/lit/ - Literature

>net worth of $60 million
>feels like she has earned it through hard work rightfully and that poor people just need to step it up

Every time.

>>7174163
Didn't she earn it though?

>>7174156

>Emma’s review: “I know, it’s a cult. I’m not going to take it too far, but I did enjoy it.”
>it's a cult

Such terrible taste, what a basic bitch.

>>7174156
she is a feminist aka a degenerate
[as if being a woman was not enough]

>>7174156
>so many shit recs

i thought she went to brown

>>7174180
she's not exactly the prototypical randian hero

even dried up old ayn would probably find someone like her repulsive

>>7174180
Only if you consider our current economical system to be the pinnacle of justice.

>“[Quiet] discusses how extroverts in our society are bigged up so much, and if you’re anything other than an extrovert you’re made to think there’s something wrong with you. That’s like the story of my life. Coming to realize that about myself was very empowering, because I had felt like, ‘Oh my god, there must be something wrong with me, because I don’t want to go out and do what all my friends want to do.’”

"There's something wrong with me even though I'm a famous actress"???

>that list

Welp, can't fap to her anymore.

>>7174163
She read The Fountainhead, not Atlas Shrugged.
The Fountainhead is almost a good book, just like most of her recs. Almost.

>>7174194
Yeah, Objectivism is practically a cult.

>The Fault in Our Stars by John Green

EVERY FUCKING TIME

She went to Brown and cambridge and she likes john green.

I thought that literature was objective and your english degree taught you "how to think"? How could this possibly happen? She went to a better uni for english than you did and she's still like this

>>7174237
Pretty, famous, rich girls get a free pass in life and don't get called out on their bullshit.

How do you not know this?

The last three titles are alright:
* Susan Cain, Quiet
* Patti Smith, Just Kids
* Carlos Ruiz Zafon, The Shadow of the Wind

>>7174230
>The Fountainhead

it's exactly the same message son

>misunderstood genius architect
>under fire from the socialist media
>contrived suffering because 'muh vision'
>rapist and bomber but hey objectivism!
>triumphs against all evil in the end

>>7174237
>better uni
There's your problem. How do you measure that? By how expensive it is? A large majority there is just going to be spoiled rich kids that can afford to cheat themselves trough academia. Even with the best teachers and programs around, those sorts aren't necessarily going to be the best students. After all, they don't have to be, they're rich. The so called "best" unis are best at teaching conformity within those circles rather than actually educating. The Fault in Our Stars is a popular book, therefore you read it (or pretend to) and include it in such lists to appear "with it", as Grandpa Simpson used to say.

Have we seen her naked yet?
That's basically all I care about

>>7174236
Is the book better than the movie? Like I can imagine a book with half decent parts after watching the film, but I'd rather imagine that than read a shit book.

For anyone too lazy to read the article, Emma Watson didn't actually make this list. She tweeted about one Ayn Rand book one time.

>>7174252
Yeah, but put forward as a work of fiction instead of a preachy gospel. And Objectivism can work in fantasy, just look at Scrooge McDuck fucking shit up in hilarious ways. Look at Iron Man and his army of suits, fuck the government, they can't have them.

>>7174272
>put forward as a work of fiction instead of a preachy gospel
but that's exactly how rand disseminated her shit philosophy, atlas shrugged is no different than the fountainhead in that regard

does it work as fiction? sure, but nobody can take that shit seriously, not even old hypocritical windbag rand did

I thought Hermione was supposed to be clever

>>7174283
I know the lines aren't clear, but The Fountainhead was written with the purposes of simple fiction (littered of course by her philosophy), while Atlas Shrug was extensively put forward as her manifesto and doctrine. That's why you get chapters worth of dull, uninterrupted monologs in the later and not as much in the former.

>>7174267
Haven't seen the movie but I've read the book and it has some of the most cringe inducing prose I've ever read.

>>7174306
The movie was terrible but the subtext suggested the parents would end up as the nutty writer guy which was nice.

>>7174237
Being a neurotypical person she can sympathize with and share the sensibilities of her time and generation?

>>7174419
is that what you call pandering?

>>7174225
She's managing her brand.

>>7174156
She just became way less attractive

>>7174237
She went to those better unis after she was famous. Nobody was going to be the person who failed Emma Watson, and if they were, I bet the administration sorted them.

