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.

(PJ Media)   "Who needs Ayn Rand? America has already gone John Galt"   (pjmedia.com) divider line 228
    More: Interesting, Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, Chris Christie, Gloria Steinem  
•       •       •

3261 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Jan 2014 at 3:56 PM (14 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-13 08:58:17 AM

Orange-Pippin: Doktor_Zhivago: Wait people have actually finished an ayn rand book? Last I tries I got like 12 pages in before I wanted to end my life...

Thank you. From a literary standpoint it's the most boring, ignorant, piece of tripe I have ever had the misfortune of picking up. As for Galt not being a fascist-rich-Superman, I would argue instead that he was a horrible human being that spent half the book arguing rational selfishness (rational egoism). Everything that Jesus, Ghandi, the current Pope or anyone with an actual soul argued against. How this makes him a "hero" to the GoP I will never know...wait a minute...


Ayn Rand never heard of the tragedy of the commons.
 
2014-01-13 10:20:45 AM
You gotta hand it to Pajamas Media. They...still exist.
 
2014-01-13 11:08:33 AM

MJMaloney187: He didn't keep it. He left it at the factory and walked away. Nobody else could figure out how to make it work. This subplot only comprises about 200 pages of the book so it's easy to see how you might have missed it.


No, that's exactly what I am talking about. Sure, he left the engine behind, but he left zero notes and did not transition the information to anyone. He took the selfishly took for himself all the knowledge he was paid to create. The prototype itself is not the only work product, in fact it is the least of the work. It's like if a programmer quit and deleted all the source code but you'd argue "hey, but they left a complied alpha version!". Will you defend really an employee just walking out on the employer and not giving over the work they were paid for? If GM hired an engineer to work on a new engine and they just up and quit leaving behind a prototype engine but either taking or destroying all plans, notes, etc. so that nobody else could figure out the prototype you'd think that was perfectly okay?

Please, defend this practice. I need a good laugh today.
 
2014-01-13 11:20:06 AM

Thrag: MJMaloney187: He didn't keep it. He left it at the factory and walked away. Nobody else could figure out how to make it work. This subplot only comprises about 200 pages of the book so it's easy to see how you might have missed it.

No, that's exactly what I am talking about. Sure, he left the engine behind, but he left zero notes and did not transition the information to anyone. He took the selfishly took for himself all the knowledge he was paid to create. The prototype itself is not the only work product, in fact it is the least of the work. It's like if a programmer quit and deleted all the source code but you'd argue "hey, but they left a complied alpha version!". Will you defend really an employee just walking out on the employer and not giving over the work they were paid for? If GM hired an engineer to work on a new engine and they just up and quit leaving behind a prototype engine but either taking or destroying all plans, notes, etc. so that nobody else could figure out the prototype you'd think that was perfectly okay?

Please, defend this practice. I need a good laugh today.


Did you read Atlas Shrugged?
 
2014-01-13 11:20:22 AM

spongeboob: MJMaloney187: brantgoose: Dumbass.

John Galt was a super-rich facist superman who went on strike against the tax man in the wet-dream fantasy of a White Russian harlot.

Not that you would know because you obviously didn't read the book, but John Galt was a laborer for the Taggart Transcontinental railroad company. He invented an engine that ran on atmospheric static electricity, then abandoned it. He was not a billionaire and he certainly wasn't a "facist-superman".

In the end, it was the looter class that captured him and were getting ready to torture him for the engine. He escaped. (spoiler alert).

Sure you read the book
The novel unfolds in a progressive retrospective, with Galt, the son of an Ohio garage mechanic, leaving home at age twelve and beginning college at the fictional Patrick Henry University at age sixteen. There he meets Francisco d'Anconia and Ragnar Danneskjöld, who become his two closest friends. Galt takes a double major in physics and philosophy, and after graduating, he becomes an engineer at the Twentieth Century Motor Company, where he designs a revolutionary new motor powered by ambient static electricity. When the company owners decide to run the factory by the collectivist maxim, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", Galt refuses to work there any longer and abandons his motor.


So in other words this Galt dude is a typical everyman whose accomplishments are totally feasibly done by someone living in the real world who obviously wasn't mentored by people who nurtured him instead of forcing him to learn everything about the world on his own aka his own bootstrappiness.

