many others away.
You state quote "PC is not particularly heavy handed with the moderation, regularly even letting through some obvious trolling" .
This again is a fraudulent statement as you do not know how many , why and who he is censoring is any numbers at all.The facts that censorship is used here AT ALL is deemed by Ayn Rand herself in her writings as completely Un-objective in ALL respects. ALL trolling at al should also be let through as per Ayn Rands specific Definition .
I am done here as I conclude many Many MANY others have left this place as well.
To censor at all is to pre judge your audience and is a total "evil"(yes Ayn Rand used that exact word "evil", as its putting yourself is the position of intellectually, ideologically, ego-statistically, un-objectively unethically and intellectually in a corrupt position of Agenda control without total cross examination by ALL forms of communication abet , be it irrational, fallacy based, excluding Aristotelian Trivium and Quadrivium discourse or ego driven emotional attacks et al or what is termed today as "trolling".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoCezQAF5AA
Jane .
Bye . My time and intellect is too precious to be wasted here at an unlibertarian site that transgresses the most basic of Ayn Rands objectivist tenets by the Mr Cresswell and the small left over "comrades" of fan boy hypocrites .
Hi Jane,
Those are some big words, and some mighty fine accusations.
Now, I am the first to admit I am no scholar of Ms Rand. I have read most of her works though, and I cannot seem to recall a specific incident where she advised that all speech is good speech, and that individuals have no right to limit the speech they are exposed to. I recall many to the contrary though. In fact, if memory serves, her protagonists had a penchant for avoiding idiots and their ramblings.
Do you perhaps have a specific quote at hand?
On another note, this is second time you've mentioned the Trivium and Quadrivium. Those are big words, and sound super intellectual, I'll grant you, but what exactly does a medieval curriculum expounding the virtue of studying arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music have to do with censorship on Peter's blog?
Sure, a study of logic, grammar and rhetoric would be handy in this discussion; perhaps you can demonstrate your prowess in this field by producing a post that shows some mastery of rhetoric, or failing that, at least some competence in grammar?
I feel you mistake "vocabulary" for "intellect", and greatly overestimate your own insight into the writing of both Aristotle and Rand. Most likely you are simply trolling, but either way, I doubt your absence here will be sorely missed.
Post a Comment