The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Secondly, everything about the game reminded me of Atlas Shrugged, but I did not follow the development of the Bioshock, so I had no idea that they admitted to borrowing so heavily from Ayn Rand. I was just surprised by how blatently suimilar it was, even in the name.
I appologize for pointing out what was, apparently, obvious to other people as well.
I totally agree that Atlas Shrugged should be mandatory reading as well, if it wasn't so damn long, I must admit I never finished it myself. I got to about page 650, said "fuck this" and researched the ending.
Namel3ss on
May the wombat of happiness snuffle through your underbrush.
Can someone discuss The Incredibles? I think it was Senj who was saying it was one big objectivist wankfest which I thought odd. I'm not sure whether it's people reading into the plot and characters too much or whether there is some truth to it.
Can someone discuss The Incredibles? I think it was Senj who was saying it was one big objectivist wankfest which I thought odd. I'm not sure whether it's people reading into the plot and characters too much or whether there is some truth to it.
I mean, if you take it to extremes, I guess one could call it an objectivist wankfest, but mostly it seems like a fairly reasonable critique of American public education.
Can someone discuss The Incredibles? I think it was Senj who was saying it was one big objectivist wankfest which I thought odd. I'm not sure whether it's people reading into the plot and characters too much or whether there is some truth to it.
I mean, if you take it to extremes, I guess one could call it an objectivist wankfest, but mostly it seems like a fairly reasonable critique of American public education.
Man, what?
We're talking about the superhero cartoon comedy, right?
Where the hell was the critique of American public education?
And what's objectivist about it? Rand said that the best and brightest should leave the society that's holding them back. The superheroes in the Incredible do the opposite: they use their powers to help society. When society decides they should stop, a lot of them do, and those that don't try to keep helping society secretly, and society goes on just fine with (almost) no superhero activity. If it were an objectivist movie, all the superheroes would have and started their own society elsewhere, and just watched passively as the normal world crumbled without them.
Can someone discuss The Incredibles? I think it was Senj who was saying it was one big objectivist wankfest which I thought odd. I'm not sure whether it's people reading into the plot and characters too much or whether there is some truth to it.
I mean, if you take it to extremes, I guess one could call it an objectivist wankfest, but mostly it seems like a fairly reasonable critique of American public education.
Man, what?
We're talking about the superhero cartoon comedy, right?
Where the hell was the critique of American public education?
Not being able to properly serve the needs of advanced students/encouraging mediocrity?
Yeah, there are some definitely objectivist overtones in The Incredibles.
Extraordinary people need to hold themselves back because the ignorant normal people are frightened and hateful, etc. etc.
Yeah, but it could also easily be interpreted as more standard kiddy-movie morals, i.e., tolerance of difference.
Not really, the differences were never tolerated. The Incredibles just accepted that they had to hold themselves back.
By the end of the movie, they were tolerated. The public cheered for the Incredibles when they defeated the robot thing. The boy joined a racing team (though he held himself back to 2nd place because winning when the other racers haven't taken a single step is boring), the girl got asked out by the boy she liked, and when danger returned they were free to openly fight.
And more importantly, superior people accepting to hold themselves back for the sake of the inferior people is about as far away from objectivism as you can get. So even by your interpretation of the movie, it doesn't work.
I seem to observe a recurring situation in which the ignorant lessen the truth of the realistic or enlightened because either they didn't think of it or because they can't grasp that things may have a meaning beyond what they expect.
I interpreted it as a story about how everyone has their own talents, and by working together we can achieve more than we could alone.
Also, there was a subtle message about Buddy that I found made him into quite the ironic villain, in that he was special, being extremely intelligent, and he could have been a technology-based super hero no problem, had he set out to do so.
Can someone discuss The Incredibles? I think it was Senj who was saying it was one big objectivist wankfest which I thought odd. I'm not sure whether it's people reading into the plot and characters too much or whether there is some truth to it.
I mean, if you take it to extremes, I guess one could call it an objectivist wankfest, but mostly it seems like a fairly reasonable critique of American public education.
It's not exactly an objectivist "wankfest", but there was some cute references to go with the "the strong should not be shackled by the mediocre" message.
I mean, Ayn Rand is practically in the movie, and one of the characters pulls an Atlas pose. And the architecture.
Senjutsu on
0
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited October 2007
I didn't see The Incredibles as a "The strong shouldn't be shackled by the weak", but more "We shouldn't be afraid of other peoples' abilities". The boy was going in the direction when he was complaining about not being able to participate in his school's sports teams, but in the end, what he wanted wasn't to be strong or be 'not shackled', but to belong. So he gave up winning a race he could have easily won because of the effect it would have on his ability to participate.
And no, I don't think it was that they were afraid other people would be afraid. But that when it comes down to it, there's no competition. He would always win. My exposure to kids sports taught me that when there are a few players that are vastly better than everyone else, the game starts to take a severe twist, particularly when parents of the kids that really really suck get involved.
I think I'm rambling, but anyway, I totally didn't see that in that movie.