(yeah I realize this is a fictional character we're talking about here, but using characters in fiction as real life examples as to how one should live one's life is foolish... and I think someone like Ted Kord would be a better role model, and if you wanted to keep it all Objectivist friendly maybe Vic "the Question" Sage counts too, especially early stories)
 
2014-01-13 11:34:02 AM

MJMaloney187: Thrag: MJMaloney187: He didn't keep it. He left it at the factory and walked away. Nobody else could figure out how to make it work. This subplot only comprises about 200 pages of the book so it's easy to see how you might have missed it.

No, that's exactly what I am talking about. Sure, he left the engine behind, but he left zero notes and did not transition the information to anyone. He took the selfishly took for himself all the knowledge he was paid to create. The prototype itself is not the only work product, in fact it is the least of the work. It's like if a programmer quit and deleted all the source code but you'd argue "hey, but they left a complied alpha version!". Will you defend really an employee just walking out on the employer and not giving over the work they were paid for? If GM hired an engineer to work on a new engine and they just up and quit leaving behind a prototype engine but either taking or destroying all plans, notes, etc. so that nobody else could figure out the prototype you'd think that was perfectly okay?

Please, defend this practice. I need a good laugh today.

Did you read Atlas Shrugged?


Almost 25 years ago, and honestly I only made it a bit more than 3/4 of the way through the book before the terrible writing and self contradictory characters made me put it down so I've only skimmed the giant speech part. I do have to admit I really enjoyed at least the first half of the book and blazed through it, but the last act just got ridiculous and tiresome.

Now, I'm sure you have some additional nitpick like perhaps maybe he left some unintelligible notes that were worthless to anyone, but how about addressing the actual point? The guy left knowing he was screwing his employer by keeping all the useful knowledge to himself. He was paid to do a job, he left and kept the essential work product of that job to himself. The company was unable to do anything with what he did deign to leave behind. Do you defend the practice of an employee refusing to give a company all the important knowledge they were being paid to create? If you were to hire a researcher and while in your employ and on your dime they performed the research but just decided to up and quit one day without actually transitioning the research to you, would you be totally okay with that?
 
2014-01-13 11:40:36 AM
I do like the fact that apparently the only thing the Rand defender in this thread can attempt to address is nitpicking my statement that Galt didn't leave behind his work product. It's nice to see that not even an attempt can be made to refute the plain fact that Galt's cult were the real looters in that they were actually performing criminal acts. I expected at least a weak "but they were just keeping all the gold so they could give it back later" or pointing out the gold bars "returned" in the cult's recruiting efforts.
 
2014-01-13 11:45:02 AM

Thrag: MJMaloney187: Thrag: MJMaloney187: He didn't keep it. He left it at the factory and walked away. Nobody else could figure out how to make it work. This subplot only comprises about 200 pages of the book so it's easy to see how you might have missed it.

No, that's exactly what I am talking about. Sure, he left the engine behind, but he left zero notes and did not transition the information to anyone. He took the selfishly took for himself all the knowledge he was paid to create. The prototype itself is not the only work product, in fact it is the least of the work. It's like if a programmer quit and deleted all the source code but you'd argue "hey, but they left a complied alpha version!". Will you defend really an employee just walking out on the employer and not giving over the work they were paid for? If GM hired an engineer to work on a new engine and they just up and quit leaving behind a prototype engine but either taking or destroying all plans, notes, etc. so that nobody else could figure out the prototype you'd think that was perfectly okay?

Please, defend this practice. I need a good laugh today.

Did you read Atlas Shrugged?

Almost 25 years ago, and honestly I only made it a bit more than 3/4 of the way through the book  ...



I only read 3/4 of your response so I'm going to emphatically assume you apologized to me for being wrong.

Apology accepted.   I think we're done here.
 
2014-01-13 11:58:19 AM

firefly212: Mjeck: Fart_Machine: Mjeck: Let me get this straight;

Libtards on a sinking Titanic, are arguing that the deck chairs are all safely at the stern; therefore the ship ain't sinkin'. ....nice

Create strawman.
Knock it down.
Repeat again in every thread.

You're a boring troll.

What strawman? You don't even know me bro...

I'd say the opposite side is true... the deck chairs are askew, so you morons think the ship is sinking.

