​ FrogMachine  First it's not important that I name you. You know you are and you know what you said and have the ability to respond like you are now. Secondly I didn't take your commentary out of context, how did I take your commentary out of context. Hey because I'm an evasive coward I'm going to evade by exploring those quotes in more detail.

My first quote "Well you just want perfection and reject people who make errors" This wasn't a quote from you, but I was summarizing a message I was getting from you in theses quotes:

"
Diego TrollmanYesterday at 1:58 PM
I kinds stayed out of this cropper thing all day because it bores me frankly.

My question is this... If you know Cropper has been pro tariff for over 10 years, would you bother engaging him with this evasion? I just write it off as the same the Charles, hubris by someone who will not budge with a fundamental error.

I've seen him have constant contradictions, major ones. So yes, I decided it was bye bye with cropper.

If one of you brought up a contradiction to me, I'll introspect and see if I have an errors. I'm actually insulted that supposed Oists who have been in the philosophy 4 or 5 times longer than me can hold contradiction and not own up to them.

FrogMachineYesterday at 1:59 PM
You were a rationalist for 30+ years. Does this mean I should never talk to you for evading so long?
That's a stupid question.
You came to. Others can too.

Diego TrollmanYesterday at 1:59 PM
What contradiction do I hold that I'm not budging on?
If you want to engage charles and cropper and beat your head against a wall, by all means. I don't.
Maybe you know how to deal with Oists. I don't.

FrogMachineYesterday at 2:00 PM
Never said that. But the logic is that if someone holds a faulty belief, talk to them about it, directly. The video responses are not productive, and throwing things like "he's not an Objectivist" isn't a helpful assertion.
If you're not interested that's fine
it's not on you to do that, you have zero obligation.
But I just don't consider it remotely productive to be rejecting other Oist's as "non-Oists" because they have a belief that you consider wrong.
"
Now I want highlight on how evasive because when any one calls you on anything you say, you fall back you "I didn't say that", "your taking me out of context", but I look at this and it was a fair representation of what you said, but I'm moving away from the point. Here Diego says he doesn't want engage with Cropper because of how evasive he is about the current contradictions he holds and that if someone pointed out a contractionary belief for him he would introspect and change if he had errors. In response you says he had bad beliefs for 30+ years, should people reject him, This is dumb as Diego responds correctly that  that you're dropping context with the question, "What contradiction do I hold that I'm not budging on?"
Then you say your line "Never said that." You did this with me even though I can reread what you said and you did say that. After saying that he should directly interact with Cropper you say But I just don't consider it remotely productive to be rejecting other Oist's as "non-Oists" because they have a belief that you consider wrong. This kind of drops the context of the whole situation as Diego as again and again pointed out the contradictions of Croppers beliefs (which I know that you don't consider a contradiction ;) ) and that Cropper evades in the face of this and Diego doesn't want to deal with this, but you say this is rejection and that you should "reject" them for a having a wrong belief which is synonymous with not being perfect. Which as Diego has said he doesn't fault him for having a wrong belief, it's his refusal and evasion of contradictions. So the quote I used is accurate to what you said and your essentially saying he got to accept Cropper as he is and not expect better and ignore his flaws.

Next.

The quote "People are flawed, that reality" with more context:

"I like both Diego and Cropper. I also still like Charles for a number of reasons. All three take ideas seriously and champion individual rights. I can sit here and criticize the fuck out of all three for hours because I am really damn good at it, but I realized a long time ago that doing that will lead me to having no one in my life - that's what Charles does, and look what's happened.
 I don't do that, I look for the best in people and work with them. People are flawed, that's reality."

You said criticizing people will lead you to having no one in your life and that's why Charles Tew failed (which is inaccurate but I won't go into that because I want to focus on this, but you can ask if you care). You then opposed this to that you don' do that. You look for the best in people and work with them People are flawed, that's reality, and this was in respnse to me criticizing Mr Cropper. Ok. So I can then from that gather that in the act of "looking for the best in people" you ignore his flaws with the excuse that "people are flawed, that's reality."

Next.

