Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Buzzfeed)   Obama: "I dunno about Paul Ryan, you'd have to ask him that yourself, but Ayn Rand's doctrine was something I left back in high school"   ( buzzfeed.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Ayn Rand, obama, executive editor, Eric Bates  
•       •       •

3034 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Oct 2012 at 7:41 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



266 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-10-26 05:02:20 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Exactly right. Or at least from the perspective of a naive and preconceived view of the world (and works of fiction).
There is a reason fiction is called... fiction.


I think the bigger question is: Why do some people think that a philosophy outlined in the speeches of cardboard Mary Sue characters in a work of complete implausible fiction written by a Russian immigrant with an axe to grind against the mean ole' Bolsheviks who took her daddy's business away in a manner that is highly exaggerated and highly stylized and deliberately constructed so that she can control the outcome..... is totally applicable in real life?

Call me a skeptic, but "it'll work because she says it will" is not very reassuring.
 
2012-10-26 05:14:59 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Really? Just like Reardan stole the formula from a penniless inventor whom he then murdered?


Did he? ....don't remember that plot point in the book. Or was that a lie spread by the moochers and looters determined to tear him down?

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: A very well annotated Wiki article disagrees. Link - Business career


Actually, it agrees, Kildall just didn't have the business savvy to press the issue. Your reading comprehension is functionally atrocious.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: But you are right about one thing, in that the initial wave was DOS IBM, not Windows.


FTFY.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: It's a NOVEL, for crying out loud.


A novel that people seem to regard, accept, and prop up as unerring truth (she also added a post-script to Atlas Shrugged that contained only four words: "And I mean it!"). Her subsequent writings and the founding and advancement of the Objectivist movement is enough proof to assert that she was dead serious about how she thought the world worked and this is what she wanted to be done with it.

For that fact alone -- that it is a fable, an over-the-top, bombastic tome of nonsense full of absolutist morality, one-dimensional characters and extremist perceptions of humanity -- that the book is worse than bad, it is downright dangerous, if for no reason than it turns you into an asshole for a few years (if you read it in college like everyone else).

And the worst part is we have people running for the highest seats of government who treat this book like a Bible (enough to foist it on every member of his staff).

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: I suppose that next you will mention that Ayn Rand never wrote in detail about any of her characters taking a dump.


I bet John Galt's dumps were massive, protruding lincoln logs, like powerful dark brown phalluses, so strong and eager to prove their worth that they break through the bowl and clog the sewers. No, not the sewers under his house, but all sewers everywhere. This is the man who said he would take a dump to stop plumbing, and did.
 
2012-10-26 05:27:26 PM  

soy_bomb: grasping at every little petty swipe


We should trust Bolly Boy. He knows about grasping.
 
2012-10-26 05:29:06 PM  

Ishkur: This is the man who said he would take a dump to stop plumbing, and did.


And welcome to my Favorites list.
 
2012-10-26 05:35:09 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: It's a novel. Get over it.


As soon as people like Paul Ryan stop treating it as a New Gospel, to the point they require staff members to read it, we will.
 
2012-10-26 05:35:44 PM  

TenJed_77: MeinRS6: So Ryan is "obsessed" with Rand? Give that interviewer a gold start for getting out a false libby talking point and pitching up that softball to Obama when he wasn't sucking on his dick.

Want to know what is for teens and dope smoking college freshman that adults should grow out of? Liberalism.

Are you going to stay with this alt throughout the entire thread?


It's not about Israel, so he kinda has to.
 
2012-10-26 05:38:02 PM  

Ishkur: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Really? Just like Reardan stole the formula from a penniless inventor whom he then murdered?

Did he? ....don't remember that plot point in the book. Or was that a lie spread by the moochers and looters determined to tear him down?

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: A very well annotated Wiki article disagrees. Link - Business career

Actually, it agrees, Kildall just didn't have the business savvy to press the issue. Your reading comprehension is functionally atrocious.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: But you are right about one thing, in that the initial wave was DOS IBM, not Windows.

FTFY.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: It's a NOVEL, for crying out loud.

A novel that people seem to regard, accept, and prop up as unerring truth (she also added a post-script to Atlas Shrugged that contained only four words: "And I mean it!"). Her subsequent writings and the founding and advancement of the Objectivist movement is enough proof to assert that she was dead serious about how she thought the world worked and this is what she wanted to be done with it.

For that fact alone -- that it is a fable, an over-the-top, bombastic tome of nonsense full of absolutist morality, one-dimensional characters and extremist perceptions of humanity -- that the book is worse than bad, it is downright dangerous, if for no reason than it turns you into an asshole for a few years (if you read it in college like everyone else).

