Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Atlas Shrugged: Why is this so bad?

1495052545557

Posts

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    It was probably the mooching off his employer that damned him...

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Kalkino wrote: »
    I guess employment contracts vary substantially in the US as non compete clauses certainly are not boiler plate in the UK now and as such I would doubt they were 50 years ago, when written contracts were far rarer. Generally UK courts look pretty closely at such clauses so they are best drafted with specific knowledge of what it is they are trying to protect.

    Then again by Ayn Rand's standards the UK was/is half socialist already. She explicitly considered the US of A to be the closes thing to a perfect country on Earth and wrote Atlas as a warning not to follow the "socialist" europeans.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Kalkino wrote: »
    I guess employment contracts vary substantially in the US as non compete clauses certainly are not boiler plate in the UK now and as such I would doubt they were 50 years ago, when written contracts were far rarer. Generally UK courts look pretty closely at such clauses so they are best drafted with specific knowledge of what it is they are trying to protect.

    Then again by Ayn Rand's standards the UK was/is half socialist already. She explicitly considered the US of A to be the closes thing to a perfect country on Earth and wrote Atlas as a warning not to follow the "socialist" europeans.

    Fair point. It isn't a particular nuanced view, but hey, I'll defend her right to the death to make crazed generalisations about places she doesn't know very well, as reading is important

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Behemoth wrote: »
    I don't think that violation of patent law is the greatest and most terrible of Galt's crimes, to be frank.

    Of course it isn't; that's not the point. Galt does worse things, but they're mostly congruent with Rand's philosophy. Violating his employer's IP rights is totally incongruent with Rand's philosophy; she was a huge supporter of IP laws. And it's even less likely that she had some moral objection to employers taking ownership of their employees' ideas, because the sanctity of contract was a huge thing for her as well.

    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Behemoth wrote: »
    I don't think that violation of patent law is the greatest and most terrible of Galt's crimes, to be frank.

    Of course it isn't; that's not the point. Galt does worse things, but they're mostly congruent with Rand's philosophy. Violating his employer's IP rights is totally incongruent with Rand's philosophy; she was a huge supporter of IP laws. And it's even less likely that she had some moral objection to employers taking ownership of their employees' ideas, because the sanctity of contract was a huge thing for her as well.

    But if that contract was written by a socialist then it's automatically invalid.

    In the eyes of Rand, hypocrisy is only acceptable if you're innately better than everyone else.

  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Behemoth wrote: »
    I don't think that violation of patent law is the greatest and most terrible of Galt's crimes, to be frank.

    Of course it isn't; that's not the point. Galt does worse things, but they're mostly congruent with Rand's philosophy. Violating his employer's IP rights is totally incongruent with Rand's philosophy; she was a huge supporter of IP laws. And it's even less likely that she had some moral objection to employers taking ownership of their employees' ideas, because the sanctity of contract was a huge thing for her as well.

    The problem is that you're assuming Rand's philosophy exists as a coherent world view, and not an elaborate justification for a select few (including Rand herself of course) to act superior to everyone else and do whatever the fuck they want.

    Atlas Shrugged can be summed up in four words: "Fuck you, got mine."

    ezek1t.jpg
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Behemoth wrote: »
    I don't think that violation of patent law is the greatest and most terrible of Galt's crimes, to be frank.

    Of course it isn't; that's not the point. Galt does worse things, but they're mostly congruent with Rand's philosophy. Violating his employer's IP rights is totally incongruent with Rand's philosophy; she was a huge supporter of IP laws. And it's even less likely that she had some moral objection to employers taking ownership of their employees' ideas, because the sanctity of contract was a huge thing for her as well.

    The problem is that you're assuming Rand's philosophy exists as a coherent world view, and not an elaborate justification for a select few (including Rand herself of course) to act superior to everyone else and do whatever the fuck they want.

    Objectivism and it's proponents can be summed up in four words: "Fuck you, got mine."

    Fixed.

    Also for shits and giggles:
    Fire fox's spell checker doesn't recognize objectivism as a real word.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Isn't Firefox open source? Open source like in socialist? Also isn't Firefox the best browser on the market?

