/lit/ - Literature

We’re just returning the favor. She hated everyone who wasn’t herself, and we hate her right back

>>17912461
Because they're socialist redditors.

>>17912461
A lot of what she says is misrepresented by normies, and what she actually says is pretty much just Aristotelianism with liberal bias.

>>17912461
She's kind of chuuni

The basis of what her philosophy is, “Grab what you can for yourself. Screw the rest of the world”. It is clear that she was psychopathic.

>>17912461
They've never read her and just swallow leftist propaganda without criterion
>>17912483
She just wants you to be yourself faggot. Admit you've never read her

>>17912490
misreading of aristotle

>>17912461
>You don't exist for the sake of others.
>Other people don't exist for the sake of you.
>You have the right to determine and live by your own values.
Most people are profoundly horrified and disgusted by these notions.

>>17912461
promotes the individual that separates from the crowd in pursuit of their interests.. becomes best selling author garners cult following.. her own philosophy is contradicted

>>17912486
4chan hates her too, re**itor. Stop advertising your home board

>>17912461
She was bad at everything she did and thought she was great. She has legions of idiot fanboys who agree with her. That keep making dumb threads here. What’s to like?

>>17912508
I read Atlas Shrugged and The Virtue of Selfishness. That was more than enough for me, and I as a human possess too much decency to be exposed to any more of hr garbage novels and her terrible philosophy

>>17912461
Mostly because she was mediocre writer who pushed for transcendental ideas with the argumentative and creative skills of a high schooler.

>>17912555
lmao tripfag

>>17912542
Your philosophy can't really be contradicted by other people not following it.

>>17912503
>The basis of what her philosophy is, “Grab what you can for yourself. Screw the rest of the world”
Wrong, you're thinking of Marx and Stirner.
>>17912558
Read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and Capitalism: An Unknown Ideal. Until then you have no right to voice your opinion about her philosophy

>>17912461
Mainly just Seethe

I never got how Objectivists make free will work, I thought they're materialists?

>>17912573
>Until then you have no right to voice your opinion
Pseud alert.
>>17912576
Over what? Her horrible writing, laughable ideas and shitty life? kek

>>17912461
Thinking is hard, taking responsibility is scary, not treating other people as means to your ends is inconvenient.

Her work is pseudo philosophy. Also most of her fanboys are extremely cancerous (as you can see in this thread).

>>17912542
>group of individuals happen to have interests that align
>hurrr individualism refuted
Your brain on collectivism.

antisemitism

>>17912666
Checked and well said

>>17912732
>collectivism and individualism are mutually exclusive
The absolute state of Objecticucks

>>17912461
I liked her stance against the mob oppressing the genius but I didn't like her rape fantasies.

>>17912555
>She was bad at everything she did

Wasn’t The Fountainhead a bestseller pretty much immediately after coming out?

>>17912461
Rand’s philosophy is profoundly anti-loser. Most people are losers, and so they dislike her ideas. For example, we see Butters here, a known loser, seething at the mention of Rand and her work. QED.

I recently read her book Among the Living, which is about people living in post revolutionary Russia. The pernicious ideas put forward by the Bolshevik youth in the story were uncannily similar to the sort of stuff that contemporary leftist youth are saying these days.

>>17913017
>Rand’s philosophy is profoundly anti-loser.
Maybe that’s why she didn’t follow it herself, and spend the final days of her life on the dole

>>17912555
Nobody likes you too

>>17912964
I’ve found her work to be entertaining though I wouldn’t say I’m a Randian. It does always seem as though she writes her main male characters as though she were implying “This is the kind of man I’d like to be fucked hard by.”

>>17913042
>the final days of her life on the dole

Via a system that she was forced to pay into, yes. If you pay into something you’re allowed to draw from it if you want. There’s nothing strange about that.

>>17913042
Scamming the government out of money it unjustly taxed you out of is pretty funny.
>>17913053
>It does always seem as though she writes her main male characters as though she were implying “This is the kind of man I’d like to be fucked hard by.”
She does.

>>17913067
>Scamming the government out of money it unjustly taxed you out of is pretty funny.
And pretty hypocritical if you've spend an entire lifetime railing against government hand outs. I guess socialism was only okay when she was the one benefiting from it

>>17913079
If the government forcibly takes her money away and gives it to someone else, that would go against her philosophy. If the government forcibly takes her money away, but then gives her back a part of it, it's not a contradiction for her to make use of that, since it's hers to begin with.

>>17913115
>two wrongs make a right
>A = A
>ravage my pussy John Galt, and rape my mouth hole
Truly the greatest philosopher of all time

>>17912573
>Wrong, you're thinking of Marx and Stirner
t. Has never read Marx or Stirner and gets all his info from memes

>>17913158
>two wrongs make a right
?????
Return something previously stolen is right.
So, it's a case of a small right somewhat diminishing a greater wrong.

