Bloody William: Objectivism basically boils down to this: Every man is an island. That's it. Everything else comes from that idea. Social constraints, actions, concepts of morality and how to best pursue one's goals, they all come from the idea that you are the most important person in your universe and everything else is either secondary or nonexistent. On the surface, it seems lime a neutral, valid perspective. If you keep to yourself, everything's fine, no reason to get other people caught up in your problems and in doing so you aren't obligated to get caught up in theirs. However, realistically, seeing as we are a society of many people interacting with each other, it doesn't work that way.

You would figure that these farktards' arguments went out of style with Dickens, but no, Americans are a special breed of ignorant.

Let them have their psychopathic ideologies, I say. I want to see the American people suffer and burn.

abb3w: James F. Campbell: America's love affair with libertarianism, Objectivism, and other selfish, individualistic philosophies are what causes our comparatively high rate of psychopathy.

Citing XKCD? What happened to you, man? You used to be cool.

Also, abb3w, The Psychopath Next Door by Martha Stout cites research indicating that rates of psychopathy are lower in Asian countries than they are in Western countries -- particularly America -- and the author speculates that this may be because the cultures have differing views of individualism.

saintstryfe: schrodinger: Best comment I've heard on fark is, "I can tell he's an objectivist just from the size of his speech balloon."

what's silly: I've never heard of Mr. A, I looked at the picture, and by god - I had the EXACT same thought, then read it below.

Ditko was a great comic book writer/artist, and I put him up there with Lee, Kirby, and Eisner. Unfortunately, he was also really hardcore Objectivist, and when he let his political and philosophical beliefs overtake his desire to simply write an enjoyable story, he sucked. Mr. A is pretty much proof of that. His stories were mostly looking at crimninals sliding down a slippery slope, then him jumping in and judging them for sucking so bad and letting things get that far. The entire idea behind him is that there is no grey area: you're good or you're bad, and when you compromise, you're moving from good into bad. And to quote Wikipedia:

Not all of Mr. A's stories are crime adventures. Some are allegorical representations of the guilty trying to explain why they compromised their values. Mr. A, on a white platform, denounces their explanations. These stories typically end with the guilty falling into an abyss off of their black platform.

...I'm pretty sure I saw that mechanic in Yu-Gi-Oh.

James F. Campbell: Citing XKCD? What happened to you, man? You used to be cool.

He has a point, dude. Every generation has shiatty, insane philosophies people cling to like psychotics. Objectivism is just a flavor of half of last and a chunk of this century for some.

Bloody William: He has a point, dude. Every generation has shiatty, insane philosophies people cling to like psychotics. Objectivism is just a flavor of half of last and a chunk of this century for some.

You might have a point... except that rates of psychopathy are notably lower in East Asian countries than they are in America:

"Though sociopathy seems to be universal and timeless, there is credible evidence that some cultures contain fewer sociopaths than do other cultures. Intriguingly, sociopathy would appear to be relatively rare in certain East Asian countries, notably Japan and China. Studies conducted in both rural and urban areas of Taiwan have found a remarkably low prevalence of antisocial personality disorder, ranging from 0.03 percent to 0.14 percent, which is not none but is impressively less than the Western world's approximate average of 4 percent, which translates to one in twenty-five people." - The Sociopath Next Door (new window)

Sorry I got the name wrong. I found an excerpt of the book here, though I can't vouch for the rest of that website.

My guess is that the prevalence of individualist philosophies in the United States encourages -- indeed, even rewards -- psychopaths.

Obviously, I can't say to any real degree of certainty that individualist philosophies cause psychopathy, but my guess is that they sure as hell don't farking help prevent it, either.

More Reading:
The Mask of Sanity
Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us
Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work

Yeah. I could see Ayn Rand as one of Dr. Evil's henchpersons.

James F. Campbell: Bloody William: He has a point, dude. Every generation has shiatty, insane philosophies people cling to like psychotics. Objectivism is just a flavor of half of last and a chunk of this century for some.