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Isn't Firefox open source? Open source like in socialist? Also isn't Firefox the best browser on the market?

    'No!', says Internet Explorer.

  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Behemoth wrote: »
    I don't think that violation of patent law is the greatest and most terrible of Galt's crimes, to be frank.

    Of course it isn't; that's not the point. Galt does worse things, but they're mostly congruent with Rand's philosophy. Violating his employer's IP rights is totally incongruent with Rand's philosophy; she was a huge supporter of IP laws. And it's even less likely that she had some moral objection to employers taking ownership of their employees' ideas, because the sanctity of contract was a huge thing for her as well.

    The problem is that you're assuming Rand's philosophy exists as a coherent world view, and not an elaborate justification for a select few (including Rand herself of course) to act superior to everyone else and do whatever the fuck they want.

    Atlas Shrugged can be summed up in four words: "Fuck you, got mine."

    Yeah, we've spent almost 90 pages now basically poking holes in her social framework. I was having a convo with a friend last night and she was wondering why so many young people were drawn to the book. I told her because it gives carte blanche for someone to assume not only that they are one of the elite the book gushes about, but also to act like a complete asshole once they assume that mantle. Your summation really is the true essence of objectivism near as I can tell.

  • setrajonassetrajonas Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Isn't Firefox open source? Open source like in socialist? Also isn't Firefox the best browser on the market?

    Opera is the best browser on the internet, in fact :V

  • Xenogear_0001Xenogear_0001 Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Isn't Firefox open source? Open source like in socialist? Also isn't Firefox the best browser on the market?

    'No!', says Internet Explorer.

    'No!', says the man from Google!

    steam_sig.png
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Behemoth wrote: »
    I don't think that violation of patent law is the greatest and most terrible of Galt's crimes, to be frank.

    Of course it isn't; that's not the point. Galt does worse things, but they're mostly congruent with Rand's philosophy. Violating his employer's IP rights is totally incongruent with Rand's philosophy; she was a huge supporter of IP laws. And it's even less likely that she had some moral objection to employers taking ownership of their employees' ideas, because the sanctity of contract was a huge thing for her as well.

    The problem is that you're assuming Rand's philosophy exists as a coherent world view, and not an elaborate justification for a select few (including Rand herself of course) to act superior to everyone else and do whatever the fuck they want.

    Atlas Shrugged can be summed up in four words: "Fuck you, got mine."

    Yeah, we've spent almost 90 pages now basically poking holes in her social framework. I was having a convo with a friend last night and she was wondering why so many young people were drawn to the book. I told her because it gives carte blanche for someone to assume not only that they are one of the elite the book gushes about, but also to act like a complete asshole once they assume that mantle. Your summation really is the true essence of objectivism near as I can tell.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Isn't Firefox open source? Open source like in socialist? Also isn't Firefox the best browser on the market?

    In all fairness, it's not like computers appear in Atlas Shrugged at all.

    It's basically steam punk as far as science fiction goes.

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Isn't Firefox open source? Open source like in socialist? Also isn't Firefox the best browser on the market?

    In all fairness, it's not like computers appear in Atlas Shrugged at all.

    It's basically steam punk as far as science fiction goes.

    All Sci-Fi is failure that fails to accurately predict future tech.


    That she had to create a tech level world that didn't even exist when she wrote it is immaterial.

  • RikushixRikushix Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I like Atlas Shrugged as a fiction novel, but it wasn't long after I read it that I realized how much I disagreed with Objectivism. I think it's flawed.

    I disagree with Ayn Rand that everything is black and white. It definitely is not. Or at least, not so much that we can evaluate everything as a 1 or a 0. We're human, we're emotional, and there is most definitely a greyscale.

    But perhaps I'm biased.

    StKbT.jpg
  • NamrokNamrok Herndon, VARegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    The thing that gets me most about Ayn Rand bashing is that people try to treat it as a complete system to discredit it.

    It's not.

    It has a few good ideas. What she goes onto do with this ideas, perhaps not the best. And yes, Ayn Rand was a flawed individual herself.

