• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

So, where did that 'empathy is a sin' drivel come from?

On the contrary I found her to be extremely stupid, despite her large vocabulary. Her best book by far was a 100% steal of Zamyatin's We. And her books went steadily downhill after that.

She was simply a female version of Alexander Boris dr Pfeffel, all sizzle no steak, all glitter no gold.
I heard her doing interviews. She didn't come across to me as stupid. I disagreed with her on much of what she said. But she was much more coherent than most of those that idolize her. I'm not sure it's fair to judge someone's intelligence negatively just because I disagree with them.
 
Really? I thought it was sociopath, as there's a lot of them in society and there's no empathy at all from them.
Sociopathy isn't really a thing in modern mental health, and where it is, it's mostly used as a synonym, because people confuse psychopathy with psychosis, which are two very different things.
 
I heard her doing interviews. She didn't come across to me as stupid. I disagreed with her on much of what she said. But she was much more coherent than most of those that idolize her. I'm not sure it's fair to judge someone's intelligence negatively just because I disagree with them.
I think her idiotic because her ideology, as written down by her own hand, is so nonsensical a toddler could see through it. In all her philosophical books her heroes had to have so many deus ex machina and handwaves thrown in their direction that it was obvious that even she couldn't see a way to getting it to work. Yet, she still thought it was the only system that could work.
 
Sociopathy isn't really a thing in modern mental health, and where it is, it's mostly used as a synonym, because people confuse psychopathy with psychosis, which are two very different things.
Yeah according to your wiki link it does say that they were both used interchangeably but that it's outdated now. The condition itself does exist separately from psychopathy but it's called 'antisocial personality disorder' ASPD now apparently.

Well, however it's defined, interacting with that lot certainly feels like they have no empathy.
 
Really? I thought it was sociopath, as there's a lot of them in society and there's no empathy at all from them.
Well these days it's all 'Antisocial Personality Disorder' and it's become a bit of a spectrum, according to the shrink using me as a pillow.
 
I really don't understand your point. Ayn Rand is definitely worshipped by many Libertarians and Republicans. Almost to the point of absurdity. And many of them are almost illiterate like Trump. They have seen movies of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. It's the selfishness ethos that they embrace.
I know you can't, that's why I gave up. In terms of economics, Trump has more in common with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren than he does with Ayn Rand or libertarians. Trump could easily be a villain from one of Rands books.

When someone starts the conversation by saying that the folks they disagree with are just greedy narcissist. There's not much point in continuing.
 
I know you can't, that's why I gave up. In terms of economics, Trump has more in common with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren than he does with Ayn Rand or libertarians. Trump could easily be a villain from one of Rands books.

When someone starts the conversation by saying that the folks they disagree with are just greedy narcissist. There's not much point in continuing.

While I agree that Trump is not a typical Republican or Conservative. He wasn't who I was referring to. Still, he reflects Rand's selfishness and not caring about the underprivileged. Or anyone for that matter.

I also don't agree that Trump has anything in common with Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. His rhetoric might. But certainly not his policies. Seriously, which of his policies reflect either Sanders or Warren? Maybe I missed something.
 
While I agree that Trump is not a typical Republican or Conservative. He wasn't who I was referring to. Still, he reflects Rand's selfishness and not caring about the underprivileged. Or anyone for that matter.

I also don't agree that Trump has anything in common with Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. His rhetoric might. But certainly not his policies. Seriously, which of his policies reflect either Sanders or Warren? Maybe I missed something.
Hey Warren was a college professor and Trump made his own university so they have that in common.
 
While I agree that Trump is not a typical Republican or Conservative. He wasn't who I was referring to. Still, he reflects Rand's selfishness and not caring about the underprivileged. Or anyone for that matter.

I also don't agree that Trump has anything in common with Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. His rhetoric might. But certainly not his policies. Seriously, which of his policies reflect either Sanders or Warren? Maybe I missed something.
Primarily, its robust government intervention in the economy. They both want to subsidize various businesses; they'd just pick different winners and losers. Which is the thing Rand hated most and why both Trump and Warren would be villains in Rands book and why they have more in common with each other than either have with her.