You might have a point... except that rates of psychopathy are notably lower in East Asian countries than they are in America:

"Though sociopathy seems to be universal and timeless, there is credible evidence that some cultures contain fewer sociopaths than do other cultures. Intriguingly, sociopathy would appear to be relatively rare in certain East Asian countries, notably Japan and China. Studies conducted in both rural and urban areas of Taiwan have found a remarkably low prevalence of antisocial personality disorder, ranging from 0.03 percent to 0.14 percent, which is not none but is impressively less than the Western world's approximate average of 4 percent, which translates to one in twenty-five people." - The Sociopath Next Door (new window)

Sorry I got the name wrong. I found an excerpt of the book here, though I can't vouch for the rest of that website.

I am incredibly surprised that someone as smart as you clearly claim to be can't see the problem with the "logic" you're using.

By "surprised" I, of course, mean "amused".

Bloody William: Millennium: Not really. The name "Objectivism" comes from an assertion that reality and all its aspects existed objectively: that is to say, they exist independently of any particular observer. This is where the whole "A is A" platitude comes from: things are what they are, and popular opinion or perception cannot, in and of themselves, change that. It makes for an interesting defense mechanism against unpopularity.



Literally the reason why Mr. A is called Mr. A, and why you probably haven't heard of him compared to The Question (who's basically Mr. A, but with a cooler mask and way, way less crazy, and who became the ensemble darkhorse in JLU) or Spider-Man. A lot of his stories involved simply berating people for their own fark-ups.

Ditko was a genius and helped shape comics. Many of his characters were brilliant. Unfortunately, the more he obsessed over objectivism and let it rule his writing, the less relatable his works got.

Mr. A would have thrown little kids off of buildings to their deaths for the crime of jaywalking ("Good or Evil. No grey!"). Also notice that he has made himself the arbiter on what is "good" or "evil".

/Ditko wasn't even worthy of tongue-shining Jack Kirby's shoes.

Corvus:
Not even Ron Paul (R-Ky.), who named his son (now a U.S. Senator) Rand, gets high marks from Brook. "I don't think Ron Paul comes at it from a Randian, truly individualistic perspective," he says. "You can see that on some of the social issues," like gay marriage and medical marijuana, "where he'll default to...'states can decide' rather than taking an individual rights perspective."

Because Ron Paul is not a libertarian he is a confederate who likes to pretend he is a libertarian.

He also believes states should be able to create official religions and pass religious laws.

Hmmm, wondering just how stupid you can go. I'll defer and let nature take it's course & see what happens...........

Worst.Fark handle. ever.: Mr. A would have thrown little kids off of buildings to their deaths for the crime of jaywalking ("Good or Evil. No grey!"). Also notice that he has made himself the arbiter on what is "good" or "evil".

/Ditko wasn't even worthy of tongue-shining Jack Kirby's shoes.

Don't let politics tarnish the man's other work. Mr. A bit, but Spider-Man and even the Question were great, The problem was the further he went into his philosophy, the less enjoyable his works became. He still did a lot of great stories, and deserves to be up there with The Man and The King.

skullkrusher: James F. Campbell: Bloody William: He has a point, dude. Every generation has shiatty, insane philosophies people cling to like psychotics. Objectivism is just a flavor of half of last and a chunk of this century for some.

You might have a point... except that rates of psychopathy are notably lower in East Asian countries than they are in America:

"Though sociopathy seems to be universal and timeless, there is credible evidence that some cultures contain fewer sociopaths than do other cultures. Intriguingly, sociopathy would appear to be relatively rare in certain East Asian countries, notably Japan and China. Studies conducted in both rural and urban areas of Taiwan have found a remarkably low prevalence of antisocial personality disorder, ranging from 0.03 percent to 0.14 percent, which is not none but is impressively less than the Western world's approximate average of 4 percent, which translates to one in twenty-five people." - The Sociopath Next Door (new window)

Sorry I got the name wrong. I found an excerpt of the book here, though I can't vouch for the rest of that website.

