Was she talking about Atlas or Rand?

When you've gotten your clock cleaned by reason, logic and the facts, you can always resort to a cartoon show that hasn't been funny in over 15 years.

THANK YOU, COME AGAIN!

Wait... no... QM, you aren't really an Objectivist, are you?

Really? lol...

^ Nice going, I think you just wasted your "argument from intimidation" on a christian

This kind of ridicule speaks more of the impotence of her critics than anything else

^Why are Ayn Rand fans always so dour and humorless?

.

Statistically speaking, objectivists probably exhibit the highest performance of just about any ideology across a broad swath of socioeconomic measures, so I think there is some wisdom there that could be incorporated well into more mainstream ideologies.

objectivists = believe in your own capacity to do great things.

I watch cartoons shows state the same things. So what.

^I think the point is that ingenuity and productivity have a moral quality to them for their role in building our society. If objectivists tend to perform so well, they must be doing something right, and that's my take on why they're so motivated.

>> ^chilaxe: Statistically speaking

If you are going to speak statistically, show us the numbers. I would honestly like to see them, but I doubt they exist.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^Why are Ayn Rand fans always so dour and humorless?

??

Why are Ayn Rand critics always so unusually hostile?

>> ^gtjwkq:
^ Nice going, I think you just wasted your "argument from intimidation" on a christian
This kind of ridicule speaks more of the impotence of her critics than anything else


I don't think ponce was disparaging Objectivism or Rand, I think he was musing at the idea that QM would defend it, when he's clearly (from his posting history) not even remotely in that ideological camp.

ayn rand=russian...minus the gay bashing =awesome. end of discussion.

While there are interesting ideas within Ayn Rand's books, I would highly recommend a small treatise on her, and her "movement" as detailed by Michael Shermer in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things" - Part 2: Pseudoscience and Superstition, Chapter 8: The Unlikeliest Cult: Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and the Cult of Personality.

>> ^KnivesOut:
I don't think ponce was disparaging Objectivism or Rand, I think he was musing at the idea that QM would defend it, when he's clearly (from his posting history) not even remotely in that ideological camp.

I didn't think that either. He was insinuating that QM was an objectivist, I was pointing out that it clearly isn't possible given that QM is a christian (AFAIK). The ridicule I mentioned is from the video.

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.

The other, of course, involves orcs."

So, like, my actual experience is that most hardcore objectivists seem, to me, to have a very naive and simplified view of the world. It really is a philosophy that appeals to the inner-adolescent (especially for bright geeks): You are better than everyone else. Everyone else is trying to hold you down. If you can't succeed, it's because everyone else is holding you back out of jealousy. If they can't succeed, it's because they're not smart enough or they're not working hard enough.

That said, it's sort of like Christianity (or any other damn religion or philosophy). At its best, it can be a positive influence on someone's life (and then on the world), by motivating and providing some meaning. At its worst, it can be used by the unsavory to justify their actions.

Simpsons was funnier when they neutrally lampooned both sides of an issue instead of shilling for one side.

>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^chilaxe: Statistically speaking
If you are going to speak statistically, show us the numbers. I would honestly like to see them, but I doubt they exist.

Yes, there probably aren't any statistics available, but media coverage generally regards Rand's followers as skewing toward self-reliant, libertarian types who emphasize performance.* It would be surprising if an ideology that glorifies self-reliance wasn't associated with increased self-reliant attitudes.

I think it's generally most rewarding for people to read everything, with the goal of being 'informationally a mile wide,' but those who are disinclined are free to reject the lessons in objectivist themes. IMHO, that just means more advantages available for those who draw from a broader sample of the marketplace of ideas, and that's really how the system is supposed to work. So rail against objectivism to your heart's content


*

Many business leaders say Atlas Shrugged influenced their lives more than anything else they have read. Joe Stafford, the 40-year-old CEO of supply chain management company IC Solutions, said he was a liberal before reading Rand at 23. Chip Joyce, the 31-year-old president of Ulla Bazant, a maker of high-end women's apparel, says the book has been his "frame of reference." http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2002-09-23-ayn-rand_x.htm

Hugh Hefner and Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas found Rand fascinating. Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban and Whole Foods CEO John Mackey both cite Rand’s books as influential, though Mackey has said he doesn’t believe businesses exist solely to make a profit and selfishness is a virtue. In Silicon Valley, Rand’s ideas appeal to generations of entrepreneurs who built the computer industry and the Internet. T.J. Rodgers, CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, is a notorious Rand fan; Patrick W. Grady named his company Rearden Commerce after the steel magnate Hank Rearden from Atlas. http://www.bnet.com/2403-13056_23-272467.html

"Media coverage generally regards Rand's followers to skew toward self-reliant, libertarian types in increased income brackets."

Those don't qualify as even close to rigorous evidence. No correlation at all; even if there was correlation proven, it doesn't prove causation.

I think the people highlighted have chosen a philosophy which justifies/rationalizes their lifestyle and status. Everyone does that.

"Income correlates with most socially valued measures, like education and healthy diet."

What does that have to do with anything?