>>7174156
>Fault in Our Stars
Way more shocking

>>7174223

you get paid what your labor is worth. I'd say that's pretty fair.

except in places where the minimum wage is too high, of course

>>7174213
Not really. Rand might not consider her a true existential hero because she made her money through opportunity rather than creating the opportunity herself, but Rand would say she still living her life for herself and is therefor good.

>>7174491
You get paid what someone can get away with paying you under certain conditions.

Do you think sweatshop child labour is fair?

>>7174513

>get away with paying you

I'm pretty sure if you don't like what you're being paid you can leave your job. Slavery is over.

Less than 2% of working Americans over 24 earn the minimum wage.

Sweatshop labor and child labor are not the same thing. There are plenty of adults working in sweatshops too. Take away the sweatshops and there would be no jobs at all.

Child labor laws serve a purpose but in many countries where poverty is severe and access to birth control is limited, there really aren't many choices. The kids can work or they can starve. That's not evil, it's just necessity.

>>7174529
So do you think sweatshop child labour is fair?

Ishiguro though...oh baby, c'mere

We can ignore the Rand, Emma, you were probably young and stupid when you read it.

>suggesting a book = adopting its philosophy

kill yourself

>>7174510
>Rand would say she still living her life for herself and is therefor good

her involvement with feminism/equal opportunity movements can hardly be described as 'living her life for herself', even if it's all a pr exercise

rand wouldn't appreciate that

>>7174547

I think it's better than starving to death in the streets, yes.

Who said anything about fairness?

>>7174271

That's because the list is nothing but a marketing scheme to sell shit books, Jon Green is on there solely to help the other books on the list sell.

>>7174555
>I think it's better than starving to death in the streets
It's this kind of thinking the inevitably leads to serfdom.

>>7174553
rand wouldn't appreciate pr, ie marketing, ie capitalism?

>>7174563

The conditions and circumstances in many parts of the world are not such as to allow for everyone to be prosperous. If you're born in a country like China or Darfur you've been dealt a pretty lousy hand in life. But seeing as you only get one pass anyway, you might as well make the best of it.

>>7174566
she detested propaganda and egalitarianism

what do you think?

>>7174555
I asked you about fairness, obviously. The question whether Watson 'earned' her fortune depends on whether it was earned under fair conditions. In other words, if the economical system under which she earned it is a fair system. If it isn't, then fortunes amassed under that exploitative system aren't earned rightfully.

You seem to think the only alternative to massive exploitation of the poor is letting the poor die though, which is a pretty easy sophism to justify anything because the only alternative is worse and never better, right? Therefore anything is fair if you can come up with a hypothetical worse alternative and you never have to treat people any better than you do and nothing needs fixing.

If you'd go full might is right then you'd at least have a consistent position.

>>7174555
>Who said anything about fairness?
>you get paid what your labor is worth. I'd say that's pretty fair.
the labour market, unless you're a lolbertarian who defines his morals as the market, doesn't account for our morals. you can get paid a lot more or less by crossing a border. women get paid less than men for the same work. wages are suppressed in favour of productivity growths.

>>7174590

There is no formula for a just distribution of wealth or income. Show me a system which does more to improve the lot of the ordinary person than competitive capitalism.

Is it perfect? By no means. Is labor sometimes exploited? Of course. But on the whole, if you look at history, you will see that the great major of people have lived in poverty and misery. That's the default state of existence. How is it then that we have a country here which is so wealthy that people can afford to give up some 40% of their income and still live a decent life? How are we so prosperous that we can pay other people who are crippled, elderly, retarded or just plain lazy to sit around all day doing nothing?

I think you're taking a lot of things for granted. The market economy we have has grown up through a process of selection of the successful, without anyone really understanding why it is successful. It will continue to evolve. As far as I can tell, all the alternatives so far attempted have indeed been worse.

>>7174569
>seeing as you only get one pass anyway, you might as well make the best of it.
Spoken like a true objectivist. Sadly, inequality issues will very likely have grave consequences in the near future, You can only push people so far, history has demonstrated this over and over again.

>>7174614

>How is it then that we have a country here which is so wealthy that people can afford to give up some 40% of their income and still live a decent life? How are we so prosperous that we can pay other people who are crippled, elderly, retarded or just plain lazy to sit around all day doing nothing?