For the first time in more than a decade, I can afford to contribute to my own health insurance, mostly because now my tax dollars help to cover me, instead of just going towards the old (Medicare), the poor (Medicaid), the young (CHiP), and federal employees. Ya, there are problems, it took me more than a month to get enrolled, and I had to verify my citizenship 3 times, then send a check to BCBS because apparently this whole wacky online payment thing is far too newfangled for them. That said, on Jan 1st, for the first time in ever, I got all four of my MS drugs in the same month, until then, they had cost more than I actually make in a month... so right now, the conservative "solution" is to scuttle the ship, for me to be uninsured again, and hope that maybe you f@#@ers can come up with something more than the NOTHING AT ALL you've come up with since you killed HillaryCare with the idea that the conservatives could craft a better solution. You hate the ACA, fine... come to the grown ups table when you have something better to offer, until then, don't expect us to fall for the same damn trick twice.


So, 'fark you, I got mine'?
 
2014-01-13 12:00:22 PM

MJMaloney187: Thrag: MJMaloney187: Thrag: MJMaloney187: He didn't keep it. He left it at the factory and walked away. Nobody else could figure out how to make it work. This subplot only comprises about 200 pages of the book so it's easy to see how you might have missed it.

No, that's exactly what I am talking about. Sure, he left the engine behind, but he left zero notes and did not transition the information to anyone. He took the selfishly took for himself all the knowledge he was paid to create. The prototype itself is not the only work product, in fact it is the least of the work. It's like if a programmer quit and deleted all the source code but you'd argue "hey, but they left a complied alpha version!". Will you defend really an employee just walking out on the employer and not giving over the work they were paid for? If GM hired an engineer to work on a new engine and they just up and quit leaving behind a prototype engine but either taking or destroying all plans, notes, etc. so that nobody else could figure out the prototype you'd think that was perfectly okay?

Please, defend this practice. I need a good laugh today.

Did you read Atlas Shrugged?

Almost 25 years ago, and honestly I only made it a bit more than 3/4 of the way through the book  ...


I only read 3/4 of your response so I'm going to emphatically assume you apologized to me for being wrong.

Apology accepted.   I think we're done here.


Well, if a whole lot of nothing like this is all you've got I guess we are done here.

If there was something in the last act that changes the facts laid out earlier in the book about Galt leaving his job please go ahead and point it out. Having not labored through every word of the ending speech I don't argue its content but if I did I'd be welcome to seeing quotes correcting my statements. I am as willing here to be reminded of details that change the essential facts of how I recall the story. Did Galt not leave without first transitioning the knowledge of how the engine worked? If you can show that he didn't screw his employer by not giving them the real work product of the knowledge of how to create such engines I'll be glad to concede the point here in reality so you don't have to cling to your desperate delusion that I'm wrong and have apologized for such.

Of course if you still cannot in any way address my actual point I'll take your concession as just more proof of the hilariously hypocritical nature of Rand followers who champion business and curse the moochers yet see no problem with their hero having basically mooched off a business.
 
2014-01-13 12:44:22 PM

Thrag: Of course if you still cannot in any way address my actual point I'll take your concession as just more proof of the hilariously hypocritical nature of Rand followers who champion business and curse the moochers yet see no problem with their hero having basically mooched off a business.


Ok, fair enough.

Galt wasn't hired to invent a revolutionary engine. He developed it on his own initiative. That's an important detail. The proof you're looking for is in the conversation Dagny Taggart had with the railroad worker who worked with John Galt and was there when Galt quit. At or about the same time, another coworker of Galt's developed an ingenious process that made the factory more efficient ... he was punished for it.

I don't know this for sure, so maybe I'm wrong, but I think Rand's Galt character was inspired by Edison's treatment of Tesla. It fits, but I could be wrong. 

Not to be confrontational, but you're arguing about something you didn't finish reading 25 years ago.
 
2014-01-13 01:16:01 PM

Thrag: I do like the fact that apparently the only thing the Rand defender in this thread can attempt to address is nitpicking my statement that Galt didn't leave behind his work product. It's nice to see that not even an attempt can be made to refute the plain fact that Galt's cult were the real looters in that they were actually performing criminal acts. I expected at least a weak "but they were just keeping all the gold so they could give it back later" or pointing out the gold bars "returned" in the cult's recruiting efforts.


He also believes that The Turner Diaries is left-wing propaganda.  He's either a troll or a moron.
 
2014-01-13 01:32:05 PM

Fart_Machine: Thrag: I do like the fact that apparently the only thing the Rand defender in this thread can attempt to address is nitpicking my statement that Galt didn't leave behind his work product. It's nice to see that not even an attempt can be made to refute the plain fact that Galt's cult were the real looters in that they were actually performing criminal acts. I expected at least a weak "but they were just keeping all the gold so they could give it back later" or pointing out the gold bars "returned" in the cult's recruiting efforts.