    But I like to compare it, perhaps not in quality, to Meditations by Descarte.

    Everyone remembers Cogito Ergo Sum. I think therefore I am. It is enshrined in the annals of philosophy. It's brilliant.

    He goes on to try to use that as a building block for proving the existence of god.

    Most people don't care so much for that part.

    But it doesn't detract from the brilliance of "I think therefore I am".

    I feel very much the same about Ayn Rand. A=A. I feel like that was brilliant. The entire monologue about how you have to perceive the world as it truly is otherwise everything you try to achieve will fail and crumble around you, because you built it from false premises.

    Did she go on to try to use that to justify some wacky things? Absolutely. But lets give her a fair shake, every philosopher usually has a good start and then goes onto to lose touch with reality completely.

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Isn't Firefox open source? Open source like in socialist? Also isn't Firefox the best browser on the market?

    As expected, a lot of people disagree.

    Don't get me wrong, I use it, but I certainly wouldn't say it's the best. Being a total whore for memory and a few stability issues and all.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • IsidoreIsidore Registered User
    edited August 2010
    Namrok wrote: »
    The entire monologue about how you have to perceive the world as it truly is otherwise everything you try to achieve will fail and crumble around you, because you built it from false premises.

    Holy christ the irony.

    To imply that those currently at the top - the Warren Buffets and Roman Abramoviches of this world - are the very best, the ne plus ultra of humanity, is a kind of hate speech toward the species. Dignity demands that we refute it.
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Dude, anything sensible said by Ayn Rand is ripped of from better writers. The A = A its a lame attempt to make something as brilliant as Cogito Ergo Sum. She fails by the way A = A is not nearly as brilliant or as thought out.

    She personally claims that she only took inspiration from Aristotle. Which is bullshit from the get go. Aristotle, the guy famous for building a ethical system based on the golden means?(middle of the road).

    She ripped of half her ideas from Nietchze, without giving him credit. I could go on, but I wont bother.

    As for Objectivism not being a complete system: Ayn Rand would like a word with you my boy. She was explisit in saying that Objectivism was a complete and functioning system containing all the philosophy anyone could need. Cherypicking Ayn Rand goes against her own wishes.

    I am not even going to answe the "every philosopher goes crazy in the end", because 1.) its not true and 2 .) Rand was always crazy.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Namrok wrote: »
    The thing that gets me most about Ayn Rand bashing is that people try to treat it as a complete system to discredit it.

    It's not.

    It has a few good ideas. What she goes onto do with this ideas, perhaps not the best. And yes, Ayn Rand was a flawed individual herself.

    "But other than THAT, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

    It is not "bashing" to point out that a book has awful prose, cardboard characters, a Mary Sue hero, leaden dialogue and logical holes you could drop Pluto through. It's also not "bashing" to note that a polemic pushing a particular philosophy was produced by a loathsome person and that the philosophy itself is deeply icky.

    The fact that you like a book does not make criticism of that book "bashing", nor does the fact that you really loved one or two points mean that people who criticize the book are unfairly "discrediting" it.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Namrok wrote: »
    The thing that gets me most about Ayn Rand bashing is that people try to treat it as a complete system to discredit it.

    If you are talking about her condemnation of mysticism, I may actually agree with you here. She had some good things to say about the importance of reason, things with which I agree entirely. But the bulk of her work, and the things she is remembered for most fondly by powerful people in my country, is totally fucking nuts. She herself forwarded it as a complete philosophical system, from which "A=A" leads logically to "greed is good."

    I think even the elements of her philosophy which are directly related to her applause for greed are frequently interesting, and partially true, but her conclusions are wrong in every way - morally, ethically, logically. It would be a pity if the insanity of anarcho-capitalism led people to embrace mysticism out of sheer antipathy for Rand, but I don't think that's happening. I think for the most part people have simply forgotten the reasonable things Rand said, because David Hume and Friedrich Nietzsche said them better in previous centuries.