EDIT: On topic - I am ignorant of Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged because, well, to put it plainly, I'm not as 'super' as you guys :P however, my take on Bioshock is that it's a critical look at attempts at utopia. My thoughts is that its impossible to create a truly free society like Andrew Ryan supposedly envisioned. As more people get involved, everyone has a different take on freedom and whoever is the most powerful will become an unintended dictator because their version of 'freedom' is the one that WILL be implemented, by force if necessary.
I just started reading Atlas Shrugged. So far all i've got to is people talking about trains. So I'm like a chapter in.
Well, get used to it, because the book is about a million pages about trains. And how the slaves of society hold the superior man back from his rightful plundering of their lives.
Regarding The Incredibles, I have heard that it is idealogically opposed to a more socialized mindset, especially by focusing on the "If everybody is special, nobody is" line. It begs an interesting question; if Syndrome did away with his whole plan of murdering superheroes and releasing giant robots on society and instead just sold/gave his inventions to everybody, would that still make him a villain? That being said, rejecting one extreme does not make one a proponent of the opposite extreme. After all, if they were really objectivists, would the Incredibles fight evil for free? Hell, would Mr. Incredible help little old ladies get the insurance that the company legally can deprive them of?
EmperorSeth on
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
After all, if they were really objectivists, would the Incredibles fight evil for free? Hell, would Mr. Incredible help little old ladies get the insurance that the company legally can deprive them of?
EDIT: On topic - I am ignorant of Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged because, well, to put it plainly, I'm not as 'super' as you guys :P however, my take on Bioshock is that it's a critical look at attempts at utopia. My thoughts is that its impossible to create a truly free society like Andrew Ryan supposedly envisioned. As more people get involved, everyone has a different take on freedom and whoever is the most powerful will become an unintended dictator because their version of 'freedom' is the one that WILL be implemented, by force if necessary.
That and, like the below comic suggested, utopians forget that someone has to clean the tiolets, gather the trash, and till the soil.
That's how Frank Fontaine undermined Rapture; fake altruisim twords the "little guy".
EDIT: On topic - I am ignorant of Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged because, well, to put it plainly, I'm not as 'super' as you guys :P however, my take on Bioshock is that it's a critical look at attempts at utopia. My thoughts is that its impossible to create a truly free society like Andrew Ryan supposedly envisioned. As more people get involved, everyone has a different take on freedom and whoever is the most powerful will become an unintended dictator because their version of 'freedom' is the one that WILL be implemented, by force if necessary.
That and, like the below comic suggested, utopians forget that someone has to clean the tiolets, gather the trash, and till the soil.
Even the Epsilons are necessary.
Edit: Brave New World really is fantastic. I love that it doesn't really slant itself terribly either way -- I mean, yes, obviously Huxley considered it to be a dystopia, but it wasn't painted as one-sidedly as 1984, and I just love that the all-Alpha society was an utter failure.
EDIT: On topic - I am ignorant of Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged because, well, to put it plainly, I'm not as 'super' as you guys :P however, my take on Bioshock is that it's a critical look at attempts at utopia. My thoughts is that its impossible to create a truly free society like Andrew Ryan supposedly envisioned. As more people get involved, everyone has a different take on freedom and whoever is the most powerful will become an unintended dictator because their version of 'freedom' is the one that WILL be implemented, by force if necessary.
That and, like the below comic suggested, utopians forget that someone has to clean the tiolets, gather the trash, and till the soil.
Even the Epsilons are necessary.
Edit: Brave New World really is fantastic. I love that it doesn't really slant itself terribly either way -- I mean, yes, obviously Huxley considered it to be a dystopia, but it wasn't painted as one-sidedly as 1984, and I just love that the all-Alpha society was an utter failure.
I loved and hated that book at the same time.
Anyone reccomend me moving on to Atlas Shrugged since I read this? Or would I be walking into some kind of Carnival of linguistic pain?
The whole "even in a perfect Objectivist society, someone has to clean the toilets" thing is theoretically addressed by one of capitalism's basic tenets, which is that everyone ends up better off. The problem is that human nature is to want to be better in comparison to people, not just better off than you would be otherwise. So, even if Rapture was a super awesome city at the bottom of the ocean where citizens could splice themselves all sorts of crazy mega powers and indulge their wildest fantasies, the people on the bottom rung will always have less than the people on the top rung, and that's enough to make them unhappy. Sure, back in the USSR or something they might have been even worse off, but they wouldn't be in the minority there. Rapture didn't work not because the people cleaning the toilets had a crappy life but because they had a crappier life than everyone else. It was enough to let Fontaine control them and start the revolt.
After all, if they were really objectivists, would the Incredibles fight evil for free? Hell, would Mr. Incredible help little old ladies get the insurance that the company legally can deprive them of?
My point exactly.
You have no point. Nobody claimed The Incredibles were objectivists, just that the movie contains a number of references to Randian/Objectivist tropes.
This is like claiming that there are no Kursoawa references in Star Wars because Skywalker isn't Japanese
You have no point. Nobody claimed The Incredibles were objectivists, just that the movie contains a number of references to Randian/Objectivist tropes.