Now, Trump is the republican party right now. Sure, he's not the typical but whatever the republican party was before 2015, it isn't that now.

That being said, conservatives have always had a mixed and varied view of Rand. As I have said, her atheism alone meant a lot of Conservatives wanted nothing to do with her. Her philosophy has lot in common with libertarians but there is a thing called out-group homogeneity bias. Not all conservatives and liberaltarians agree on all things.

Most libertarians would not say they don't care about the underprivileged, they just don't thing government action and the use of force is the best way to help the underprivileged.

I could say something like, progressives worship Marx because they reflect his will to power over others. Which is an equivalent statement to libertarians worship Rand and is as valid.


ETA: I could also point out that if we had a more libertarian government, Trump would be a lot less dangerous but hey, that is just silly nonsense because of course, libertarians are all for locking up immigrants, closed boarders, political opponents...........

 
Last edited:
Primarily, its robust government intervention in the economy. They both want to subsidize various businesses; they'd just pick different winners and losers. Which is the thing Rand hated most and why both Trump and Warren would be villains in Rands book and why they have more in common with each other than either have with her.
You mean Trump wants to subsidize oil and fossil fuel companies? The buggy whip companies.

Now, Trump is the republican party right now. Sure, he's not the typical but whatever the republican party was before 2015, it isn't that now.
I agree, it's not. There are still lots of Republican politicians that gush over Rand.
That being said, conservatives have always had a mixed and varied view of Rand. As I have said, her atheism alone meant a lot of Conservatives wanted nothing to do with her. Her philosophy has lot in common with libertarians but there is a thing called out-group homogeneity bias. Not all conservatives and liberaltarians agree on all things.
I'm not ignoring it. A lot of them would definitely bristle at her atheism. You are 100 percent correct many want their cake and eat it to.
Most libertarians would not say they don't care about the underprivileged, they just don't thing government action and the use of force is the best way to help the underprivileged.
True.
I could say something like, progressives worship Marx because they reflect his will to power over others. Which is an equivalent statement to libertarians worship Rand and is as valid.
You could, but you would be wrong. I can point you to Republican Senators, Congress people, Governors open praising Rand. You would be hard pressed to find Democratic politicians openly praising Marx.
ETA: I could also point out that if we had a more libertarian government, Trump would be a lot less dangerous but hey, that is just silly nonsense because of course, libertarians are all for locking up immigrants, closed boarders, political opponents...........
This is clearly sarcasm, right?
 
Last edited:
While I agree that Trump is not a typical Republican or Conservative. He wasn't who I was referring to. Still, he reflects Rand's selfishness and not caring about the underprivileged. Or anyone for that matter.
Exactly. He is a greedy, selfish, narcissistic sociopath, like Rand and many of her followers.
I also don't agree that Trump has anything in common with Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. His rhetoric might. But certainly not his policies. Seriously, which of his policies reflect either Sanders or Warren? Maybe I missed something.
(y)
 
So, where did that 'empathy is a sin' drivel come from?
It's not a new thing, and since this is Religion and Philosophy:

GOP Jesus (Friend Dog Studios on YouTube, Nov 3, 2018 - 3:03 min.)

And this is the GOP's answer (50% about gender!):
Woke Jesus (The Babylon Bee on YouTube, May 6, 2024 - 5:56 min.)
The irony is that The Babylon Bee only manages to make it obvious how spot on the GOP Jesus video is.
Apparently, Woke Jesus wants to take away people's freedom to get sick without health care. And he steals the bread and the fish that he shares with his disciples! (Probably from hard-working Republicans, I assume.)
I would love to see the Friend Dog Studios version of GOP Robin Hood! :)

Evangelicals now think Jesus was a liberal wimp (Farron Cousins/David Pakman Show on YouTube, Aug 20, 2023 - 4:40 min.)
 
Last edited:
Hey Warren was a college professor and Trump made his own university so they have that in common.
There is that.

Warren also taught at the University of Pennsylvania and Trump attended was enrolled at the University of Pennsylvania. How much he attended is questionable.
 