I am incredibly surprised that someone as smart as you clearly claim to be can't see the problem with the "logic" you're using.

By "surprised" I, of course, mean "amused".



Yes, you're always 'amused.' Why don't you make a critique instead of relying on your own good opinion of yourself to influence others. Is it your conjecture sociopaths can't be created? What's the source of your 'surprise?'

abb3w: is it the cultural infatuation with individualism that causes the tendency to sociopathy, or a genetic tendency to sociopathy expressing as an infatuation with individualism?

Does it matter? Societies that glorify sociopathic behavior tend to have more sociopaths is the correlation. Smoking a bunch of cigarettes is correlated with lung cancer -- whether you're predisposed to the condition or not.

DarnoKonrad: skullkrusher: James F. Campbell: Bloody William: He has a point, dude. Every generation has shiatty, insane philosophies people cling to like psychotics. Objectivism is just a flavor of half of last and a chunk of this century for some.

You might have a point... except that rates of psychopathy are notably lower in East Asian countries than they are in America:

"Though sociopathy seems to be universal and timeless, there is credible evidence that some cultures contain fewer sociopaths than do other cultures. Intriguingly, sociopathy would appear to be relatively rare in certain East Asian countries, notably Japan and China. Studies conducted in both rural and urban areas of Taiwan have found a remarkably low prevalence of antisocial personality disorder, ranging from 0.03 percent to 0.14 percent, which is not none but is impressively less than the Western world's approximate average of 4 percent, which translates to one in twenty-five people." - The Sociopath Next Door (new window)

Sorry I got the name wrong. I found an excerpt of the book here, though I can't vouch for the rest of that website.

I am incredibly surprised that someone as smart as you clearly claim to be can't see the problem with the "logic" you're using.

By "surprised" I, of course, mean "amused".



Yes, you're always 'amused.' Why don't you make a critique instead of relying on your own good opinion of yourself to influence others. Is it your conjecture sociopaths can't be created? What's the source of your 'surprise?'

well, for starters citing lower rates of sociopathy in Asian countries when compared to Western nations as evidence that "individualism" is not evidence that a focus on "individualism" creates sociopaths is pretty specious, dontcha think? I thought the critique itself was quite self evident.

The book he cites "speculates", in his own words, that this is the reason for the difference. See the issue there when making a definitive statement? As if the only variable between the West and China/Japan is an implied greater sense of community in C/J as opposed to the "Western" world.

DarnoKonrad: abb3w: is it the cultural infatuation with individualism that causes the tendency to sociopathy, or a genetic tendency to sociopathy expressing as an infatuation with individualism?

Does it matter? Societies that glorify sociopathic behavior tend to have more sociopaths is the correlation. Smoking a bunch of cigarettes is correlated with lung cancer -- whether you're predisposed to the condition or not.

I speculate that the greater incidence of sickle-cell anemia amongst sub-saharan Africans is due to the fact that Africa only commands 3 armies per turn while Europe and North America get your 5.

abb3w: So, which planet do you come from?

A planet where evidence isn't dismissed with a single hand wave of "correlation does not mean causation," and the posting of a very unfunny and tiresome comic. After all, we have a whole body of knowledge built on the idea that correlation is useful. It's called induction; maybe you've heard of it.

abb3w: a genetic tendency to sociopathy expressing as an infatuation with individualism?

You realize, of course, that this hypothetical asserts that Americans have genes which cause them to propagate individualistic philosophies more than the people of East Asian countries? It's... pretty ridiculous, honestly.

The egg came first, by the way.

skullkrusher: Asian countries when compared to Western nations as evidence that "individualism" is not evidence that a focus on "individualism" creates sociopaths is pretty specious, dontcha think?