    Rand believed her system was complete, and Rand's latter-day acolytes are still banging on that patently-ridiculous drum. It is entirely appropriate to consider the inconsistencies in her work given her and their assertion that it is complete and consistent. It is even reasonable to consider these inconsistencies a circumstantial mark against the value of any individual claim she made, but I do agree with you that she was not wrong in every claim. Just the ones she's famous for.

    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    The condemnation of mysticism was done better by Nietchze.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    The condemnation of mysticism was done better by Nietchze.

    Second paragraph, last sentence :P

    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Couscous wrote: »

    I've seen some of these posted in various places, but I'd never read them all til now, and they are completely awful. They're good if you like to masturbate to hating Ayn Rand, but otherwise they're pretty shitty.

  • YallYall Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Couscous wrote: »

    Meh - a little disappointing. I was really hoping it would get more into her being appalled at Trig not being aborted and of her worshipers being deists rather than atheist, etc.

  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Yall wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »

    Meh - a little disappointing. I was really hoping it would get more into her being appalled at Trig not being aborted and of her worshipers being deists rather than atheist, etc.

    Yeah and showing Palin in the American Flag bikini. There are about 10,000 things to poke fun at Palin for. There is no need to use a photoshop. The woman is already a caricature.

    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Yall wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »

    Meh - a little disappointing. I was really hoping it would get more into her being appalled at Trig not being aborted and of her worshipers being deists rather than atheist, etc.

    Yeah and showing Palin in the American Flag bikini. There are about 10,000 things to poke fun at Palin for. There is no need to use a photoshop. The woman is already a caricature.

    Yeah, the helicopter hunting and the caricature of Bristol was a bit much. In fact the entire thing is so hyperbolically after school special feeling that it pretty much ruins the cartoon, I finally had to give up at the reagan vision.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    There is a note saying that it stopped being political commentary right after about the third comic. After which is just gets into insanity. So take the rest of it with a grain of salt

    wbBv3fj.png
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Except for there's not any political commentary in the first 3 comics, it's just drawing people as ugly, and making fun of them for looking ugly.

  • DuffelDuffel Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I've seen some of these posted in various places, but I'd never read them all til now, and they are completely awful. They're good if you like to masturbate to hating Ayn Rand, but otherwise they're pretty shitty.
    It even goes as far as to have a bunch of her supporters in 2010/the present wear big prominently displayed crosses, which is unremarked-upon by the Rand character.

    But, to be fair, most political cartooning could probably be described as "masturbating to hating a person/viewpoint". The difference here being its presence of a story structure and not-too-appealing artistic style.

  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    and then there's Tom Tommorrow.

    story.jpg

    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • HavelockHavelock Registered User
    edited August 2010
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Yall wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »

    Meh - a little disappointing. I was really hoping it would get more into her being appalled at Trig not being aborted and of her worshipers being deists rather than atheist, etc.

    Yeah and showing Palin in the American Flag bikini. There are about 10,000 things to poke fun at Palin for. There is no need to use a photoshop. The woman is already a caricature.

    Yeah, the helicopter hunting and the caricature of Bristol was a bit much. In fact the entire thing is so hyperbolically after school special feeling that it pretty much ruins the cartoon, I finally had to give up at the reagan vision.

    I'm going to slog through the rest of it, but yeah, this comic is pretty chock full of terrible. I think there was a McSweeney's parody piece that did a far better job of showing how terrible Objectivism is than this.

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Witzend_MrA_ByDitko.jpg

    The best line I ever heard was, "You can tell he's an objectivist just by the size of the speech balloon!"

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    BTW, we all know that Ayn Rand thought of herself as a Gulcher.

    But all Gulchers were attractive, and all non-Gulchers were ugly.

    So does that mean that Ayn Rand was incredibly good looking in her own mind?

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Can we not keep going here?

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Steve Ditko's work takes on kind of a sinister tinge when you realize that what he was doing all those years was dreaming up Randian superbeings.

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Steve Ditko's work takes on kind of a sinister tinge when you realize that what he was doing all those years was dreaming up Randian superbeings.

    All I can say is, thank God for Stan Lee for keeping that dude in check.