>>17913176
please what does "t." mean? i've been "lurking moar" but still can't figure it out

>>17913188
Not if the person who steals it considers other doing the same thing to be ‘looters’

>>17913213
It means ‘taking’, as in ‘taking a giant dick up the ass’

>>17913213
It’s like “Signed”

>>17913228
>>17913236
conflicting information? or no?

>>17913220
A looter is someone who takes something that doesn't belong to them.

>>17912461
>ugly
>idealized the child-killer William Henry Hickman as a heroic individualist
>oy vey goy don't care about your society you're a brilliant individual and all your fellow dumb goyim are against you hehe
>here I am a jew, telling you what your ideological response to that other jewish ideology should be
>like most jewish intellectuals, built a cult to grift off
>wrote everything on speedballs and it shows
>romanticized smoking

>>17912555
It's sad how you can be based twice a day.
Nice trips.

shes a woman and a jew therefore worth less than dirt

>>17913321
bait

>she’s a woman author
>she’s a jew
>philosophy is tryhard pseud-fag shit to the max in general but her particular brand of it is extremely selfish and annoying and her writing style is very heavy handed with it throws it in your face beats you over the head with it preaches and rants about it at you not in bite and pieces but for chapters in end

>>17913213
short for "tovarisch", Russian for "comrade", which is how Chris Chan was signing his Sonichu art for awhile. I think. Also generally makes fun of tweens going through a commie phase who sign their sophomoric political declarations with "Cme. So and So" etc

I haven't seen anyone call themselves "Comrade" unironically in years. I think it only survives as the t. faggot meme.

>>17913336
Based bait though.

>>17913350
ty anon

The cunts on here don't like her because she's female, and the faggots on plebbit don't like her cause she's based

>>17913340

Add to this she preaches against “hero worship” but goes on to write a handful of characters who stop just short of being the Super Friends from the comics add to this she was a staunch atheist in life but on her deathbed renounced all of it and begged God’s mercy so she’s a hypocrite as well.

>>17913371
np.

The original use comes from the Russian revolution when Stalin, Lenin, and Trotsky adopted their pseudonyms and signed their letters and pronouncements that way.

>>17913448
I want to believe in deathbed confessions, but so many are fake, and I just don't see that cantankerous old bitch doing it

>>17912461
Everything she wrote was vile toxic filth.

>>17913452
>swastika

>>17913487

>>17912461
giving a shit about yourself isn't a bad thing but pretending that we don't live in a society is why she's a moron.
libertarianism basically ignores the fact that we live together and just says don't get physical. of course they don't want you to get physical while they get rich at other peoples expense.

>>17913494
i'm so sick of nazi/jew memes anon

>>17913507
Rand hated libertarians.

>>17913519
are you retard

>>17913508
>in a thread about an odious capitalist jewess, asking about a meme derived from odious communist jews

The only way out is through, fren.

>>17913543
Objectivism is not Libertarianism. She inspired the libertarians, but she was annoyed by them towards the end.

>>17913548
>having kids
sounds like fucking hell

>>17913555
tell me in what ways objectivism is different from libertarianism

>>17912461
It is an opinion that was received as common sense by shitlibs who had never read her for decades in academia. As usual, people who got ptsd from their first redpill follow along with the general hatred because they associated her with Never Trump Republicans because they are retards. Everyone thinks they are smarter than it, especially the stupidest people

>>17913562
I have literally never met anyone who regretted having children.

>>17913607
>>17913607
sunk cost fallacy and the burden of leaving the heritage fulfills the need for immortality

>>17913623
Nice cope.

Libertarianism as a personal philosophy is pretty good, taking responsibility for your actions is probably conducive to a good life, but as a political ideal it's absolutely retarded.

I think it's because too many people take her seriously which is not warranted and frustrating.
I suspect it's because she is many young Americans first exposure to social-theory, philosophy-lite. She's their first love, and so they're unable to disentangle themselves from it completely.

Personally I find the Silicon Valley midwit's adherence to randian thought particularly nauseating as they're extremely influential but totally lacking when it comes to understanding anything other than STEM type issues. A lot of them have never been to a restaurant without their mother

>>17913642
based. get laid without the kids.

>>17912461
I'm a lolbert, naturally I read Atlas because all lolberts must get a hard on for Ayn. I was dissapointed too say the least she claims that Aristotle was her only philosophical influence but she was clearly influenced at least by Jhon Locke for libertarianism. Philosophers don't make good novelists and she's no exception all of her high school level idealism spills into her novel, a lot of what the characters say is simply cringe. Jhon Galts speech for example. None of her characters are even nearly as intersting as something out of Tolstoy or Fyodor. In fact War and Peace is a much much better executed novel that also has a large philosophical point to it. She's just a bad writer plainly I don't know much about objectivism but it reeks of the same need to feel special by being unique.