Not really. Psychopathy is a form of extreme selfishness -- and Rand built a frame work of rationalized selfishness. So not only do have people with an innate predisposition toward extreme selfishness running around, you also get relatively smart people running around claiming 'empathy' is at best imaginary, and at worst a weakness that should be discouraged or stamped out.

skullkrusher: The book he cites "speculates",

Sure. But the correlation is strong. Which is not a light point. No, correlation does not imply causation, but causes *must* be correlated. It's why it doesn't matter how good your astrology is, it's still nonsense, and why people are pretty farking sure smoking causes cancer.

skullkrusher: DarnoKonrad: abb3w: is it the cultural infatuation with individualism that causes the tendency to sociopathy, or a genetic tendency to sociopathy expressing as an infatuation with individualism?

Does it matter? Societies that glorify sociopathic behavior tend to have more sociopaths is the correlation. Smoking a bunch of cigarettes is correlated with lung cancer -- whether you're predisposed to the condition or not.

I speculate that the greater incidence of sickle-cell anemia amongst sub-saharan Africans is due to the fact that Africa only commands 3 armies per turn while Europe and North America get your 5.


Maybe, but I bet I could find similar situations that fail your test. Again correlation does not imply causation, but causes *must* be correlated. Otherwise you could discount any evidence, no matter how strong the correlation.

Would I bet my life on the correlation in this case? No. But I'm not self righteously 'amused' by it either. Seems pretty damned plausible.

DarnoKonrad: Would I bet my life on the correlation in this case? No. But I'm not self righteously 'amused' by it either. Seems pretty damned plausible.

Forget it. Not worth the time. I used ignore a long time ago and never looked back.

James F. Campbell: DarnoKonrad: Would I bet my life on the correlation in this case? No. But I'm not self righteously 'amused' by it either. Seems pretty damned plausible.

Forget it. Not worth the time. I used ignore a long time ago and never looked back.

I use mine all the time, but your threshold is quite a bit lower than mine. We disagree from time to time, but he's not an outright offensive threadshiatting liar that typically gets my ignore finger itchy.

The three cornerstones of Objectivism:

Me, Myself and I.

Bloody William: Don't let politics tarnish the man's other work.

I do and have ever since I first heard of "Mein Kampf". The creation is the extension of the creator.

DarnoKonrad: skullkrusher: Asian countries when compared to Western nations as evidence that "individualism" is not evidence that a focus on "individualism" creates sociopaths is pretty specious, dontcha think?

Not really. Psychopathy is a form of extreme selfishness -- and Rand built a frame work of rationalized selfishness. So not only do have people with an innate predisposition toward extreme selfishness running around, you also get relatively smart people running around claiming 'empathy' is at best imaginary, and at worst a weakness that should be discouraged or stamped out.

skullkrusher: The book he cites "speculates",

Sure. But the correlation is strong. Which is not a light point. No, correlation does not imply causation, but causes *must* be correlated. It's why it doesn't matter how good your astrology is, it's still nonsense, and why people are pretty farking sure smoking causes cancer.

"America's love affair with libertarianism, Objectivism, and other selfish, individualistic philosophies are what causes our comparatively high rate of psychopathy."

This is what I was responding to. Anti-social personality disorder is a clinical diagnosis. It doesn't just mean that someone is a real dick. He cites research which claims a greater frequency in the Western world. Then he tries to conflate "Western world" with "America" since he has a pathological (not clinical in this case) need to try to attack individualism and specifically libertarianism in virtually every thread he participates in. He is the Bevets of libertarian threads. Libertarianism, objectivism, etc aren't nearly as prevalent in Europe as it is in the US so he must ignore his own citation and pretend the research shows that the US has far greater rates than Asian countries. Additionally, he states the above quite declarativly while supporting it with someone's "speculation". Of course, we must ignore the significant possibility that the relative greater focus on individualist philosophies is the result, in part, of a greater incidence of antisocial personality disorder in the West rather than the cause.