He also believes that The Turner Diaries is left-wing propaganda.  He's either a troll or a moron.


I don't believe The Turner Diaries is left wing propaganda. I believe The Turner Diaries is a paranoid and delusional right wing extremist fantasy/wet dream (which it is) ... still worth reading. Have you read it?
 
2014-01-13 01:44:10 PM

MJMaloney187: Fart_Machine: Thrag: I do like the fact that apparently the only thing the Rand defender in this thread can attempt to address is nitpicking my statement that Galt didn't leave behind his work product. It's nice to see that not even an attempt can be made to refute the plain fact that Galt's cult were the real looters in that they were actually performing criminal acts. I expected at least a weak "but they were just keeping all the gold so they could give it back later" or pointing out the gold bars "returned" in the cult's recruiting efforts.

He also believes that The Turner Diaries is left-wing propaganda.  He's either a troll or a moron.

I don't believe The Turner Diaries is left wing propaganda. I believe The Turner Diaries is a paranoid and delusional right wing extremist fantasy/wet dream (which it is) ... still worth reading. Have you read it?


I wouldn't need to read Dianetics to know that it is utter drivel. Why would anybody outside of historians and psychologists need to read Atlas Shrugged or the Turner Diaries?
 
2014-01-13 01:55:13 PM

rebelyell2006: MJMaloney187: Fart_Machine: Thrag: I do like the fact that apparently the only thing the Rand defender in this thread can attempt to address is nitpicking my statement that Galt didn't leave behind his work product. It's nice to see that not even an attempt can be made to refute the plain fact that Galt's cult were the real looters in that they were actually performing criminal acts. I expected at least a weak "but they were just keeping all the gold so they could give it back later" or pointing out the gold bars "returned" in the cult's recruiting efforts.

He also believes that The Turner Diaries is left-wing propaganda.  He's either a troll or a moron.

I don't believe The Turner Diaries is left wing propaganda. I believe The Turner Diaries is a paranoid and delusional right wing extremist fantasy/wet dream (which it is) ... still worth reading. Have you read it?

I wouldn't need to read Dianetics to know that it is utter drivel. Why would anybody outside of historians and psychologists need to read Atlas Shrugged or the Turner Diaries?


Because this.
 
2014-01-13 01:58:45 PM

MJMaloney187: rebelyell2006: MJMaloney187: Fart_Machine: Thrag: I do like the fact that apparently the only thing the Rand defender in this thread can attempt to address is nitpicking my statement that Galt didn't leave behind his work product. It's nice to see that not even an attempt can be made to refute the plain fact that Galt's cult were the real looters in that they were actually performing criminal acts. I expected at least a weak "but they were just keeping all the gold so they could give it back later" or pointing out the gold bars "returned" in the cult's recruiting efforts.

He also believes that The Turner Diaries is left-wing propaganda.  He's either a troll or a moron.

I don't believe The Turner Diaries is left wing propaganda. I believe The Turner Diaries is a paranoid and delusional right wing extremist fantasy/wet dream (which it is) ... still worth reading. Have you read it?

I wouldn't need to read Dianetics to know that it is utter drivel. Why would anybody outside of historians and psychologists need to read Atlas Shrugged or the Turner Diaries?

Because this.


Laypeople ignoring crappy books and the government burning all books are not the same thing. Did you think the Duck Dynasty person was losing his freedom of speech?
 
2014-01-13 02:41:16 PM

MJMaloney187: Not to be confrontational, but you're arguing about something you didn't finish reading 25 years ago.


Welcome to fark.
 
2014-01-13 05:29:26 PM

MJMaloney187: Because this.


No one is destroying books. They're simply saying Atlas Shrugged is a horrendous piece of literature. And it is.
 
2014-01-13 06:20:55 PM

Ishkur: MJMaloney187: Because this.

No one is destroying books. They're simply saying Atlas Shrugged is a horrendous piece of literature. And it is.