>>17913741
so. much. frickin. this.

so many of these bs cis het white guys who have absolutely no ability to emphatize with the lived experiences of POC, women or transfolx. our education system really fails these people and as a result we get trump, ben shapiro, scott alexander types etc.

>>17913607
You haven’t met my parents

>>17913869
This is bait, right?

>>17912503
lol what?
its basically
>If everyone focuses on bettering themselves instead of worrying about how everyone else is doing everyone will be more prosperous

Does /lit/ even read?

>>17914356
So, we live in a world of finite resources, and I've bettered myself to the extent that I own near everything. But don't worry about me, just work on bettering yourself with the dregs left to you.

>>17914359
People will ALWAYS have more than you.
The envy and avarice to take from others is an obsessive vice, a sickness.

>>17914402
Right, but in the hypothetical, the one with more than you has everything, and you have nothing. Given that landscape, can you ever hope to better yourself save worrying about the other?

>>17914356
Her approach to it isn't just fundamentally wrong, it's stupid.

Like the other anon said, there's only so much material wealth to go around, and wherever there is a "have", there is a "have not", and Rand's ideology is that the have's should have as much as possible, and whatever they have, they deserve. In reality, though you'll never be able to convince the working class that they don't also deserve what the upper class has, especially when you're preaching Rand's egocentric philosophy. The only counterbalance to that and let rich people avoid the guillotine is to ensure some measure of social equity -so the only way to truly act in your own self-interest is to also act in the interest of others, even if only to a limited extent. Rand's philosophy of pure self interest is stupid in theory and in fact.

>>17914430
>In reality, though you'll never be able to convince the working class that they don't also deserve what the upper class has
But aren't we living through that reality right now? Sure, some working class people are edging toward class warfare, but the vast majority seem to have been convinced—by the upper classes—that their ills owe to some boogeyman outside class struggle ("wokeness" maybe).

>>17912461
She is a typical woman, a depthless sociopath beloved of dead-behind-the-eyes corporate pocket politicians who fuck kids.

>>17914419
If I am able bodied, and there is equality under the law, then why not?
If there is the opportunity to acquire capital and freely trade it for goods and services it would be up to me. Would it be easy, no, but to live is to struggle.

>>17914455

It'll be impossible to judge correctly until we're looking at it from a historical perspective, but I'd say we're looking at an inflection point, or are close to one.

A lot of people aren't taking the current wealth inequality lying down. People on both sides of the American political aisle are mad about it, it's just a matter of whether they're mad at George Soros or Jeff Bezos. There are a lot of social issues also at play, but I'd guess the average american is of the opinion that wealthy people are controlling their lives to an healthy extent.

We haven't seen true French Revolution style violence because there are still political champions on either side, be it Bernie or Trump, that people are hoping will dismantle the unfair systems. But as they all continue to fail or ahve their efforts actively thwarted by the wealthy institutions, I think young people are becoming increasingly angrier and more likely to act radically.

>>17914430
>Like the other anon said, there's only so much material wealth to go around
I mean there practically isnt. You can create new things to sell to others and vice versa. That plus tech means that even if you dont have any starting capital you still have your body, presumably, to provide services to acquire capital.

>and wherever there is a "have", there is a "have not", and Rand's ideology is that the have's should have as much as possible, and whatever they have, they deserve.
That is under the assumption that it was gained through lazafair capitalism not crony capitalism where people are in bed with goverment figures who can create laws and regulations to give favoritism to some altering the market.

> In reality, though you'll never be able to convince the working class that they don't also deserve what the upper class has, especially when you're preaching Rand's egocentric philosophy.
Why would they assume they have any right to something they did not earn. It doesnt make sense.

>The only counterbalance to that and let rich people avoid the guillotine is to ensure some measure of social equity -so the only way to truly act in your own self-interest is to also act in the interest of others, even if only to a limited extent. Rand's philosophy of pure self interest is stupid in theory and in fact.
Your saying the only way to stop mob violence is by extorsion. Incredibly amoral. Dont get me wrong, I am willing to argue the morality of capitalism, but because it may have moral failings that doesnt excuse your idea of robbery.

>>17914546
>Why would they assume they have any right to something they did not earn. It doesnt make sense.

Because human's are, by nature, greedy fucks, and Randian economics only works if you conveniently assume that the vast majority of humanity would shrug their shoulders and say "Oh yeah, I guess that guy definitely deserves it, I'll just embrace my squalor" instead of getting envious.