They have seen movies of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. It's the selfishness ethos that they embrace.
This.

As individuals we are necessarily selfish. But there's only so much any one person can achieve. We can get more for ourselves by working together for the common good, which then benefits everyone. The problem is how to reach a balance between the desires of the individual and those of the group. People can have very different ideas on where that balance should lie, and most are wrong because it's impossible to know ahead of time (or even after) exactly where that point lies.

That's why humans developed empathy - evolution 'bred' into us the ability to imagine how we would feel in another's situation so we would act in the interests of the group. There's a lot of variability though, which helps us find that balance under differing circumstances. This flexibility is part of what has made humans so successful.

But there's a downside to variability - politics. People of like minds find it advantageous to combine forces so they can 'force' their views onto others. So 'hard minded' selfish people gravitate towards one party, while 'soft-minded' empathic people gravitate to the other. In a two party system that unfortunately leaves no room for other spectra such as conservatism (maintaining traditions and opposing change) vs liberalism (embracing change and discarding old ways). This leads to many being dissatisfied with their party, both on the 'left' and 'right'.

Libertarians are selfish, but that doesn't necessarily make them conservative. Being selfish means they think they should be allowed to do whatever they want, but they recognize that this won't work unless restricted to things that don't harm others in the group. They believe that with a minimum of 'fair' laws in place everybody can be selfish while also benefiting the group as a whole. However in practice this is very very difficult to achieve without significant restrictions, which makes a practical 'libertarian' society not much different from our current system.

You can lack empathy and yet still recognize that a society which doesn't keep its members happy won't last long. But (unlike empathy) that requires both intellectual and emotional intelligence. When selfishness is combined with stupidity you have a problem. When logic is clouded by emotion it's worse. You say Ayn Rand was intelligent. Perhaps she was, but that wasn't enough. The same applies to her fans.
 
Last edited:
This.

As individuals we are necessarily selfish. But there's only so much any one person can achieve. We can get more for ourselves by working together for the common good, which then benefits everyone. The problem is how to reach a balance between the desires of the individual and those of the group. People can have very different ideas on where that balance should lie, and most are wrong because it's impossible to know ahead of time (or even after) exactly where that point lies.

That's why humans developed empathy - evolution 'bred' into us the ability to imagine how we would feel in another's situation so we would act in the interests of the group. There's a lot of variability though, which helps us find that balance under differing circumstances. This flexibility is part of what has made humans so successful.

But there's a downside to variability - politics. People of like minds find it advantageous to combine forces so they can 'force' their views onto others. So 'hard minded' selfish people gravitate towards one party, while 'soft-minded' empathic people gravitate to the other. In a two party system that unfortunately leaves no room for other spectra such as conservatism (maintaining traditions and opposing change) vs liberalism (embracing change and discarding old ways). This leads to many being dissatisfied with their party, both on the 'left' and 'right'.

Libertarians are selfish, but that doesn't necessarily make them conservative. Being selfish means they think they should be allowed to do whatever they want, but they recognize that this won't work unless restricted to things that don't harm others in the group. They believe that with a minimum of 'fair' laws in place everybody can be selfish while also benefiting the group as a whole. However in practice this is very very difficult to achieve without significant restrictions, which makes a practical 'libertarian' society not much different from our current system.

You can lack empathy and yet still recognize that a society which doesn't keep its members happy won't last long. But (unlike empathy) that requires both intellectual and emotional intelligence. When selfishness is combined with stupidity you have a problem. When logic is clouded by emotion it's worse. You say Ayn Rand was intelligent. Perhaps she was, but that wasn't enough. The same applies to her fans.
I agree with almost all of that. I wouldn't describe Libertarians as conservatives. But many of them would. Still, true Libertarians are not social conservatives in any way. They are in favor of a laissez faire government. Economically and socially. Republicans have traditionally been in favor of one and not the other. Virtually no one embraces the full Libertarian ideology, because it is not practical. It's kind of like how people cherry pick the Bible. Rand in many ways embraced Libertarianism. Although she wouldn't say that.
 

Back
Top Bottom