John Oliver goes to far. Attacks Ayn Rand

[dudalb]

My main problem with Rand is that she was a lousy writer.

 

[Cleon]

My main problem with Rand is that she was a lousy writer.

I never understood why Randroids and Scientologists idolize such incredibly awful writers.

 

[Babbylonian]

I never understood why Randroids and Scientologists idolize such incredibly awful writers.

Because of the enduring message that you are the most important person in the universe and spaceships used to look like DC-8s.

Honestly, how can you not get on board with that?

 

[RandFan]

Because of the enduring message that you are the most important person in the universe...

I this is is a significant factor.

 

[Babbylonian]

I this is is a significant factor.

It doesn't help that there are parents who start that nonsense early in childhood.

 

[RandFan]

It doesn't help that there are parents who start that nonsense early in childhood.

Agreed.

Our brains rationalize the world. To do this our brains evolved to model our environment cognitively, it also create a narrative our lives and it places us at the center of that narrative as the protagonists. Humans have what the psychologist Johnathan Haidt calls The Righteous Mind. It seems to us that the world exists for our purpose (see Douglas Adams waking puddle analogy).

Rand's thesis feeds into the brains narrative. Thankfully we also evolved mirror neurons and we are capable of empathy, compassion and social awareness and the evolutionary stable strategy of reciprocal altruism.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Our brains rationalize the world. To do this our brains evolved to model our environment cognitively, it also create a narrative our lives and it places us at the center of that narrative as the protagonists. Humans have what the psychologist Johnathan Haidt calls The Righteous Mind. It seems to us that the world exists for our purpose

It's much more fun if you see yourself as the villain of the piece.

 

[I Ratant]

Because of the enduring message that you are the most important person in the universe and spaceships used to look like DC-8s.

Honestly, how can you not get on board with that?

.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFLvhKv-Lbo

 

[Babbylonian]

.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFLvhKv-Lbo

Wow. The advertisement (which probably varies) before that video was for the new TV show, "Selfie." That's some deep irony.

 

[I Ratant]

Yeah, the ad does vary...
ISTR hearing that National Lampoon song on Dr. Demento years back.

 

[Craig4]

John Oliver attacks my User Name sake. This is something I will not stand for. I'm starting a campaign and urging all fair minded people to join me.

John Oliver presents: The enduring influence of Ayn Rand, ‘selfish *******’ (video)

Please boycott John Oliver and make a *tax deductible contribution to me. If not you then who? If not now then when? Please remember the children. If even a single upper society teenager can escape the tyranny of bleeding heart liberals then it will have been worth it. I thank you, John Galt thanks you.

*Tax deduction status not guranteed. Offer subject to change. No refunds. Consult your accountant before you deduct any contributions.

As if you've actually read the entirety of John Gault's speech.

 

[arthwollipot]

I was never an objectivist. I've certainly moved away from libertarianism. What I liked about Rand I still do. She popularized an important aspect of human nature. I think rational self interest is a valid socioeconomic principle. Communism was a real existential threat to free enterprise. I'm not claiming that she was the savior of capitalism but I think her message important. That said, while rational self interest does not obviate charity she obviously didn't think much of it. What she failed to understand is that reciprocal altruism is in our best interest. Given the likes of Paul Ryan I'm not sure if her legacy is a net good or net bad.

Objectivism, like Communism, is a lovely idea on paper, which completely fails to function when it encounters actual human beings.

 

[marplots]

I never understood why Randroids and Scientologists idolize such incredibly awful writers.

Because they haven't read any good writers.

 

[Craig B]

Rand had some unfortunate admirers. Here's fan mail from Ludwig Mises, January 1958.

But “Atlas Shrugged” is not merely a novel. It is also—or may I say: first of all—a cogent analysis of the evils that plague our society, a substantiated rejection of the ideology of our self-styled “intellectuals” and a pitiless unmasking of the insincerity of the policies adopted by governments and political parties. It is a devastating exposure of the “moral cannibals,” the “gigolos of science” and of the “academic prattle” of the makers of the “anti-industrial revolution.” You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you.
If this be arrogance, as some of your critics observed, it still is the truth that had to be said in this age of the Welfare State.

https://mises.org/journals/jls/21_4/21_4_3.pdf

 

[RandFan]

As if you've actually read the entirety of John Gault's speech.

As if anyone even knows who John Galt is.

 

[Apathia]

As if anyone even knows who John Galt is.

Fishin for a question, aren't you?

 

[Unabogie]

Objectivism, like Communism, is a lovely idea on paper, which completely fails to function when it encounters actual human beings.

And on that same note, Capitalism. Capitalism is a fine way of organizing a society, and for the most part, it works well and rewards effort and allows for the most free advancement from lower class to upper class. Certainly more than Communism does. However, along with this comes a certain level of misery. And so Capitalism can create prosperity, but it also creates poverty and dysfunction. The best societies are ones that mix both Communist ideas and Capitalist ideas. Universal healthcare, but not universal car manufacturers. Public roads and schools, but a healthy private school system.

In other words, even Objectivism has useful ideas, but if you think it's a way to organize a country, you're as crazy as the Bolsheviks.

 

[quixotecoyote]

It's much more fun if you see yourself as the villain of the piece.

Go anti-hero. All the perks, but still the happy ending.

 

[RandFan]

Fishin for a question, aren't you?

Guilty as charged.

 

[RandFan]

And on that same note, Capitalism. Capitalism is a fine way of organizing a society, and for the most part, it works well and rewards effort and allows for the most free advancement from lower class to upper class. Certainly more than Communism does. However, along with this comes a certain level of misery. And so Capitalism can create prosperity, but it also creates poverty and dysfunction. The best societies are ones that mix both Communist ideas and Capitalist ideas. Universal healthcare, but not universal car manufacturers. Public roads and schools, but a healthy private school system.

In other words, even Objectivism has useful ideas, but if you think it's a way to organize a country, you're as crazy as the Bolsheviks.

Agreed. Humans are varied and our nature is contradictory. The idea that there is some single economic principle or concept that reconciles moral dilemma or largely solves the problems of poverty or inequality of opportunity is a fantasy.