The point I was making:

Fire Captain Beatty explains: "Now let's take up the minorities in our civilization, shall we? Bigger the population, the more minorities. Don't step on the toes of the dog lovers, the cat lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchants, 
chiefs, Mormons, Baptists, Unitarians, second generation Chinese, Swedes, Italians, Germans, 
Texans, Brooklynites, Irishmen, people from Oregon or Mexico. The people in this book, this 
play, this TV serial are not meant to represent any actual painters, cartographers, mechanics 
anywhere. The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that! All 
the minor minor minorities with their navels to be kept clean. Authors, full of evil thoughts, lock 
up your typewriters. They did. Magazines became a nice blend of vanilla tapioca. Books, so the 
damned snobbish critics said, were dishwater. No wonder books stopped selling, the critics said. 
But the public, knowing what it wanted, spinning happily, let the comic books survive. And the 
three dimensional sex magazines, of course. There you have it, Montag. It didn't come from the 
Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no! 
Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick, thank God. Today, thanks 
to them, you can stay happy all the time, you are allowed to read comics, the good old 
confessions, or trade journals."

Atlas Shrugged is no better or worse than Moby Dick or Les Miserables. So why don't people hate Melville or Hugo?
 
2014-01-13 06:39:56 PM

MJMaloney187: I don't believe The Turner Diaries is left wing propaganda.


And you're a liar too.
 
2014-01-13 08:03:59 PM
Fark Ayn Rand...she was a fascist pervert...sexually speaking too. She cheated on her husband for years. Oh yeah the moral party in the US, the GOP, doesn't care when their idols are perverts...Fark her and them...
 
2014-01-13 08:21:50 PM

MJMaloney187: Atlas Shrugged is no better or worse than Moby Dick or Les Miserables. So why don't people hate Melville or Hugo?


Because Melville and Hugo aren't terrible writers for one thing, and none of their works simplified a complex network of economic theories, ideas, practices and human motives and constructed a mono-dimensional faux-reality as a vehicle to push their pulp then 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 then have things play out exactly the way their philosophy says it will because they're the authors and they control 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 wrong.
 
2014-01-13 09:07:33 PM

thomas666: Fark Ayn Rand...she was a fascist pervert...sexually speaking too. She cheated on her husband for years. Oh yeah the moral party in the US, the GOP, doesn't care when their idols are perverts...Fark her and them...


It was fun to watch Paul Ryan squirm when someone informed him that his idol, Ms. Rand, was strongly anti-religious. Also made it obvious that he didn't read very much of her work. Like so many other Palin-esque faux intellectuals, he's lived in a world where he has been surrounded by the easily impressed.

Ishkur: Because Melville and Hugo aren't terrible writers for one thing


Other than her Objectivist journals/magazine/newsletters/napkin doodles, I've read most of Ayn Rand's writings. While she is no Melville, she's not a "it was a dark and stormy night" author either. It can be difficult to separate the dislike of her philosophy from that of her writing. She would have benefited greatly from a good editor who could have condensed down her novels and at the same time kept in some of material she cut out that made some characters, especially Howard Roark, more rounded. Her short stories are actually fun to read probably because she's not repeating herself over and over again trying to push the same point. Of course tastes vary and if you don't like O.Henry, you probably won't like her stories either. Nothing wrong with that but you might be surprised.
 
2014-01-13 09:49:33 PM

EngineerAU: While she is no Melville, she's not a "it was a dark and stormy night" author either.


Her problem was severe diarrhea of the pen. She would say in 4000 words what most writes could say in 50. And then she repeated those same 4000 words, over and over again, in the speeches of many of her characters (none of them talk -- they lecture, for tedious pages), for 1200 god damn pages.

It's like she had such a low opinion of her readers' intelligence that they wouldn't be able to grasp the thesis "The rich and powerful earned and deserve everything and therefore they are free to act like self-righteous assholes" (and let's be realistic: The rich and powerful don't need a how-to manual) so she had to hammer them over the head with it again and again, dripping it in flowery purple prose. Benefited from an editor? That's an understatement: Atlas Shrugged is a 5 page philosophical essay stretched into a 300 page plot surrounded by 900 additional pages of bombastic prose.

Compare her to a similar political writer in her day, George Orwell. Read 1984 and Atlas Shrugged. Notice how Orwell can put more ideas, more persuasive punch, and more thoughtful rhetoric into a single paragraph than Rand can in any of her characters' 10+ page monologues.
 
2014-01-13 09:57:10 PM

Ishkur: EngineerAU: While she is no Melville, she's not a "it was a dark and stormy night" author either.

Her problem was severe diarrhea of the pen. She would say in 4000 words what most writes could say in 50. And then she repeated those same 4000 words, over and over again, in the speeches of many of her characters (none of them talk -- they lecture, for tedious pages), for 1200 god damn pages.

