>Just follow your own rational self interest, broIsn't it in someone's rational self interest to have a functioning society instead of being a greedy capitalist pig who disregards everyone and everything save for their wealth and power?
>>23328432ayn rand never hurt anybody in her entire life
>>23328438Her retarded writing hurt my brain
>jewess>singlehandedly btfo socialismhow can mong/pol/oids ever recover?
I've been listening to Atlas Shrugged. I have to agree with what the book is saying. It's presented in a horrible strawman way, but the world is becoming like that so I can't fault her too much with it. Why do so many people hate it, and her? Does she go total retard in her other books, or in her interviews?
>>23328607She's always been a fucking retard and you're a retard for taking the ideas of this stupid bitch seriously
>>23328612I think that having to help people that have no respect for you and hate you is a retarded idea. Giving based off of needs instead of what is earned is dumb as fuck too. It is how you get the illegal immigrant crisis America and Europe is having. How is she stupid?
>>23328583Oh poor baby
>>23328624You're gay
Ayn Rand is onions
>>23328438Her bullshit retarded ideology has hurt millions of people.btw Stalin didn't hurt anyone either.
>>23328432It started in America with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Ever since he started transferring wealth and power to the wealthy and powerful, look at how destabilized this country has become.
>>23328666> implying Ronald Reagan invented this
>>23328657I'm a gay man that's a loud and proud republican.You're just a faggot.
>>23328677What does being a republican have to do with objectivism
>>23328438No, but she was a pain in the ass to all who played sycophant for her. Her partner, her apprentices, her aides, not to mention spending years sexually grooming her successor and trying (and failing) to tear down his career after he cut her off.Rand may not have been evil, in fact if you read her biography you’d recognize her as a product of trauma and fear, but she was burdensome in a way that only a severe strain of girltism can generate
>>23328624What if I raped you and put my thumbs in your eyes? How would you feel then?
>>23328681It's to do with Atlas Shrugged, in that having the state dictate how the economy should operate is an awful idea and that people should be rewarded based on what they have earned rather than what they say they need.I know very little about Rand outside of that book and am wondering why people hate her.
>>23328432Wow look it's the same fucking thread again
>>23328690I would feel awful. What does this have to do with the topic at hand?
>>23328691Holy shit RETARD ALERT RETARD ALERT LOOOL SOMEONE RAPE THIS NIGGA
>>23328677You're a faggot and your fellow Republicans hate you
>>23328666voluntary charity has less overhead than government wealth redistribution. it is objectively superior if you actually care about helping other people
>>23328721>>23328730You are very bad at trolling. Apply yourself and do better.Am I doing objectivism right?
>>23328689Leonard Peikoff proves this wrong.
stirner is the less retarded version of rand. the only reason rand caught on is her retard friendly fiction for fat-brained burger schoolchildren.
>>23328877Peikoff was psychologically sanded down to the bone playing manservant to Rand. Everyone who knew him said so, including those who were still sympathetic to Rand in her later years. He also couldn’t keep his urge to preach the Objectivist Word on lock, which cost him multiple jobs that were handed to him out of pity. She hollowed him out through sheer force of imposition.That’s not even getting into the state of Frank O’Connell by the end of his life. The man lost everything making sure Rand lived a semi-functional existence. That said, I don’t buy that Rand was deliberately abusive as some of her contemporaries posited. She had plenty of spiteful episodes, especially as her golden years approached, but most of her negatives came from the perpetual state of reactive terror her childhood experiences imprinted on her. No matter what you believe about her politics, she simply wasn’t good to or for the people in her life, no matter how good they tried to be in return.
>>23328662Onions usually are a perfect compliment to any savory dish.
>>23328664I’m trans btw if that matters
>>23328666Ronnie was right about exactly one thing, it’s that minorities shouldn’t be armed.
>>23328877I always confuse him with Leonard Peltier and Noel Ignatiev
>>23329336>tfw you kneecap your own cult because your fuckboi dumped you so you have to apply for welfare under a fake name so you don't go bankrupt
>>23328877>THE GUY WHO TOOK OVER HER CULT SAYS THE OPPOSITE OF THIS!You don't say? Lol
>>23328583You didn't read herJust once I'd like for a Rand hater to actually read even half of one of her books
>>23328607I've literally never heard an argument against the themes of the book that aren't from someone who clearly hasn't read it or are as low depth and zero effort as >>23328612>>23328583>>23328589I ask its detractors to name five characters from the book, what they stand for and either a criticism of why it was implemented poorly, or why they as a conceptual representation of an idea are wrong. They won't. Hell, I'll start them off. Ragnar Danneskjöld is poorly fleshed out and I'd take away like 2 of the sex scenes to see more of how pirates like him rise up in times of economic woes. See its EASY
>>23330333the man was blessed with two sets of unbroken trips of the same number, and he is correct. I see no competent arguments against the spirit or even the word of what the woman wrote. It's kinda depressing that you can't find it anywhere yet she is still so viscerally hated.