DarnoKonrad: James F. Campbell: DarnoKonrad: Would I bet my life on the correlation in this case? No. But I'm not self righteously 'amused' by it either. Seems pretty damned plausible.

Forget it. Not worth the time. I used ignore a long time ago and never looked back.

I use mine all the time, but your threshold is quite a bit lower than mine. We disagree from time to time, but he's not an outright offensive threadshiatting liar that typically gets my ignore finger itchy.

he just doesn't like being challenged on the stupid ass shiat he says.

I am surprised he hasn't linked the "social darwinism" article from 1997 or brought up the "tragedy of the commons" in this thread. That's his usual schtick.

Dear Randians,

One of the greatest insights from Sigmund Freud is that when you believe you're truly being yourself and focusing on yourself is the precise moment when you're the most malleable. Believe all you want that you're in control; it's pretty entertaining for the rest of us.

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: Dear Randians,

One of the greatest insights from Sigmund Freud is that when you believe you're truly being yourself and focusing on yourself is the precise moment when you're the most malleable. Believe all you want that you're in control; it's pretty entertaining for the rest of us.

he also thought you caught the ghey from your mom so...

skullkrusher: Tripp Johnston Private Eye: Dear Randians,

One of the greatest insights from Sigmund Freud is that when you believe you're truly being yourself and focusing on yourself is the precise moment when you're the most malleable. Believe all you want that you're in control; it's pretty entertaining for the rest of us.

he also thought you caught the ghey from your mom so...

Do you honestly believe that anyone is in total control of themselves like Rand wants everyone to be? It's nonsense. We're social animals. No matter how much you try, you can't escape it. There is no such thing as stable human subjectivity; Randians do the things they do as a symbolic gesture for how they want other people to see them.

Bloody William: Objectivism basically boils down to this: Every man is an island. That's it. Everything else comes from that idea. Social constraints, actions, concepts of morality and how to best pursue one's goals, they all come from the idea that you are the most important person in your universe and everything else is either secondary or nonexistent. On the surface, it seems lime a neutral, valid perspective. If you keep to yourself, everything's fine, no reason to get other people caught up in your problems and in doing so you aren't obligated to get caught up in theirs. However, realistically, seeing as we are a society of many people interacting with each other, it doesn't work that way.

I'm about halfway through a rereading of Atlas Shrugged. All of the characters who express concern for the well being of others are depicted as insincere. They only use charity as excuses to pressure the prime movers into giving away money. In her notes to the book, she indicated that she intended to write a character, a priest, who sincerely practiced the "morality of mercy." But she cut the character out of the novel because "she couldn't make such a character believable."

One way of construing that remark says she meant that she simply lacked the capability as an author to make such a character convincing. Another way holds that she did not believe any such person could possibly exist. Given her... confidence... in her abilities, the more reasonable interpretation is the latter. Rand regarded herself as one of the prime movers, and would surely have confidence in her ability to write a believable character if such a character could be written.

I often wondered how Rand or anyone could hold such a worldview. Why is it that Rand didn't believe anyone on the planet could possibly give a crap about the well being of others? It's one thing to write an ideological screed against a straw man version of altruism. It's another thing to deny that anyone could sincerely believe in altruism of any kind.

The answer is pretty clear: she lacked that capacity. She was so totally devoid of any concern for the well being of other people that it was just beyond her to imagine anyone could really care about anyone else. It just says so much about her philosophy, and those who are drawn to it.

captain_heroic44: The answer is pretty clear: she lacked that capacity. She was so totally devoid of any concern for the well being of other people that it was just beyond her to imagine anyone could really care about anyone else. It just says so much about her philosophy, and those who are drawn to it.