It's like she had such a low opinion of her readers' intelligence that they wouldn't be able to grasp the thesis "The rich and powerful earned and deserve everything and therefore they are free to act like self-righteous assholes" (and let's be realistic: The rich and powerful don't need a how-to manual) so she had to hammer them over the head with it again and again, dripping it in flowery purple prose. Benefited from an editor? That's an understatement: Atlas Shrugged is a 5 page philosophical essay stretched into a 300 page plot surrounded by 900 additional pages of bombastic prose.

Compare her to a similar political writer in her day, George Orwell. Read 1984 and Atlas Shrugged. Notice how Orwell can put more ideas, more persuasive punch, and more thoughtful rhetoric into a single paragraph than Rand can in any of her characters' 10+ page monologues.


agree totally about Orwell. And he earned his stripes unlike Ayn who leached and leached her "friends" and devotees...
 
2014-01-13 10:25:43 PM

Ishkur: Her problem was severe diarrhea of the pen. She would say in 4000 words what most writes could say in 50. And then she repeated those same 4000 words, over and over again, in the speeches of many of her characters (none of them talk -- they lecture, for tedious pages), for 1200 god damn pages.


True. She needed a good editor. I suspect her ego kept her from using one. After all, when you're the smartest person in the world, who is qualified to be your editor? But short stories such as "Good Copy" are actually concise and amusing. It seems as her career went on, her problems with over explaining in her writing got worse, probably in proportion with her growing ego.
 
2014-01-14 12:47:54 AM

EngineerAU: True. She needed a good editor. I suspect her ego kept her from using one. After all, when you're the smartest person in the world, who is qualified to be your editor? But short stories such as "Good Copy" are actually concise and amusing. It seems as her career went on, her problems with over explaining in her writing got worse, probably in proportion with her growing ego.


Suppose you are a nice family of Russian Jewish immigrants living in Chicago in the 1920s. Suppose you get a frantic letter from some distant cousin in Russia, begging for help because their daughter is a stubborn loudmouth who will certainly be killed if she stays in the country for much longer. Suppose you happily provide the necessary affidavit of support for a visa, promise her a job in your family business, and open your home-a five-room apartment already so crowded that the cousin will have to sleep on a cot in the dining room-to her for six months.

Now suppose your cousin keeps everyone else in the house up all night, every night, with her incessant typing (which you translate into English for her) or her long baths that use up all the hot water. Suppose that during the day, while you are faint from sleep deprivation, your cousin roams the apartment singing "I'm Sitting on Top of the World" as loudly as she can. Suppose she declines to speak to you because your conversation topics don't "interest me." Suppose she leans on you to arrange an extension of her visa, borrows a bunch of money from you to move to Hollywood, and promises to buy you a "mink coat and a Rolls-Royce" when she makes it big.

You might, then, be forgiven for holding a grudge when your cousin becomes wealthy and famous and she neither buys you anything nor pays you back the money she borrowed. Instead, all you get are copies of some ponderous novels, tickets to a couple of revolting lectures, and the pleasure of learning, in many interviews, that your cousin "had no family in America" and that "nobody helped [her]" when she immigrated.

Ayn Rand was an absolutely despicable person according to EVERYONE who ever had the misfortune of working with or even meeting her. She was indomitably defiant, obscenely difficult, and was known to completely suck the life out of a room. She never smiled or laughed, she abhorred small talk, and she would often approach strangers with random questions like "Tell me about your premises." She just didn't get people -- she was a pure autistic in every sense of the meaning. And her problem with her philosophy was, like all philosophers, she assumed that everyone ought to think just like her.

Her ego didn't grow. It's always been massively out of proportion with her talent.
 
2014-01-14 06:37:32 AM

Ishkur: Ayn Rand was an absolutely despicable person according to EVERYONE who ever had the misfortune of working with or even meeting her. She was indomitably defiant, obscenely difficult, and was known to completely suck the life out of a room. She never smiled or laughed, she abhorred small talk, and she would often approach strangers with random questions like "Tell me about your premises." She just didn't get people -- she was a pure autistic in every sense of the meaning. And her problem with her philosophy was, like all philosophers, she assumed that everyone ought to think just like her.


Let he who has never been insufferable cast the first accusation of autism.

I didn't know any of that about old Ayn Rand. It doesn't change my opinion that her literary work contributes to the historical palette of humankind, and I do recommend reading her novels.
 
Displayed 28 of 228 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report