>>17914455
>Sure, some working class people are edging toward class warfare, but the vast majority seem to have been convinced—by the upper classes—that their ills owe to some boogeyman outside class struggle ("wokeness" maybe).
>"wokeness"
>Not the constant barrage of race baiting nonsense dripfed into the American consciousness by every institution of power

Discrimination has been illegal since the 70s but at every turn its a more minor thing that people pretend to be outraged about to get people to ignore that their rights are being stripped away.

Its a double fronted war, distract with vague nonsense nobody cared about until it was brought up while fucking you while your back is turned.

>>17914520
>I think young people are becoming increasingly angrier and more likely to act radically.

1. Attempts at "radical" acts are easily squashed and diverted by the technological system.

2. Young people, more than other groups, are less-likely to consider that changing the system might create a worse situation than before. This is a downfall of Progressive ideology and the worship of change. That's not to say that the system should not be changed, but the radical-minded usually are all-or-nothing and capitulation is a necessary evil.

>>17912666
seethe harder

>>17914568
>say "Oh yeah, I guess that guy definitely deserves it, I'll just embrace my squalor" instead of getting envious.

I'm fairly sure it is to use the envy as motivation. I want what they have, I want better for myself, I want to get out of this squalor, let me work my dick off to improve my situation.

The fucked up part is that indoctrination of the young clearly works, and if the 80s Reaganite dick heads were a tad bit more focused on education, and we had civics and philosophy in schools, people would be primed to understand "if you work hard your situation will get better over time, but in a competitive system we all are, by definition not going to be the 1%", instead of being shocked to find out that no one is entitled to anything.

Its a game and there are winners and losers. However, we are fortunate enough that society as a whole is so prosperous that even the lowest loser still has a better QoL than some of the top dogs of yesteryear.

>>17914493
>then why not?
Because, in the hypothetical, the world's resources are finite and already owned. You cannot acquire capital by freely trading goods you don't have or with services no one wants or needs.

>>17914581
I picked a boogeyman for example. I didn't make an argument for a particular boogeyman.

>>17914626
Sure I'll concede that hypothetical scenario, but it is absurd and even walking back a little from the hyperbole leads to a workable situation.
So what is your point?

>>17914622
>society as a whole is so prosperous that even the lowest loser still has a better QoL than some of the top dogs of yesteryear

In a large scale sense, a young guy who can't afford a house isn't going to give a shit that Rockefeller didn't have an iphone. He will always judge himself by the standards of his day, and as long as he sees that someone else is wildly more successful than himself, he's going to be envious.

>>17914632
Fair.

I don't think I even disagree with the class warfare aspect to it.
I think it was assumptions made by others who usually make those arguments.

I assumed and I apologize.

It was the theft advocated by the post you replied to that lead me off base.
I would join any group in dismantling current power structures if the replacements held individual liberty as a founding principle. Usually people advocate for divisive idpol shit or collectivist actions which is a nonstarter.

>>17914634
My point is that Rand's philosophical stance only makes sense if we work from the premise of a world/universe of infinite resources, which is clearly false. At some point, the have nots will have to worry about the property of the haves because they won't be able to prosper otherwise. We can argue over when the hypothetical would become reality, but my aim here was pointing out the flaw in Rand's position.

>>17914626
what about NFTs? they're literally made up digital artifacts. people sell those things for ridiculous amounts of money

>>17914638
>a young guy who can't afford a house isn't going to give a shit that Rockefeller didn't have an iphone. He will always judge himself by the standards of his day, and as long as he sees that someone else is wildly more successful than himself, he's going to be envious.

That sounds like a failure of the education/family system to instill the wisdom to handle those feelings.
If done well they would understand that they still have the potential to acquire one someday and that they are far better positioned for that and a better life than the life of a serf they could have potentially lived.

Cake and carnivals work to distract the individual from the hellish existence that is a meaningless materialist life because in the back of every persons mind they can imagine the far worse struggle that would be dismantling an existing system and actually having to work through the devastation.

The fear of the potential abruptness of not knowing if you will have enough to eat, or that there is no protection outside of what you can muster to defend yourself. That vs a life of constant distractions people pick that.

I will say the keyword there is potential abruptness. If shit stays bad long enough people will prep and no amount of distraction will obfuscate the fact that their life has become worse than that of the serf. That is when people rise up.

Not sure if I agreed or disagreed with you.

>>17914666
Your argument does not make sense because we do not live in a world of practically finite resources.
Objectively yes, there is the potential for at some asymptotic point where one(few) could accumulate all where everyone else has none. But in terms of reality that is practically impossible to even come close to.

So you've proven a flaw in Rand's position that is not applicable to our world.
If I am misunderstanding you I am open to being wrong.

>>17914692
Storage space isn't infinite either.

>>17914747
The world's resources aren't effectively infinite. Even now, name a resource you could reasonably go and accumulate (assuming means of procurement, save land, are available). There's some yes, but not anywhere near approaching infinite.