I think you're taking a lot of things for granted. The market economy we have has grown up through a process of selection of the successful, without anyone really understanding why it is successful. It will continue to evolve. As far as I can tell, all the alternatives so far attempted have indeed been worse.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism

>>7174622
>You can only push people so far, history has demonstrated this over and over again.
nah. western states are way too powerful for anything to happen. all you can get is a riot or two at most, if you're lucky and do it in a black neighbourhood. otherwise you get effete white shit like occupy wall street.

>>7174609

Assuming you can find work, sure. No doubt it's more profitable to work in America than Mexico, but it's also far more expensive to live here. That's why so much income is repatriated back to families in Mexico. Our society is more prosperous and so can afford to pay higher wages for the same work. A peasant living in India would kill for a minimum wage job in America.

The wage gap myth has been exploded for decades. When you control for various factors such as number of years worked continuously, career choice, part time versus full time, the gap vanishes. It is a statistical illusion that has had a very strong political agenda behind it.

That being said, I don't believe equal work for equal pay is a good idea. In theory it's all very well, and people should get paid what their labor is worth regardless of extraneous details like sex, age, race, etc. In reality however, all equal pay laws do is reduce to zero the employer cost of discriminating against employees. If you say to a sexist employer 'you must by law pay women the same as men', it's no skin off his nose: he'll just hire more men. But if a woman with the same skills is allowed and willing to work for less, effectively underbidding her male counterparts, now that sexist employer is bearing a cost for his discrimination. I would like to see a cost imposed for such discrimination. If you mandate equal pay, you deprive the individuals who are being prejudiced against their only recourse.

>>7174614
Just because things are likely to be a certain way does not make them fair.

Is it fair that Emma Watson made 60 million in her teens with mediocre acting a few months a year while other children her age would have to work 12 hour sweatshop shifts in partly collapsing buildings just to sustain themselves?

I would say it is not. It might be the way it is, it might be hard to change, but that is no reason to call it fair. Even though it is the way things are and we have a hard time coming up with better alternatives that will actually work in spite of active sabotage and opposition, I still wouldn't call things as they are fair.

I don't think Watson earned 60 mil by any reasonable standards of fairness unless you equate fairness with reality and might with right.

>>7174622

Historically, such revolutions have made things worse, not better, for the masses

European serfdom for instance was not ended by any revolt of the working classes. It was ended by the black death, which killed so many people that living conditions and labor demand for the survivors was greatly improved.

>>7174648

She became a millionaire because she had the fortune to grow up and work in an industry that is highly profitable and has been for a long time. Much is made of American racial discrimination, but in this country you have black artists and athletes who earn millions every year. Compare that lot with the lot of their black brothers who never left Africa and the disparity is palpable. Even comparing the average African-American to the average African yields a stark contrast.

But you assume that Emma Watson can only earn her millions at the direct expense of those children who work in sweatshops and so on. That's simply not the case. It's true that every little girl can't grow up to be Emma Watson, but life is not a zero sum game. Just because one person in one country gets richer does not mean another person in another country must become poorer.

As far as I can tell, you seem to be pursuing a vision of cosmic justice. I'm not sure there's any good way to do that. You can't correct for all the conditions and accidents of life. If Emma is born with a slightly longer nose, maybe she's a waitress today. Would that be more just in your estimation? Is it fair that such a minute accident is the difference between being a millionaire and being in poverty?

>>7174641
>western states are way too powerful for anything to happen
The state can only maintain control through security/armed forces. When they turn, and historically they have done so countless times, the state folds. Brutal repression doesn't always work.

>>7174656
>Historically, such revolutions have made things worse
Not true. A lot of European countries that went through fascist regimes are much better off now than they were 40/50 years ago. Same could be said about South America and Southeast Asia.

>>7174696

Those fascist regimes were mostly removed by military disasters, not popular uprisings. You'd be hard pressed to find a more beloved leader than Hitler circa 1940.

>>7174683
I think your demonstration of all the conditions and accidents involve in any life offers more than enough reason to never even remotely entertain the thought that a person has 'earned' anything.

I'd agree that the construction of any form of just world, even hypothetically, is very problematic, but the notion that we already live in a just world where people who come out on top have 'rightfully earned' anything is even more so. It is the height of misguided arrogance. As Nietzsche said: “ No victor believes in chance.”