Ayn Rand is a socialist

>> ^direpickle:
So, like, my actual experience is that most hardcore objectivists seem, to me, to have a very naive and simplified view of the world. It really is a philosophy that appeals to the inner-adolescent (especially for bright geeks): You are better than everyone else. Everyone else is trying to hold you down. If you can't succeed, it's because everyone else is holding you back out of jealousy. If they can't succeed, it's because they're not smart enough or they're not working hard enough.
That said, it's sort of like Christianity (or any other damn religion or philosophy). At its best, it can be a positive influence on someone's life (and then on the world), by motivating and providing some meaning. At its worst, it can be used by the unsavory to justify their actions.


Exactly.

Yeah, like I used to hang with AnnieR. After two martinies, she was under the table. After three, she was under me!! Is that "libertarianism" or what?? It was certainly "social"!! Heh, heh, heh!

O.K., SORRY!!!

Hehe... Ayn Rand cracks me up, but not as much as the people who thinks she wrote great books. Back when I was 16 I thought Ayn Rand was amazingly deep. You know what happened next? I grew up.

Ayn Rand's "philosophy" is simplistic, self-absorbed, and lacks any concept of empathy. It seems that the only people who stick with it after adolescence are those who are trying to find an excuse for the fact that they are anti-social.

But stick with me here a second... I think I may have discovered something about QM and other "conservatives." Perhaps it is the fact that they don't believe in altruism or empathy that explains why they have to be such assholes when it comes to helping others?

See the thing is, I bet you people who lashed out at my comment think you are Howard Roark... I really wonder what you've really accomplished, how much you've "gone against the grain" and what your families think of you. I'm sure you'll have all sorts of witty comebacks for me and tales of your wonderful lives... the truth still stands that every Objetivist I've ever met in person is actually a sad sad person. Disliked, angry, and blaming it all on the "fact" that they are superior to everyone else...

>> ^gtjwkq:
>> ^KnivesOut:
I don't think ponce was disparaging Objectivism or Rand, I think he was musing at the idea that QM would defend it, when he's clearly (from his posting history) not even remotely in that ideological camp.
I didn't think that either. He was insinuating that QM was an objectivist, I was pointing out that it clearly isn't possible given that QM is a christian (AFAIK). The ridicule I mentioned is from the video.


Uh, AFAIK QM is neither a christian nor an objectivist. They seem to most consistently be a troll, save for the rare occasions in which they break character.

When you examine the numbers, conservatives give more of their time and money to charity than liberals.

There's a big difference between someone helping others of their own free will, religious values or community values and a government entity taking money at gunpoint from one group and giving it to another.

The most offensive aspect of liberalism is also one of its defining features: refusing to analyze RESULTS intended and unintended. When a wasteful government program not only fails to deliver and additionally causes harm, the RESULTS are simply ignored by the liberal who believes in the underlying good intentions.

Ayn Rand's value to civilization is much higher than Karl Marx's, and Rand's philosophy hasn't left 100 million dead worldwide.

Didn't the late William F. Buckley dismantle Rand's Objectivism in an article which explained why charity was actually one of the cornerstones of Conservatism?

Anyway I recently worked with a guy in his early 20's who was extremely intelligent and accomplished (attending San Fran Conservatory of Music) who was a rabid Ron Paul / von Mises / Ayn Rand disciple.

He could spout volumes of theory, philosophy and history to back up his arguments, but when it came to everyday common sense stuff he was ignorant, like he didn't know if a job paying $26,000/yr was considered a lot of money or not, or that the name of the tool you use to "turn things" was called a crescent wrench.

Turns out he was the son of a self-made millionaire, he would take jobs doing manual labor for a few months as kind of a lark, believing that he was experiencing 'real life' when in fact he was insulated from working class reality by daddy's millions.

Interesting guy, fascinating discussions, but ultimately he was living in fantasy land.

It is a well known fact that Francis hates Ayn Rand.

>> ^quantumushroom:
When you examine the numbers, conservatives give more of their time and money to charity than liberals.
There's a big difference between someone helping others of their own free will, religious values or community values and a government entity taking money at gunpoint from one group and giving it to another.
The most offensive aspect of liberalism is also one of its defining features: refusing to analyze RESULTS intended and unintended. When a wasteful government program not only fails to deliver and additionally causes harm, the RESULTS are simply ignored by the liberal who believes in the underlying good intentions.
Ayn Rand's value to civilization is much higher than Karl Marx's, and Rand's philosophy hasn't left 100 million dead worldwide.


There is so much uncorroborated opinion passing as 'fact' in that posting that I cannot take anything in it seriously.

What numbers are you examining?
What makes you suggest liberals take money at 'gunpoint' (I'm assuming you meant that metaphorically)?
Which results are liberals refusing to analyze, and how are you an expert on liberal ideology?
How do you measure 'value to civilization' so I can rationally duplicate your results?
How are you measuring the '100 million dead' you attribute to Marx' philosophy?
Why are you bringing up Marx at all? Is it your suggestion that Ayn Rand is to conservatives what Marx is to liberals?

Again, I am only trying to rationally and completely analyze your statements. They are either not factual, or they are fallacious, or I am not aware of the metric you are using. As an objectivist surely you appreciate my skepticism.


Or perhaps you are just opposed to anyone being opposed to conservatism, and you don't care what you say, as long as it disagrees with someone liberal.

Please, disabuse me of my misconceptions.

The Ayn Rand School For Tots (The Simpsons) has been added as a related post - related requested by Nephelimdream on that post.