And the worst part is we have people running for the highest seats of government who treat this book like a Bible (enough to foist it on every member of his staff).

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: I suppose that next you will mention that Ayn Rand never wrote in detail about any of her characters taking a dump.

I bet John Galt's dumps were massive, protruding lincoln logs, like powerful dark brown phalluses, so strong and eager to prove their worth that they break through the bowl and clog the sewers. No, not the sewers under his house, but al ...


That says everything I am too bored to mention. You obviously have an axe to grind and the inability to actually think about the novel.

Bye.
 
2012-10-26 06:52:16 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Kuroshin: I mean, I know you haven't been a Republican for quite a while, but you've fully jumped into the other team, eh?

Compared to a party of free rape and perpetual war on the brown people and the poor people... Is there really an option?


Well, there's always unaffiliated. I'm still without Party.

But now the joke:

I'd take free rape over having to pay for it.

/*rimshot*
 
2012-10-26 08:25:43 PM  

Maud Dib: Omahawg: . However, most of them were dead from disease by the time whitey showed up so their influence on their environment was sort of on the wane by then and soon forgotten. See William Cronon's most excellent Changes in the Land for further details.

As for as property....yeah....you think some Missouria is gonna just waltz into Kaw territory and start killin ...

You mean the diseases that the white man brought?


correct. diseases which spread and killed long before most of them ever saw a white man. by the time whitey got out here they found empty wide open spaces....mostly 'cause everyone was already dead.
 
2012-10-26 08:50:36 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So this genius would be smart enough to invent the stuff, but too stupid to market and sell it effectively? Really?


Historically, seems perfectly plausible. Tesla, for example, was pretty terrible as a businessman; and there's more than a few inventors who've been gypped by the business boys out of more than a token share of the proceeds. It's one reason why the local U specifically has an engineering minor program on the subject.
 
2012-10-26 10:44:29 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: That says everything I am too bored to mention. You obviously have an axe to grind and the inability to actually think about the novel.


Like I haven't already? not only have I read Atlas Shrugged (while sitting on the can... it took me 2.5 years to use all the pages), but also The Fountainhead, Anthem, For the New Intellectual, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and the Virtue of Selfishness. I know Ayn Rand better than you do, and I've thought about her books and her philosophy far longer than you have.

But since you seem to think I have an inability to actually think critically about her works, let me tell you my real conclusions:

What Ayn Rand did was simplify a complex network of economic theories, ideas, practices and human motives and constructed a mono-dimensional faux-reality as a vehicle to push her pulp. Then she filled it full of cardboard cutout characters and mary sue ubermensches who don't talk but lecture for tedious pages about why the rich and powerful have divine right to being rich and powerful. And of course things play out exactly the way her philosophy says because she's the author and she controls the farking outcome. In clear violation of every standard of ethics, politics, economics, reality, life, human nature, philosophy, and farking national train corporation management. It's dishonest, and it's farking WRONG.

Another thing I thought was funny was Rand's twisting of the Robin Hood fable. She called him the most evil fairytale hero in history because he stole from the producers to give to the moochers. On the contrary, Robin actually stole the people's taxes from the oppressive government and gave them back to the their rightful owners -- he should be a Tea Party icon. I don't understand why she didn't look this up thoroughly enough. It was a bad allegory because it's heavily dependent on point of view.

But her biggest fallacy lies in the causes and effects of who actually "builds" the produces of society. Truth be known, Objectivists aren't typically more or less productive than anyone else. Nor are they more individualistic or rugged or self-sustaining or anything else that adheres to Objectivist doctrine. For the most part, they're just normal people, trying to get by. A bit full of themselves, and they love to talk about their ideals, but other than that there's nothing exquisitely unique about them that society relies upon.

The book's premise is ridiculous because NO ONE is so important that they think they can destroy the world by retreating from it. Nature abhors a vacuum. Everything important and meaningful that has ever been created -- from thoughts to ideas to products to technology to companies -- is instantly taught, copied, and spread around, effectively building an organic backup system in case the original fails or dies (or retreats to Galt's Gulch). No one is the sole arbiter of anything. No one has a privileged position on humanity's future. To rely on a single source for progress and advancement is dangerous to a functioning system. True stability means constant evolving contingencies, backup plans, and millions of redundancies. Society can't fail because one man lost his motor car plans in a factory. Everyone is replaceable. Even John Galt.