>>7174735

If people got what they really deserved, the gap between haves and have-nots would be ten times what it is now.

>I know it's a cult

No, feminism is a cult, objectivism is not. Seriously? A cult of reason? What kind of laughableness is that? Also, how can you even like it? You said you are a feminist. Ayn Rand hated feminists.

>>7174717
>Those fascist regimes were mostly removed by military disasters
Not everywhere but when did the military suddenly became not of the people?

>You'd be hard pressed to find a more beloved leader than Hitler circa 1940
Beloved in the same way Mao Zedong or Kim Il-Sung were beloved.

>>7174754

Yeah these people were clearly present at the rally on pain of death

>>7174788
I wasn't being fatuous when I said they were equally beloved.

Communist regimes used a lot of the same aesthetic and propaganda used by fascist regimes to garner support from the people. Military parades in Beijing and Pyongyang come to mind.

>>7174237
It's because
>she's a woman
>she's still young
>she isn't autistic
>I went into STEM :^)

>>7174656
European serfdom wasn't just overturned by a single 'revolution', but a whole myriad of revolts and rebellions against the existing social order. The whole conception of political revolution is something fairly modern. Engels, in his time, describes the class struggles in transition from feudal society towards capitalism, at least in Germany, by attributing the political struggles of the Protestant reformation to the struggle for power by the nascent bourgeoisie. You can have slow change, but just because the change is slow doesn't mean it's necessarily peaceful. That's just an illusion propagated by slow-minded liberals who look at 'peaceful' movements and ignore how their violent elements and the movements' surrounding material conditions.

As an aside, it's a weird thing that bourgeois ideologues often do; because very often society is in a state of equilibrium, that crises that disturb this social equilibrium are external disturbances of the natural order, defined as the equilibrium itself, and not as an outbreak of the underlying contradictions of society that existed latent under the 'equilibrium' violently asserting themselves. Marxists simply concede that these outbreak are not only not externalities, but are fundamental to how class society works and develops.

People seem to forget that the Marxian conception of class isn't just how much money you earn, or how comfortable you live, compared to other people, but as a social relation of production dependent upon a division of labour and a specific system of ownership, themselves dependent upon the development and prevalence of technology, the forces of production. The rise of capitalism wasn't just someone arbitrarily labeling 'bourgeois' or 'proletarian' to different segments of the population but as a rise of specific social conditions, with each structure of society having their own history and development. As forces of production and the other material conditions that surround class structure develops, violence emerges as society reorganizes the ensuing social relations. This violence is called the 'class struggle'.

>>7174814

I don't think it was propaganda so much as hey, our country is suddenly much less shit than before. Maybe this guy knows what he's talking about.

>>7174910
>I don't think it was propaganda
they literally had a "public enlightenment and propaganda" ministry

it was so effective that even today stupid edgy faggots like you fall for the crap they churned out

>>7174926

oh please

when people love a powerful an charismatic leader like Hitler, it's clearly because they're brainwashed; but when people fawn over a dickless charlatan like Obama, propaganda has nothing to do with it

I would tell you to fuck off back to /lit/ but it seems you're already here

>>7174989
>when people fawn over a dickless charlatan like Obama, propaganda has nothing to do with it

strawman/10

nobody is talking about obama

>>7174750
>objectivism
>reason
loving every laugh

>all those crummy new books

Freaking pleb

i'm more bothered by how shit the rest of her favourites are
the remains of the day is the only decent thing there and her comments aren't exactly insightful

>>7174156
The list is such trash Rand is the best novel there.

>>7174750
>objectivism
>reason

Reason is inherently incapable of being ethically prescriptive.

>enjoyed the one book of Rand's with any literary merit
>is entirely aware of the ideological basis of Rand's thought
>specifically goes out of her way to say "I won't take it too far"

Yeah, she's definitely a full-blown Randian Objectivist, OP. More like she read a book about rugged individualism and enjoyed the the C+ plot.

>>7174750
>A cult of reason? What kind of laughableness is that?
>This nigger has never read about the French Revolution.

>>7174513
Fucking Kek. You realize capitalism is the only reason we have Child labor laws right?

>>7174745

But not in the direction you think :)

>>7175358
As opposed to feudalism, you mean?