Well, of course -- she idolized a psychopath, after all.

skullkrusher: Tripp Johnston Private Eye: Dear Randians,

One of the greatest insights from Sigmund Freud is that when you believe you're truly being yourself and focusing on yourself is the precise moment when you're the most malleable. Believe all you want that you're in control; it's pretty entertaining for the rest of us.

he also thought you caught the ghey from your mom so...

As did just about every scientist at the time. What Freud wrote was medically nonsense, but what he tapped into was a method of analyzing the most extreme and unspoken aspects of human nature. There's something inherently disgusting about psychoanalysis; it's essentially attempting to analyze the feelings of the most intelligent and barbaric animal there is.

captain_heroic44: Bloody William: Objectivism basically boils down to this: Every man is an island. That's it. Everything else comes from that idea. Social constraints, actions, concepts of morality and how to best pursue one's goals, they all come from the idea that you are the most important person in your universe and everything else is either secondary or nonexistent. On the surface, it seems lime a neutral, valid perspective. If you keep to yourself, everything's fine, no reason to get other people caught up in your problems and in doing so you aren't obligated to get caught up in theirs. However, realistically, seeing as we are a society of many people interacting with each other, it doesn't work that way.

I'm about halfway through a rereading of Atlas Shrugged. All of the characters who express concern for the well being of others are depicted as insincere. They only use charity as excuses to pressure the prime movers into giving away money. In her notes to the book, she indicated that she intended to write a character, a priest, who sincerely practiced the "morality of mercy." But she cut the character out of the novel because "she couldn't make such a character believable."

One way of construing that remark says she meant that she simply lacked the capability as an author to make such a character convincing. Another way holds that she did not believe any such person could possibly exist. Given her... confidence... in her abilities, the more reasonable interpretation is the latter. Rand regarded herself as one of the prime movers, and would surely have confidence in her ability to write a believable character if such a character could be written.

I often wondered how Rand or anyone could hold such a worldview. Why is it that Rand didn't believe anyone on the planet could possibly give a crap about the well being of others? It's one thing to write an ideological screed against a straw man version of altruism. It's another thing to deny that anyone could sincerely believe in altruism of any kind.

The answer is pretty clear: she lacked that capacity. She was so totally devoid of any concern for the well being of other people that it was just beyond her to imagine anyone could really care about anyone else. It just says so much about her philosophy, and those who are drawn to it.

The coont never got over the fact that Lenin and the Bolsheviks took her father's property during the Russian Revolution. She took an idiotic and uninformed look at communism as this "service, not self" idea and based a shiatty philosophy around defeating a strawman.

James F. Campbell: captain_heroic44: The answer is pretty clear: she lacked that capacity. She was so totally devoid of any concern for the well being of other people that it was just beyond her to imagine anyone could really care about anyone else. It just says so much about her philosophy, and those who are drawn to it.

Well, of course -- she idolized a psychopath, after all.

Right. I was actually referring to her Hickman remarks in that post.

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: skullkrusher: Tripp Johnston Private Eye: Dear Randians,

One of the greatest insights from Sigmund Freud is that when you believe you're truly being yourself and focusing on yourself is the precise moment when you're the most malleable. Believe all you want that you're in control; it's pretty entertaining for the rest of us.

he also thought you caught the ghey from your mom so...

Do you honestly believe that anyone is in total control of themselves like Rand wants everyone to be? It's nonsense. We're social animals. No matter how much you try, you can't escape it. There is no such thing as stable human subjectivity; Randians do the things they do as a symbolic gesture for how they want other people to see them.

hehe that wasn't a defense of Rand or her -ians.

skullkrusher: Tripp Johnston Private Eye: skullkrusher: Tripp Johnston Private Eye: Dear Randians,

One of the greatest insights from Sigmund Freud is that when you believe you're truly being yourself and focusing on yourself is the precise moment when you're the most malleable. Believe all you want that you're in control; it's pretty entertaining for the rest of us.

he also thought you caught the ghey from your mom so...