>Isn't it in someone's rational self interest to have a functioning societyYes, that's part of rational self-interest: quid pro quo; Golden Rule; etc. etc.How do people not get this? Mutually-beneficial egoism is the cornerstone of functioning groups.
>>23330374>>23330333>why you no make effortpost about something you don't care aboutThere are plenty of critiques out there. You know that, but are pretending you don't. But why?
>>23330394No, I actually don't. And much like Jim Taggart you don't offer up and of your own ideas, you are simply confident that they exist and wish to outsource them to the ether of public opinion. Give me one. Stop telling me they exist and fucking give me a single one.
>>23328432>Isn't it in someone's rational self interest to have a functioning societyYes, which is why morality and respecting the rights of others is so fundamentally important in Objectivism.
There are many legitimate criticisms that could be made, but most of the hate for Rand simply comes down to hate for the principle that a human being can only ever be an end, never a means to an end. This is the notion that really infuriates her enemies.
>>23330394The better question is, what's the point in trying to misdirect a legitimate question from someone when you can just link a critique with less effort? You seem to care about this more than you'd like to admit.
>>23330333That's because her detractors get their opinions from twitter & img*r, and in a bewildering show of irony with their inability to think for themselves, prove Rand's continued relevance.
>>23330632simple. She's still talked about, her works as well as the concept of Objectivism can be found in others outside of her past her death. Her ideals have evolved past her own creation. Can you claim to have made something that you no longer have the power to control? I think not
>>23330960>concept of Objectivism can be found in others outside of her past her deathThis retard doesn't know about the "closed system" shit lol
>>23330400Nta but I'll biteHer attempt to break Hume's law by reference to the idea that all agents are alive utterly fails because that idea is false; the relevant feature of agents is that they are conscious. She covers this up by equivocating on the definitions of "value" (which she defines, but from which definition she subsequently departs) and "man's life qua man" (which she never defines and nonetheless uses to handwave the obvious counterexamples of people who are both alive and not Objectivist).The most obvious example, where she clearly understands the notion of an agent (ie conscious being with free will) that isn't alive, and ignores it anyway:>...imagine an immortal, indestructible robot, an entity which moves and acts, but which cannot be affected by anything, which cannot be changed in any respect, which cannot be damaged, injured or destroyed.>Such an entity would not be able to have any values; it would have nothing to gain or to lose; it could not regard anything as for or against it, as serving or threatening its welfare, as fulfilling or frustrating Its interests.>It could have no interests and no goals.But such an entity would be able to have goals, and would be able to have values (that which one acts to gain or keep). To say otherwise is to suggest that something like "get better at tennis" can't be a goal, merely because it has no impact on survival. If this were in reference to men, this is the point where she would bring in the notion if "man's life qua man" to paper over the sophistry, but we are still talking about the immortal, indestructible robot!
>>23328432>using capitalist as an insultSo you object to individual rights and voluntary associations? You can have a 'functional society' without everyone being the slaves of the corrupt child rapists in government.
>>23328432>greedy capitalist pig who disregards everyone and everything save for their wealth and powerFunny how the greedy selfish capitalist who doesn't pressure anyone to anything is bad while the altruists who pressure others to fall in line act like they want them to act is good (In the name of some greater good of course, like functioning society). What a scary proposition to not fall in line a face social pressure just to do what they believe is best! truly retarded.
>>23330038I don’t even like Rand all that much but I guarantee almost every academic, whether literary theorist or professor of philosophy just gives her the once over because they were peer pressured into disavowing her, like in order to get tenure it’s probably an unwritten rule in the deans office.
>>23328432Objectivism is the only useful philosophy because its useful. All the people I know who agree with Rand are successful, and everyone who cares enough to hate her are unsuccessful, poor and bitter.I don't know if what she says is true, but it's at least a useful lens to map over the world.
>>23331320>All the people I know who agree with Rand are successful, and everyone who cares enough to hate her are unsuccessful, poor and bitter.I've noticed this too. People wrapped up in envy, collectivism, and "justice" seem to just rot.
>>23328432She spawned Alan Greenspan
>>23328432She died living on social security gibs. Ultimate hypocrisy
>>23331580Maybe but I am a millionaire and I find her an insufferable false prophet kike. Same aspirational loser wannabe people who fell for her fall for trump.
>>23331250Nearly fifty posts and an anon finally posts an argument against her.
>>23331775Hypocrisy is acting contrary to what you advocate. She frequently and openly advocated for draining as much money out of the system as you can, since it was stolen from you to begin with.
>>23328432>Ayn Rand>RandIt's a vulgar word that means slut/whore used in the online discourse by pajeets. The original word was randi but was shortened to rand or rund.