What infuriates me most about Ayn Rand is her tendency toward absolutism. She always makes sweeping, absolute statements like "Capitalism is an end in itself".....no its not. There is no rational, logical, or verifiable proven instances that justify such a statement. For starters, it's wrong. Capitalism is not an end, it is a means to improve the quality of life. It is a tool. It is a process. And despite what she might think, freedom is not defined in terms of economic productivity. Building a house does not make one happy. Living in one does. Bread isn't beneficial to anyone. Eating it is.

Living things do not live for themselves. Preservation of the self is a cherished tenet, but preservation of the species is equally as cherishable (and, depending on the circumstances, will frequently trump the former), and the concept of family and community is stronger in most societies than the concept of individualism. This is not brainwashing, this is not state-mandated. People do this because they prefer to do this, it is something inescapable and ingrained, and as far as we are concerned it is the moral, ethical, and empirical reality of our universe.

Man is not a rational animal. Man is an emotional animal. Man is not an individual animal nor is he a social animal. Man is a TRIBAL animal. These are not belief structures. They are physical realities that have defined the evolution of our species.

Ayn Rand does not encourage you to think for yourself. She encourages you to think about her. Her philosophy is attractive to people for the wrong reasons. Most of them are drawn to the characters in her books and use that as justification for promoting her philosophy. But when people are driven by aesthetic (rather than rational) criteria, it's impossible to reason with them in terms of formal argumentation hence the famed "Randroid syndrome" that you possess.

The authoress herself knew little about reason and even less about philosophy. She admitted she barely read anyone, which is why Objectivism sounds a bit like the idealism of Nietzsche, with maybe a bit of Kant and Bernard Shaw. She once claimed that the only book on philosophy she read was by Aristotle, which explains her appeal to his logical absolutes, particularly the first one: the Law of Identity (ie: A is A).

Objective morality can't exist without subjective content, and more and more of her pseudo-philosophy is being unraveled by such stark and painfully obvious contradictions, though I guess at the time no one had the guts to tell her because she was so damn intimidating and.........what's the word she loved to use? ah yes: "insolent".

It seems that Objectivists, following the lead of Rand, spend more of their time denouncing detractors -- as you have done here -- than actually being the highly-enlightened, individualistic rational beings that they think they are.

3 problems with Objectivists:

1) Objectivists are not highly-enlightened. It's a lazy philosophy, so it attracts lazy intellectuals, aka people who haven't read widely in the field which is what makes Rand's work so impressionable.
2) They are not individualists. Rand's cult was even called "the Collective", and to speak out of line or against the party line was extremely frowned upon
3) They are hardly rational, since their defence of the philosophy and attacks of dissenters normally comes in a high-pitched shrill and antagonistic, standoff-ish mental bullying

This is long, so I won't get into Objectivism's relationship with Fascism. That's another essay altogether.

Organized Objectivism has some cult-like tendancies creepier than Scientology. It's ironic that Rand had more in common with Josef Stalin than anyone else, someone who's ideals she spent the better part of her life denouncing but who's cult of personality she emulated to a T. Today, most Objectivists are simply people who are incapable of thinking for themselves, letting only the bitter memory of the late Ayn Rand make decisions for them.

But essentially, what Rand did was what all pop philosophers do: Tell rich and powerful people what they want to hear (ie: that they have a noble reason to be self-righteous assholes).

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Bye.


You are truly a titanic bastion of genius so pure and brilliant, with radiant features and a striking, deep gaze, commanding a high intelligence that sees the world not to be obeyed, but to be commanded as a tool of your noble, productive vision, to bend to your will, to mold, shape, and construct as an extension of your mind, a champion of will, of integrity, of moral standards as impenetrable as granite, to wrought from the earth the ideals of human perfection, and to exist, quite simply, not for others or for some arboreal means but as an end in yourself.

Whatever will we do when such a poster leaves Fark? Truly, the site will descend into chaos without your leadership, wisdom, and inspiration.
 
2012-10-27 12:12:50 AM  

Blues_X: MeinRS6: Want to know what is for teens and dope smoking college freshman that adults should grow out of? Liberalism.

You sound extremish.

[photos.imageevent.com image 323x350]


This is wildly off topic, but since when are the Fantastic Four Islamic enforcers of Sharia Law, let alone useful?
 
2012-10-27 12:45:10 AM  

Ishkur: Words....


First, you sound more than a bit defensive. That's why you conclude your post with attempted ridicule. TRhe fact that I really don't give a flying fark about your opinion of me apparently hasn't occurred to you.

Second, know how I know you have NOT read Atlas Shrugged - or if you did, didn't understand some really basic stuff in it - stuff my 12 year old understood when she read it.

