-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Why does everyone hate Ayn Rand?
- Thread starter xenu
- Start date
Bernanke basically gets his viewpoint with regard to monetary policy straight from Milton Freidman. Not that big a jump at all really.
Fixed that for you.
Given they're extremely similar in terms of monetary policy, the point you're trying to make is entirely irrelevant.
First reply nailed it.
She was also a hypocrite and didn't follow her own philosophy so well. She wasn't objective about her cigarette habit (said it had no ill effects despite objective proof from 1964 from the Surgeon General) and then she went on government assistance to save herself. Should she be faulted for looking out for her health? No but it was hypocritical according to her philosophy.
Also, people tend to lump fanbases with the person. Ayn Rand generally has an awful set of fans. I can differentiate the two but I would imagine this is a source of much of her hate.
I think that when someone starts a cult of personality, lumping their fans in with them may be a bit of a special exception.
Because Ayn Rand is lifted up by a lot of her fans as this "amazing" writer, when Stephanie Meyer is a better writer. And I don't even like Stephanie Meyer.
Never read her stuff ever, hadn't even heard of her before today, but people really like to bandwagon, as well. People who have never read Twilight, never really listened to Justin Bieber, Nickelback, or country music in general {these three are not related}, never read PETA's website, etc. People like to hate on things just because everyone else does. Most people are conformists, or are at least trained to be that way. Being a so-called "sheep" isn't anything new.
Andrew Ryan did have an Ayn Randian point of view, and at first it was great. But the only reason Rapture prospered in the first place was because it was ALL the best of the best. Once the dregs (not trying to be elitist or anything) and the criminals got into Rapture, it all went downhill. And then the second game explores the exact opposite of her views! =^.^=
Bioshock was a criticism of Randian ideas. The Bioshock series isn't similar to Atlas Shrugged, it's smarter than it.
And that's pretty harsh given Infinite's ending and portrayal of racism.
And that's pretty harsh given Infinite's ending and portrayal of racism.
Why does everyone hate Ayn Rand? I hate her because her philosophy is just a way to say "screw you" to the downtrodden while remaining morally superior in your own eye, and that the moment things went wrong for her she did everything she purportedly despised. As someone who holds helping those who can't help themselves in high regard, her ideology is just disgusting.
EDIT: Your use of "everyone is equal" in quotes disturbs me. What could you possibly mean by this?
EDIT: Your use of "everyone is equal" in quotes disturbs me. What could you possibly mean by this?
Ayn Rand is my favorite author, as is the case with many young adolescence who are trying to figure out what the hell life is and what it has to offer. Her books are groundbreaking, powerful, and influential on both human philosophy and literature styles in general. Whether or not you agree with her statements on life or not, you can't deny that. Her books have touched my life in a lot of ways, and helped me to realize what I want from life. It challenged my convictions my convictions of what the world was about and validated a part of me.
If you want to know why people hate Ayn Rand, it is not in these things. People hate Ayn Rand because her novels do not conform to typical society. They don't conform to the beliefs that most of us were raised with. What we believe is right and what is wrong. She made radical statements about God and politics. Her characters were selfish. They were cold and malicious. They were confidant and brutal. Hell, one of the characters she loved so much was a rapist, and she glorified that.
Rand makes people feel uncomfortable. If you agree with her in some way, you love her because the things she says and believes just aren't said. They're not public or represented in our culture today and for a little bit of time, you feel justified. Those who don't agree are turned completely off by her strong stances and her views of the world. It's not what they were taught or what they believe. Some are turned off because they don't want to think and challenge their ways of life. The others have thought and just don't agree.
That is why people hate Rand, because she is strongly opinionated and takes hard stances contrary to the beliefs of the majority of people.
It has nothing to do with her personality and her hypocrisy. You can dislike them or feel cheapened by her words after uncovering that side of the story, but chances are you made up your mind far before you even uncovered that. It doesn't change what her books change your view life. It doesn't change how well developed her characters are or how her philosophies are marvelously and almost subconsciously woven throughout the entire novel. It would be like saying that you changed your mind about the Mona Lisa because you figured out about DaVinci's womanizing. That Kurt Cobain's music is garbage because he did drugs or that James Joyce's book Ulysses is corrupted by his egotism and arrogance which he displayed later in his life.
Ayn Rand's a great author. He messages are just not for everyone. She will never be put into the categories of the Salinger's or Fitzgerald's because of the stances she took were so powerfully presented and so culturally off putting. She didn't want to sacrifice her message and her beliefs (whether she put those in practice or not) for praise and acceptance. And there's something noble and unique about that.