Rand - Objectivism in general, really - fascinates me on this point. One could say that she tried harder than any other philosopher to build a school that's genuinely bulletproof against shortcomings and contradictions - by pasting "not my problem" across every issue that seemed even slightly vulnerable - and in doing so circled back around to not trying at all. If you declare running itself to be beneath you, well then obviously you'll never lose a race.What really interests me is that so many Internet debaters are trying to follow her footsteps without even realizing it. You can't live life without compromise. You can't live it without hypocrisy. Society is run by too many conflicting powers with conflicting interests; you can't please them all equally, but neither can you ignore them all.
>>23328432Ayn Rand is a good ideological litmus test. if you love her and treat her as a messiah, you need to grow up and learn that people are too retarded for the lolberg paradise. If you admire some of her ideas but still see the inherent flaws in much of what she says, you're sane and normal. If you piss and shit down your leg in a rage when you see her photo, you're mentally ill and need to reassess your life choices.
>>23332664Can you explain? From what I know objectivism is that truth and reality are objective, in that no change of language or thought will change reality. How would this have short comings?
The Tsar was actually the based chad objectivist and he should have stopped the collectivist Jews from shapeshifting into Republicans by sending in more cossacks. Just imagine how strong the Romanovs would be with psuedo-Israeli spyware, being able to blast away at every shtetl if they ever stopped speaking yiddish and spinning the chickens.
>>23328757Charity doesn't help people and should be outlawed as a private institution. I've seen it harm people first hand. Food banks are a prime example. They eat bad food and are conditioned to cook food instead of utilizing their time more wisely. They devote and plan an entire day around getting $20 worth of spoiled food.Charities are parasitical entities which enrich the employees working for them. Careers in non profits is a huge thing and they pay $100k plus a year for people with a few years experiences. They're the dumbest most dysfunctional and dysgenic organizations in existence. They should all be shut down. They exist to make people with wealth feel as if their crumbs are helping people, often done publically to show how generous and good they are (which is purely self interest on their part). If the wealthy actually cared about helping people they would help the people in their immediate lives not donate it to some faceless organization with fat cat employees giving people literal scraps. If I was in charge, almost all charity organizers, leaders and doners would be rounded and sentenced to jail for fraud.Charities are to blame for the homelessness crisis as well. Instead of doing jack shit about it, they give blankets or proteinless soup about and then the public has the idea they're getting something anyways so it can be ignored. Then they go in TV and pathologize the homeless instead of talking about structural causes. It would be more humane for them to euthanize these people than to tell such lies and act like it's just some unavoidable consequence of society that they're doing the best to help with.You can't name (1) good charity. This is defendable from three contradictory ideologies1. Objectivism (Rand and Rothbard both had materially cogent reasons for why assisting people makes their very situation worse and this is evidenced with transnational charities ruining the economies of African nation to the point domestic farming ceased)2. Tradcathism (you should help your neighbors out, people god has put in your life)3. Marxism-Leninism (quotes below)Engels>The English bourgeoisie is charitable out of self-interest; it gives nothing outright, but regards its gifts as a business matter, makes a bargain with the poor, saying: ‘If I spend this much upon benevolent institutions, I thereby purchase the right not to be troubled any further, and you are bound thereby to stay in your dusky holes and not to irritate my tender nerves by exposing your miseryLenin>But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heavenThey're all right on this one point.I always decline to donate to charity. I'll complain when a store has a donate option and have gotten them removed. I hate every single person who donates to them.
>>23328432why is the more know woman philosopher a fucking retard, she sucks. Is there any good female philosophers? is Simone de Beauvoir any good
>>23328432How many times are you commie faggots going to make this stupid thread? I hate you fucking low IQ spam-shits so much it's unbelievable.
>>23332620holy fucking based
>>23332808Well, she invented the current idea of gender, so no.
>>23332741The origin of the word "Charity" Was one of the virtues in Christianity, the highest of them mind you, and originally stood for the love of our neighbor and for God. Now it stands for a perverse organization that wishes to steal money for its own longevity and throw crumbs to some undeserving poor saps they landed on a roulette wheel of sympathy invoking causes. Of all the things that have been perverted and warped in the modern age, the notion of charity is the greatest.
>>23332741According to Rand in your own words, helping people in itself is bad so... charities should be based for not actually helping people?
>>23328432you are a communist faggot cuck. please let me rape your wife.
>>23328432>>23332706I can only, ruefully agree with the basic premise. I've now seen too many good things get created by "self-serving" individuals, like Tesla, like OpenAI, that push the world forward. *could* they have enormous problems? yes, but without the fury of creative genius they wouldn't exist at all or be suppressed by the current paradigm (nowhere more than the transportation industry is this apparent.) That's why EDUCATION IN ETHICS of is paramount in all, so the leaders will factor in the protection of people and nature.
>>23334139He never said that retard. He said charities never help anyone, or at best they only help the person giving away money.
>>23329239Rand was revolutionary for the development of the Ego. I really don't care if it needs be taxing for the people to carry it forward. That's just how this works.