The book is NOT about the rich and powerful -vs- everyone else. Hank Rearden is rich and powerful - but so is the main bad guy, James Taggert. No, the book is about the competent person who does not demand sacrifice and refuses to sacrifice him/her self -vs- the incompetent secondhander. The denizens of Galt's Gultch include many individuals who are NOT rich and powerful. They, however, share with the rich and powerful there the trait of neither sacrificing nor demanding sacrifice.

I really don't know how you could have missed that if you - as you claim - read the book.

This is what is so stupid about that Bob the Flower cartoon rant against Rand. Bob the Flower's creator obviously hasn't read the book either. (Or has an axe to grind and is deliberately misrepresenting the book.)

You are either a liar or uncorrectably stupid, or both. And I don't waste my time having discussions with such. Please, continue to babble on. I won't be responding.
 
2012-10-27 02:17:13 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: First, you sound more than a bit defensive


Nah, I just do this for fun. I really like trolling Objectivists, what can I say.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Second, know how I know you have NOT read Atlas Shrugged


No, I seriously did read the whole thing while sitting on the toilet.

It took me 2.5 years to use all the pages.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The book is NOT about the rich and powerful -vs- everyone else. Hank Rearden is rich and powerful - but so is the main bad guy, James Taggert.


Reardon is rich and powerful, Wyatt is rich and powerful, D'Anconia is rich and powerful, James Taggert is ONLY rich and powerful because his sister, Dagny, is rich and powerful, Judge Naragansett was rich and powerful, the composer guy (can't remember his name, running off memory) was rich and powerful, the danish pirate was rich and powerful.... and everyone who wasn't rich and powerful in Galt's Gulch was either rich and powerful at one point in their lives and threw it all away to make some sort of statement, or chose not to seek riches because they preferred not to gift society their talents, like Owen Kellogg, the titular John Galt, and that motherfarker in the diner who made the BEST TASTING BURGER OF ALL TIME because Objectivists are champions at everything they do, even being short order cooks at truckstop diners.

So yeah: You know how I know that YOU never read the book?

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: No, the book is about the competent person who does not demand sacrifice and refuses to sacrifice him/her self -vs- the incompetent secondhander.


Actually, that's one of the few admirable qualities about Rand's ubermensches -- they valued productive achievement even though it turned them into pretentious elitists. But they weren't bad people because they were elitists. It was how they went about executing that elitism -- like, say, blowing up a housing project or destroying civilization. Or raping women as a token of divine selfishness.

That's really the big problem with Objectivists. Being elitist is one thing. Being elitist to the point of wishing death to every other human on the face of the earth -- that's psychopathic.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: This is what is so stupid about that Bob the Flower cartoon rant against Rand


Actually, the cartoon nails the exact problem with an Objectivist Universe: No one in the post-apocalyptic society really could really do any of the real gruntwork that makes society function -- the farmers and garbage crews and janitors and sewage cleaners and miners and lumberjacks and oil workers and all the dirty, disgusting jobs that none of them knew how to do and didn't have the strength to do anyway. Sure, some of them ran some industrial companies, but in truth the builders and geniuses of the world need a disposable slave class to do the work that is too demanding and too hazardous, otherwise they wouldn't have the time to do their genius things because all their waking energy is spent on procuring their next meal.

This is an important point that Objectivists continuously fail to understand, so let me say this: In order for any apex civilization to pursue higher qualities like art and science, it must first employ an underclass to take care of it, freeing up time to engage in these high pursuits. In order to obtain such an underclass, it must invade its neighbors. In order to invade its neighbors, it must have a really good army. No high civilization is ever benign - every one celebrates its noble accomplishments on the backs of cheap labor exploited by tyrannies of chauvinistic patriarchies, and an Objectivist society that doesn't do this will not have the time or the power to accomplish anything at all. The fruits of man's genius will be devoured by manual labor.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: They, however, share with the rich and powerful there the trait of neither sacrificing nor demanding sacrifice.


You notice that none of them had any children? ....why do you think that is?

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: You are either a liar or uncorrectably stupid, or both.


Do you think I would have written all that if I hadn't read her books? ....how dumb are you?

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: And I don't waste my time having discussions with such


Ayn Rand was an asshole who wanted to teach other people how to be assholes. And writing books where the protagonists were assholes and being heroically revered for it.

You have learned from her well.
 
2012-10-27 02:38:51 AM  
images.nymag.comView Full Size

METH

 
2012-10-27 03:30:31 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Wall of BS in response to Ishkur......And I don't waste my time having discussions with such.


Farking, LOL.
 
Displayed 16 of 266 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report