  • Erich ZahnErich Zahn 69 Paper Dome Heals the Sun Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    The McSweeny piece.
    Our Daughter Isn't a Selfish Brat; Your Son Just Hasn't Read
    Atlas Shrugged.
    BY ERIC HAGUE

    - - - -

    I'd like to start by saying that I don't get into belligerent shouting matches at the playground very often. The Tot Lot, by its very nature, can be an extremely volatile place—a veritable powder keg of different and sometimes contradictory parenting styles—and this fact alone is usually enough to keep everyone, parents and tots alike, acting as courteous and deferential as possible. The argument we had earlier today didn't need to happen, and I want you to know, above all else, that I'm deeply sorry that things got so wildly, publicly out of hand.

    Now let me explain why your son was wrong.

    When little Aiden toddled up our daughter Johanna and asked to play with her Elmo ball, he was, admittedly, very sweet and polite. I think his exact words were, "Have a ball, peas [sic]?" And I'm sure you were very proud of him for using his manners.

    To be sure, I was equally proud when Johanna yelled, "No! Looter!" right in his looter face, and then only marginally less proud when she sort of shoved him.

    The thing is, in this family we take the philosophies of Ayn Rand seriously. We conspicuously reward ourselves for our own hard work, we never give to charity, and we only pay our taxes very, very begrudgingly.

    Since the day Johanna was born, we've worked to indoctrinate her into the truth of Objectivism. Every night we read to her from the illustrated, unabridged edition of Atlas Shrugged—glossing over all the hardcore sex parts, mind you, but dwelling pretty thoroughly on the stuff about being proud of what you've earned and not letting James Taggart-types bring you down. For a long time we were convinced that our efforts to free her mind were for naught, but recently, as we've started socializing her a little bit, we've been delighted to find that she is completely antipathetic to the concept of sharing. As parents, we couldn't have asked for a better daughter.

    That's why, when Johanna then began berating your son, accusing him of trying to coerce from her a moral sanction of his theft of the fruit of her labor, in as many words, I kind of egged her on. Even when Aiden started crying.

    You see, that Elmo ball was Johanna's reward for consistently using the potty this past week. She wasn't given the ball simply because she'd demonstrated an exceptional need for it—she earned it. And from the way Aiden's pants sagged as he tried in vain to run away from our daughter, it was clear that he wasn't anywhere close to deserving that kind of remuneration. By so much as allowing Johanna to share her toy with him, we'd be undermining her appreciation of one of life's most important lessons: You should never feel guilty about your abilities. Including your ability to repeatedly peg a fellow toddler with your Elmo ball as he sobs for mercy.

    Look, imagine what would happen if we were to enact some sort of potty training Equalization of Opportunity Act in which we regularized the distribution all of Johanna's and Aiden's potty chart stickers. Suddenly it would seem as if Aiden had earned the right to wear big-boy underpants, and within minutes you'd have a Taggart Tunnel-esque catastrophe on your hands, if you follow me.

    Johanna shouldn't be burdened with supplying playthings for every bed-wetting moocher she happens to meet. If you saw Johanna, her knees buckling, her arms trembling but still trying to hold aloft the collective weight of an entire Tot Lot's worth of Elmo balls with the last of her strength, what would you tell her to do?

    To shrug. Just like we've instructed her to do if Child Protective Services or some other agent of the People's State of America ever asks her about what we're teaching her.

    After all, we've managed to raise a bright, self-reliant girl who achieves her goals by means of incentive and ratiocination and never—or very rarely—through the corrupt syllogism of force. We know, despite what you and a number of other parents we've met have said—as they carried their whimpering little social parasites away—that Johanna's defiant, quasi-bellicose nature only superficially resembles that of an out-of-control toddler, and in truth posits her as more of a latter-day Dagny Taggart than any kind of enfant terrible.

    Yes, she's blossomed into everything we ever hoped or post hoc rationalized she would. In our house we no longer say, "Who is John Galt?" Instead we say, "Who's our little princess?"

    It's sad because I've actually met this family.

This discussion has been closed.