This is like claiming that there are no Kursoawa references in Star Wars because Skywalker isn't Japanese
Actually, people have been saying it's an objectivist movie. But even the watered-down "Objectivist references" claim remains undefended. People keep saying stuff like that, but all they come up with is Mr. Incredible holding the sphere in a Atlas-Shrugged-like pose and vague assertions that the decor is "objectivist-like". No one has pointed out any of those objectivist references that they claim are so obvious and clear in the movie. And people have pointed out several times over that the main themes, plot and characters are definitely not objectivist.
Richy on
0
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
edited October 2007
Since when did Art Deco become exclusively an Objectivist property?
So Richy what you're telling me is that you're dumb and can't perceive something past it's face value.
I think you got lost on your way to SE++, where this type of comment is considered a contribution. Here, we appreciate actual arguments, and don't tolerate petty trolls like yourself. Go away now.
So Richy what you're telling me is that you're dumb and can't perceive something past it's face value.
Yeah, kindly contribute something of value or gtfo.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
Hell, the final boss
The game was an example of why it wouldn't work.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I mean, except for the rew part.
Secondly, everything about the game reminded me of Atlas Shrugged, but I did not follow the development of the Bioshock, so I had no idea that they admitted to borrowing so heavily from Ayn Rand. I was just surprised by how blatently suimilar it was, even in the name.
I appologize for pointing out what was, apparently, obvious to other people as well.
I totally agree that Atlas Shrugged should be mandatory reading as well, if it wasn't so damn long, I must admit I never finished it myself. I got to about page 650, said "fuck this" and researched the ending.
I mean, if you take it to extremes, I guess one could call it an objectivist wankfest, but mostly it seems like a fairly reasonable critique of American public education.
and pronounced like -stein
We're talking about the superhero cartoon comedy, right?
Where the hell was the critique of American public education?
And what's objectivist about it? Rand said that the best and brightest should leave the society that's holding them back. The superheroes in the Incredible do the opposite: they use their powers to help society. When society decides they should stop, a lot of them do, and those that don't try to keep helping society secretly, and society goes on just fine with (almost) no superhero activity. If it were an objectivist movie, all the superheroes would have and started their own society elsewhere, and just watched passively as the normal world crumbled without them.
Not being able to properly serve the needs of advanced students/encouraging mediocrity?
Extraordinary people need to hold themselves back because the ignorant normal people are frightened and hateful, etc. etc.
Yeah, but it could also easily be interpreted as more standard kiddy-movie morals, i.e., tolerance of difference.
Not really, the differences were never tolerated. The Incredibles just accepted that they had to hold themselves back.
Doesn't make the message any less present or important.
And more importantly, superior people accepting to hold themselves back for the sake of the inferior people is about as far away from objectivism as you can get. So even by your interpretation of the movie, it doesn't work.
Oh crap, all these years I've been pronouncing it 'the Burn-Steen Bears.'
I interpreted it as a story about how everyone has their own talents, and by working together we can achieve more than we could alone.
Also, there was a subtle message about Buddy that I found made him into quite the ironic villain, in that he was special, being extremely intelligent, and he could have been a technology-based super hero no problem, had he set out to do so.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
It's not exactly an objectivist "wankfest", but there was some cute references to go with the "the strong should not be shackled by the mediocre" message.
I mean, Ayn Rand is practically in the movie, and one of the characters pulls an Atlas pose. And the architecture.
And no, I don't think it was that they were afraid other people would be afraid. But that when it comes down to it, there's no competition. He would always win. My exposure to kids sports taught me that when there are a few players that are vastly better than everyone else, the game starts to take a severe twist, particularly when parents of the kids that really really suck get involved.
I think I'm rambling, but anyway, I totally didn't see that in that movie.
EDIT: On topic - I am ignorant of Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged because, well, to put it plainly, I'm not as 'super' as you guys :P however, my take on Bioshock is that it's a critical look at attempts at utopia. My thoughts is that its impossible to create a truly free society like Andrew Ryan supposedly envisioned. As more people get involved, everyone has a different take on freedom and whoever is the most powerful will become an unintended dictator because their version of 'freedom' is the one that WILL be implemented, by force if necessary.
Well, get used to it, because the book is about a million pages about trains. And how the slaves of society hold the superior man back from his rightful plundering of their lives.
Jesus fuck, I hated that book.
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
Well, at least for Americans. :P
(urgh, fake Germanic accents from American actors. One of my pet peeves.)
That and, like the below comic suggested, utopians forget that someone has to clean the tiolets, gather the trash, and till the soil.
That's how Frank Fontaine undermined Rapture; fake altruisim twords the "little guy".
Margaret Thatcher
Even the Epsilons are necessary.
Edit: Brave New World really is fantastic. I love that it doesn't really slant itself terribly either way -- I mean, yes, obviously Huxley considered it to be a dystopia, but it wasn't painted as one-sidedly as 1984, and I just love that the all-Alpha society was an utter failure.
I loved and hated that book at the same time.
Anyone reccomend me moving on to Atlas Shrugged since I read this? Or would I be walking into some kind of Carnival of linguistic pain?
This is like claiming that there are no Kursoawa references in Star Wars because Skywalker isn't Japanese
Yeah, kindly contribute something of value or gtfo.