I strongly encourage anyone who has not read one of her books to try. You don't have to like it. You don't even have to finish it. But if you love books, literature, the human spirit... Or if you are lost in life without purpose, meaning, and/or direction... Then these books MAY change your life. And that's something very few other authors can hope to accomplish.
If you want to know why people hate Ayn Rand, it is not in these things. People hate Ayn Rand because her novels do not conform to typical society. They don't conform to the beliefs that most of us were raised with. What we believe is right and what is wrong. She made radical statements about God and politics. Her characters were selfish. They were cold and malicious. They were confidant and brutal. Hell, one of the characters she loved so much was a rapist, and she glorified that.
Rand makes people feel uncomfortable. If you agree with her in some way, you love her because the things she says and believes just aren't said. They're not public or represented in our culture today and for a little bit of time, you feel justified. Those who don't agree are turned completely off by her strong stances and her views of the world. It's not what they were taught or what they believe. Some are turned off because they don't want to think and challenge their ways of life. The others have thought and just don't agree.
That is why people hate Rand, because she is strongly opinionated and takes hard stances contrary to the beliefs of the majority of people.
It has nothing to do with her personality and her hypocrisy. You can dislike them or feel cheapened by her words after uncovering that side of the story, but chances are you made up your mind far before you even uncovered that. It doesn't change what her books change your view life. It doesn't change how well developed her characters are or how her philosophies are marvelously and almost subconsciously woven throughout the entire novel. It would be like saying that you changed your mind about the Mona Lisa because you figured out about DaVinci's womanizing. That Kurt Cobain's music is garbage because he did drugs or that James Joyce's book Ulysses is corrupted by his egotism and arrogance which he displayed later in his life.
Ayn Rand's a great author. He messages are just not for everyone. She will never be put into the categories of the Salinger's or Fitzgerald's because of the stances she took were so powerfully presented and so culturally off putting. She didn't want to sacrifice her message and her beliefs (whether she put those in practice or not) for praise and acceptance. And there's something noble and unique about that.
I strongly encourage anyone who has not read one of her books to try. You don't have to like it. You don't even have to finish it. But if you love books, literature, the human spirit... Or if you are lost in life without purpose, meaning, and/or direction... Then these books MAY change your life. And that's something very few other authors can hope to accomplish.
Crux
Banned deucer.
No. The reason people hate Ayn Rand is because she was a shitty author with the penmanship of E. L. James and approximately the same level of intellectual and philosophical content.
Also, because people with even the smallest amount of sense can see that the world is infinitely more complex than the binary that her supporters judge it by based on the if-then conditional that practically constituted her works...
Also, because after preaching against social security for her whole life she lived her final years on it, that's pretty clearly different to the examples you posted.
Also, because she was buried next to a 6-foot high floral arrangement of a dollar sign.
Also, because people with even the smallest amount of sense can see that the world is infinitely more complex than the binary that her supporters judge it by based on the if-then conditional that practically constituted her works...
Also, because after preaching against social security for her whole life she lived her final years on it, that's pretty clearly different to the examples you posted.
Also, because she was buried next to a 6-foot high floral arrangement of a dollar sign.
So how does your shoe smell after kicking this horse that has been dead for 3 months?
Jesus fucking christ, I don't know what to say to you if do you not recognise that Salinger (or for an even better example, Mark Twain) was powerfully culturally off putting. The Catcher in the Rye is the book that more people have attempted to have banned from schools than any other in the history of the United States, pretty much because it's a massive fuck you to the established culture of the country.
Last edited:
Crux
Banned deucer.
I guess 3 hours and 10 minutes and 3 months are comparable periods of time. You're right, they both have the number 3. I suppose this case is not dissimilar to the obvious comparison between your apparent lack of numeracy and your inability to form political or intellectual views that have any merit, right?
Every single thing you mentioned (possibly bar one line) had been posted at latest early December last year ITT so maybe 2 months. As for political views, you're the one here who thinks communism can work so perhaps you shouldn't criticise others views because clearly yours hold up to reality about as well as a gingerbread house in a thunderstorm.
Congratulations, you're Dennis Leary to others Bill Hicks, the dull watered down version with none of the originality or new ideas, congratulations, you're mediocre.
As for the bit about communism, you're right I should've realised it was a joke.. Marx works require a level of intelligence to understand that I'm yet to see from you.
Crux
Banned deucer.
