John Oliver goes to far. Attacks Ayn Rand

[RandFan]

Well, there are a couple of kinds of piercing. Not for the squeamish. Or those who are careless with zippers.

 

[mumblethrax]

Yes. Was I supposed to see horns and a pitchfork?

You probably should have noticed that she's slightly more influential than the average anonymous internet forum user.

 

[RandFan]

Dude. Gross.

Agreed.

 

[MontagK505]

Even without the Mormon indoctrination that constantly admonished me to "be careful" when it came to avoiding certain materials, IMO, that's the only way it can be read. I don't even know what it would mean otherwise.

Be careful what you read doesn't mean avoid reading. To avoid dating bad people you have to first decide they are bad people. You have to judge the person before you date them. Once you've dated them you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. You can stop dating them further but the date has already happened.

Once you read something you cannot unread it anymore than you can "unring the bell". Once you read something it's already in your head. The only way to be careful about putting something in your head is to not read it in the first place.

What else can "putting something in your head" mean?

I once read a synopsis of the movie "The Human Centipede" I wish I hadn't.
The problem is how do you judge something without observing it?

 

[I Ratant]

Duh!
You gets on the internet!
The information there is well considered and worth using to guide your life into new pathways!
Guaranteed!

 

[MontagK505]

You probably should have noticed that she's slightly more influential than the average anonymous internet forum user.

Well she is dead you know. And as for her "influence" I've read most of her stuff at one time. I don't pull wings off of flies. Women's bodies and pocketbooks are safe from my attentions. It doesn't bother me that Bill Gates is giving away large portions of his fortune. Do I have some magical immunity to the evil influence of Ayn Rand?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Well she is dead you know. And as for her "influence" I've read most of her stuff at one time. I don't pull wings off of flies. Women's bodies and pocketbooks are safe from my attentions. It doesn't bother me that Bill Gates is giving away large portions of his fortune. Do I have some magical immunity to the evil influence of Ayn Rand?

Influence isn't a magical power.

 

[RandFan]

I once read a synopsis of the movie "The Human Centipede" I wish I hadn't.

 

[Cain]

Seriously good stuff! Yours?

I wish.

 

[MontagK505]

Influence isn't a magical power.

Apparently some people don't realize that.

 

[MontagK505]

[qimg]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img538/6245/fB6i8g.gif[/qimg]

Cute.

 

[mumblethrax]

Well she is dead you know. And as for her "influence" I've read most of her stuff at one time. I don't pull wings off of flies. Women's bodies and pocketbooks are safe from my attentions. It doesn't bother me that Bill Gates is giving away large portions of his fortune. Do I have some magical immunity to the evil influence of Ayn Rand?

No. Does that mean it's impossible to be influenced by Ayn Rand? No. Do I think Paul Ryan is influenced by Ayn Rand? Yes.

I think I said earlier that people, even people who have repudiated her views, continue to imagine that there are useful ideas in her writing. That kind of implies that I think it's possible to repudiate her views (while still thinking too highly of her). The fact that you aren't a Randroid, despite subjecting yourself to her dark sorcery, is neither here nor there.

 

[MontagK505]

No. Does that mean it's impossible to be influenced by Ayn Rand? No. Do I think Paul Ryan is influenced by Ayn Rand? Yes.
I think I said earlier that people, even people who have repudiated her views, continue to imagine that there are useful ideas in her writing. That kind of implies that I think it's possible to repudiate her views (while still thinking too highly of her). The fact that you aren't a Randroid, despite subjecting yourself to her dark sorcery, is neither here nor there.

Does Paul Ryan have horns and a pitchfork? Do you regard him as a danger to the republic? For example, I regard Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter to be a greater influence on our culture than Ayn Rand. Neither Sara or Ann seem to have much to do with enlightened self-interest which makes them much worse in my view.

 

[mumblethrax]

Does Paul Ryan have horns and a pitchfork?

No. Is there some reason you keep doing this? If not, please refrain from leaving your garbage on my doorstep.

Do you regard him as a danger to the republic?

I leave it to others to use weird 18th centuryisms like "danger to the republic."