Do you honestly believe that anyone is in total control of themselves like Rand wants everyone to be? It's nonsense. We're social animals. No matter how much you try, you can't escape it. There is no such thing as stable human subjectivity; Randians do the things they do as a symbolic gesture for how they want other people to see them.

hehe that wasn't a defense of Rand or her -ians.

Oh, sorry if I seem like I'm being a dick. I really like you on here.

EdTheHead: Someone should have dosed good old Ayn. She'd have given up this whole "objective reality" bullshait.

She was a prodigious methamphetamine addict, so it would have probably taken more acid than was collectively consumed at Woodstock to counteract her overamped ego.

captain_heroic44: Right. I was actually referring to her Hickman remarks in that post.

That reminds me. I've been thinking about writing a novel in which one of the female protagonists is a psychopath, though this fact isn't made very clear to the reader except with very subtle hints. I want to portray this female as heroic and market the novel to Objectivists as ostensibly supporting their values. Americans love psychopathic heroes, anyway.

The hidden subtext of the novel, of course, will be that Objectivists are really quite shiatty. It would also hint at the terrible things their insane "philosophy" and political "ideas" would cause if they were widely accepted.

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: skullkrusher: Tripp Johnston Private Eye: skullkrusher: Tripp Johnston Private Eye: Dear Randians,

One of the greatest insights from Sigmund Freud is that when you believe you're truly being yourself and focusing on yourself is the precise moment when you're the most malleable. Believe all you want that you're in control; it's pretty entertaining for the rest of us.

he also thought you caught the ghey from your mom so...

Do you honestly believe that anyone is in total control of themselves like Rand wants everyone to be? It's nonsense. We're social animals. No matter how much you try, you can't escape it. There is no such thing as stable human subjectivity; Randians do the things they do as a symbolic gesture for how they want other people to see them.

hehe that wasn't a defense of Rand or her -ians.

Oh, sorry if I seem like I'm being a dick. I really like you on here.

hehe it's ok. I bring that out in people.

/not a Randian

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: The coont never got over the fact that Lenin and the Bolsheviks took her father's property during the Russian Revolution. She took an idiotic and uninformed look at communism as this "service, not self" idea and based a shiatty philosophy around defeating a strawman.

James F. Campbell: captain_heroic44: Right. I was actually referring to her Hickman remarks in that post.

That reminds me. I've been thinking about writing a novel in which one of the female protagonists is a psychopath, though this fact isn't made very clear to the reader except with very subtle hints. I want to portray this female as heroic and market the novel to Objectivists as ostensibly supporting their values. Americans love psychopathic heroes, anyway.

The hidden subtext of the novel, of course, will be that Objectivists are really quite shiatty. It would also hint at the terrible things their insane "philosophy" and political "ideas" would cause if they were widely accepted.

Interesting idea. Something tells me it would work better as a screenplay.

captain_heroic44: Interesting idea. Something tells me it would work better as a screenplay.

Yes! With lots of guns, rape, money, and rape.

No speeches, though. I want it to be marketable to the general public as well as Objectivists.

James F. Campbell: captain_heroic44: Interesting idea. Something tells me it would work better as a screenplay.

Yes! With lots of guns, rape, money, and rape.

No speeches, though. I want it to be marketable to the general public as well as Objectivists.

Heh.

I know everything about what Ayn Rand preached even though I've never listened to or understood anything she said. So she's evil and an idiot. Also, she's ugly. Also dead.

blah blah blah, so sick of it.

Most of you folks wouldn't know Objectivism if it bit you in the rear quarters.

/going off to enjoy a hamburger sandwich
//can i also have a phosphate, Dr Akston?

abb3w: Capricorns, Aquarians, and Pisces tend to be more correlated with the likelihood of considering Astrology unscientific. =)

Hmmmm... I'm a pisces and I think astrology is shiat. It must be true then!

Damn she looks like Helen Thomas' hot sister.