Or maybe your sense of humour is just as strong as your sense of tact and wit.
I see no reason to waste more time on you, Trax. This is done.
EDIT: I think editing in additional lines after a response has been made is a superb way to seem like you're intelligent and witty without having to deal with an actual response by the way. Well done.
I see no reason to waste more time on you, Trax. This is done.
EDIT: I think editing in additional lines after a response has been made is a superb way to seem like you're intelligent and witty without having to deal with an actual response by the way. Well done.
Last edited:
I don't think that people should be respected for sticking to their beliefs. They should certainly be respected for sticking to the voicing of their beliefs. However, I find it very unsettling that what amounts to a refusal to change your mind is at all considered virtuous. That's a big part of my personal aversion to Ayn Rand. The more I hear about her, the more apparent it gets that she had pretty much zero disposition to change her views.
Any idiot can be provocative. However, what really matters in a marketplace of ideas is your ability to sell your idea. Ayn Rand is dead, so I have no problem basing my views on her on my impressions of her fanboys, who could theoretically gain access to evidence and insights that she can never have. I say "theoretically" because Objectivism is closed by definition and cannot change. Ayn Rand is not special; her advocates must sell her ideas and books to me just like any other author. And if the previews and reviews I see are unfavourable, that's not somehow my fault. I only have so much time in my life, and I've learned that I do not need to read the original writings of philosophers like Hobbes or Aquinas to be able to find out what they're about. So why should I believe that reading the original writings of a pseudo-philosopher whom modern philosophers and writers don't pay much attention to would be of more benefit to me than, say, doing my math homework?
So I find it really classic that the Rand fanboys and sympathizers have forced everyone else into an impossible game. Apparently we need to read Rand's literature specifically, otherwise our opinions on her are useless and obviously our minds aren't expanded or something. But if we do read Rand's literature and don't like it, it must mean we were "indoctrinated" or some shit. All you guys are doing is proving that reading Rand's literature would be a waste of my time. You'd have me believe that everybody who doesn't like Ayn Rand is involved in some kind of conspiracy to maintain the status quo and prevent the Golden Age of Freedom as Defined by Me.
Ayn Rand is dead, therefore her philosophy, which is closed by definition, is dead. Even sympathizing with a dead philosophy is not productive and gives a voice to someone who can no longer use it.
relevant
Any idiot can be provocative. However, what really matters in a marketplace of ideas is your ability to sell your idea. Ayn Rand is dead, so I have no problem basing my views on her on my impressions of her fanboys, who could theoretically gain access to evidence and insights that she can never have. I say "theoretically" because Objectivism is closed by definition and cannot change. Ayn Rand is not special; her advocates must sell her ideas and books to me just like any other author. And if the previews and reviews I see are unfavourable, that's not somehow my fault. I only have so much time in my life, and I've learned that I do not need to read the original writings of philosophers like Hobbes or Aquinas to be able to find out what they're about. So why should I believe that reading the original writings of a pseudo-philosopher whom modern philosophers and writers don't pay much attention to would be of more benefit to me than, say, doing my math homework?
So I find it really classic that the Rand fanboys and sympathizers have forced everyone else into an impossible game. Apparently we need to read Rand's literature specifically, otherwise our opinions on her are useless and obviously our minds aren't expanded or something. But if we do read Rand's literature and don't like it, it must mean we were "indoctrinated" or some shit. All you guys are doing is proving that reading Rand's literature would be a waste of my time. You'd have me believe that everybody who doesn't like Ayn Rand is involved in some kind of conspiracy to maintain the status quo and prevent the Golden Age of Freedom as Defined by Me.
Ayn Rand is dead, therefore her philosophy, which is closed by definition, is dead. Even sympathizing with a dead philosophy is not productive and gives a voice to someone who can no longer use it.
relevant
Because in the US the term "liberal" has become associated with "left-wing/progressive" rather than "libertarian." It's no worse than our using the term "football" to describe the game that involves tackling and Y-shaped goalposts instead of what we call "soccer."
Also, there's a substantial number in America that are just conservative, particularly in the South.
Because of (AFAIK) a conservative media association of the fairly tame left-wing politics of the Democratic Party with the fear of authoritarian left-wing politics (i.e. "DAMN COMMIES INVADING US"), there is a scorn among many conservatives for "liberals." This (anecdotally) might be replaced in the near future with "progressive."
This is my understanding.
Football games are called so because you play them on foot. This was important back when many games were played on horse. Also the British invented the word Soccer (which is short for Association Football) and used it until the 70s.