The quote "There is almost no value gained from creating more and more little factions of Objectivity in an already tiny camp." Now this one is connected to the two giant word paragraphs by us so I going to have to cut the preceding text out because it isn't important (but you can bring something up I missed incase I did miss something important) now with more context:

"
MeagWorldCitizenYesterday at 1:07
 "I don't do that, I look for the best in people and work with them. People are flawed, that's reality."
Are you saying you shouldn't criticize people because people are flawed?
I don't want to strawman so I'm going to assume that's not what you are saying.
I did assume the best of Cropper. Over and over again while seeing every weird detail that made Mr Cropper extremely sketchy to me, I kept saying to I still like his videos but after watching that video a fraud is the best I can assume from Cropper. I can't trust anything he says because there are lot of problem with everything he says.

Any way I liked the response so thank you for responding. The name calling was mostly me airing out frustrations so I understand why you wouldn't like that. Again sorry if you took offense to my paying attention meme.

FrogMachineYesterday at 1:54 PM
"Are you saying you shouldn't criticize people because people are flawed?"

No, what I meant by this is that you should not dismiss people who are fundamentally good. This is a principle that is often overlooked by O'ists all over, which is the virtue of justice. Justice demands one judge and prepare to be judged, but first and foremost, praise the good for being good. Sanctioning evil is not something you should do. Regarding Cropper, I'm fine with critiques and debates, as I said I think a discussion would be quite productive. But I recognize that a lot of people simply go "ah well I gave the benefit of the doubt so fuck em he's a shit.". That's not productive at all, and fundamentally, he is on the same side.
It's this infighting nonsense that makes the Objectivist movement a total farce.
Same as Charles. I still grant him my sanction. He has made significant errors of judgement, but partially it's because he does exactly the judgement thing I just said. He rejects people for imperfections instead of discussing it with them.

There comes a point where you do say bye bye. But I don't think it's the case here.

MegaWorldCitizenYesterday at 1:56 PM
Ah ok that make sense. Idk I thought I was being fair :stuck_out_tongue:

FrogMachineYesterday at 1:57 PM
There is almost no value gained from creating more and more little factions of Objectivists in an already tiny camp.
You want the idealism, but simultaneously reject people who make errors. It's an impossible catch 22.

"
So you say you hold dismiss people who are "fundamentally" good. Ok I would agree, but in the context of Cropper because that is who we are talking about. I don't think Cropper is fundamentally good as he lacks the necessary requirement and that is to not evade and introspect which according to Diego Mr Croppers believe in this tariff stuff for 10 years at a long time to evade. Now I confused because you say your fine with 'critiques' but infighting nonsense that makes the Objectivist movement a total farce. I don't know what you mean by infight now that I'm reading this. So I assume you are refer dismissal or name calling. There isn't just name calling the vase minority of everything has been name calling. So that would be a example of context dropping as there has been much much more critiquing which your fine with. If you're refering to dismissal, again Cropper is the one who is evading so only he can change his own mind, no one has any obligation to tolerate his contradictions. The third possibility is that that is a contradiction and you are not fine with 'critiques' and you consider it infighting but I don't know because I can't read your mind but no matter which of these you think you're wrong. Then you admit he does have errors in his judgement but it's because of he reject other people. Again Cropper is the one who is evading so only he can change his own mind, no one has any obligation to tolerate his contradictions.  Then we get to the quote There is almost no value gained from creating more and more little factions of Objectivists in an already tiny camp. This is extremely pragmatic we should ignore his fault because we will lose other wise. Well I think if we ignore his fault and let it corrupt objectivism we still lose. Then you say: You want the idealism, but simultaneously reject people who make errors. It's an impossible catch 22.  Which is also very similar to the first quote and is wrong for the same reasons.

Honestly why did you say I was taking you out of context. It looks worse with more context.
Now you have the same choice as Mr Cropper and everyone else; you can introspect or you can evade. It not my problem if I reject you because you're evasive.
But hey maybe you'll call me an "evasive coward" again, or maybe you'll not respond at all or of course you could use your line "I didn't say that" ;)  I'm sure it work and it'll really wreak me. :)