For example, I regard Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter to be a greater influence on our culture than Ayn Rand. Neither Sara or Ann seem to have much to do with enlightened self-interest which makes them much worse in my view.

I think we've been talking about influential political thinking. Nobody would accuse Sarah Palin or Ann Coulter of influential thought, for obvious reasons. I mean, unless it made a liberal mad.

 

[a_unique_person]

You're right, many people don't understand what what philosophers do. And whose fault is that?
There are better thinkers that Ayn Rand, no doubt. So why are more people reading Rand rather than Nietzsche?

I never fell into the trap of seeing Rand as some sort of "goddess of reason" that some of her followers do. But neither do I have the knee-jerk hatred that some of her detractors seem to experience. Look at almost any thread about her, and it turns into a dog pile of hatred that is out of proportion to her failings as a writer or philosopher.

I think it's her continued popularity for all the wrong reasons. Also her utter contempt for humanity. I prefer to call her novel "The Mountainhead". When you set yourself up as some kind of God, prepare to be cut down when you so clearly are not.

 

[MontagK505]

No. Is there some reason you keep doing this? If not, please refrain from leaving your garbage on my doorstep.


I leave it to others to use weird 18th centuryisms like "danger to the republic."


I think we've been talking about influential political thinking. Nobody would accuse Sarah Palin or Ann Coulter of influential thought, for obvious reasons. I mean, unless it made a liberal mad.

You seem to regard Rands influence as evil so I used a Horns and pitchfork analogy. Does this really upset you that much, or do you just want to have something to bitch about?

Last time I looked, the political organization of the US was supposed to be modeled on a Republic. Do you really dislike the term? Do you regard any term used in the 18th century as useless?

If all this really bothers you, why do you bother to reply? "garbage on my doorstep" indeed feel free to hit the delete key.

 

[mumblethrax]

You seem to regard Rands influence as evil so I used a Horns and pitchfork analogy. Does this really upset you that much, or do you just want to have something to bitch about?

Yes, it bothers me when people say that I seem to regard Rand's influence as evil, when I haven't said anything like that. It bothers me that you keep suggesting demonization, when I haven't demonized anyone. It bothers me to be asked the same silly question twice.

Do you really dislike the term?

Yes, I really dislike the term "danger to the republic."

Do you regard any term used in the 18th century as useless?

That's a brilliant inference.

If all this really bothers you, why do you bother to reply? "garbage on my doorstep" indeed feel free to hit the delete key.

I appreciate the offer.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Good point. But then compare that with poverty prior to the rise of capitalism.

That doesn't fair very well either. History has several examples where progress was not beneficial to the average individual. The creation of agriculture and the industrial revolution are examples of this.

Being a medieval farmer wasn't worse than being a 5 year old miner who never saw the sun, and couldn't afford candles in the mine.

 

[MontagK505]

Yes, it bothers me when people say that I seem to regard Rand's influence as evil, when I haven't said anything like that. It bothers me that you keep suggesting demonization, when I haven't demonized anyone. It bothers me to be asked the same silly question twice.

<snip>
.

If I've misunderstood you then I do apologize.

Here's my opinion as to why Rand's works stay in print. The reality is that many people perceive much of our political media as self-serving BS. Ayn Rand had a spoken and written style that was in direct contrast to most media crap. This "style" of hers frightens and angers a lot of people. It also attracts many people. You may not like what she says, but there is no doubt what it is she's saying and that she is saying it. This is in direct contrast to the poop that passes for the typical political speech. Many thoughtful younger people have a sense that they are being conned by their elders. Rand gave a voice to that.
Nathaniel Brandon, a former associate of hers, stated that when he was 16yrs old he came to the conclusion that he had been born into a asylum for the insane. He repeatedly saw his elders professing things their actions showed they clearly didn't believe. (A common characteristic of most childhoods) Then he read the "Fountainhead" and the rest is history. Then it took him 18yrs to get free of her.
Calling Objectiveism "junk philosophy" doesn't begin to address why her ideas are so seductive.

 

[mumblethrax]

I think she stays in print because we keep making adolescents, and some of those adolescents will think they're smarter than everyone, better than everyone, and then need some explanatory theory for why they aren't more successful than everyone.