/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23020183]

Why is Ayn Rand disliked by so many people???

[Anonymous No.23020205]

Me? Because she's a neurotic jew

[Anonymous No.23020216]

>>23020183

Because very few people manage to pull off both being an atheist and also having a pro-capitalist/anti-socialist type of worldview. Which is to say, that very, very few people manage to have a worldview which is fundamentally correct in both its religious/metaphysical outlook, and in its political/economic outlook. It is even more astonishing that a woman managed to hold both of these truths in her mind at the same time. Women are almost constitutionally, physiologically hard-wired to reject at least one of the two above attitudes, if not both. It's a kind of hyper-masculine way of (accurately) looking at the world. (The uncharitable would say "autistic").

The complaints about her work, even when they make valid points (and there are many to be made), are largely superfluous. It is deeply comforting to know that there exist human beings who get their basic worldview and value system overall correct, as she did.

[Anonymous No.23020219]

for me she is not autistic enough. she's supposed to be a libertarian, but denies syrian people's rights on their land and sides with a genocidal state. I cannot respect someone who conflicts herself.

[Anonymous No.23020242]

she's zionist

[Anonymous No.23020255]

>>23020216
I feel embarrassneed for your cringeworthy take

[Anonymous No.23020265]

>>23020183
She was a bitch and her books mostly suck ass (anthem is decent but everything else is trash)

[Anonymous No.23020268]

>Why is Ayn Rand disliked by so many people???

Because they were told to by people smarter than them. They learned by passed down knowledge that she took money from the government and that she’s a conservative woman from Russia.

That’s it. Some creators just end up in the wrong place at the wrong time and become subject to being torn down by mob. I’ve read all of her books and her philosophy is hardly threatening even if I don’t agree with it. Her overarching themes are less about where money should go when it comes to political matters and more about the willpower of an individual to never compromise or fold. She wrote a blueprint for her ideal man. In this regard she does more good than harm, and flagrant vitriol against her works tends to expose itself as being with agenda. Whether to win points with liberals or socialists or academics, or to feel smarter than her by tearing her down, or because of hatred of women or Ruskies or Jews, she’s a prime target for hate, and people who hate her are aware of this. Because they’re aware of it, this diminishes their criticisms into easily catalogued personalities, which makes them hate her even more.

It’s a perfect storm to be a Conservative Ruskie Kike bitch who self inserts herself into fucking a millionaire. Hard to defend, but easy to point out those who get carried away against her as inauthentic.

[Anonymous No.23020277]

>>23020183
She's autistic and dumb, plain and simple. Her books are bad too.

[Anonymous No.23020278]

Her books are unnecesary long.

[Anonymous No.23020279]

>>23020183
subversive immigrant kike

[Anonymous No.23020294]

>>23020216
I wanted to agree with you because you articulate very well on what my gut has been telling me all along. However, when you stoop so much into inceldom, I can't.

Secretly, and all men who are honest can at least admit this anonymously, we know that women are less intelligent and wise than us. Literally all men know this deep down in their gut. However, recently I've started realizing that I derive great satisfaction from doing things that women approve of. To give one example, I started doing a facial cleansing routine despite having no acne or skin condition, all with recommendations made by one of my female friends. Literally the only reason I do it is because I was asking for ways to improve myself and she said "most guys don't have a skin care routine" and so I made it my mission to get two of the three ointments she recommended and now I use them regularly. I've also worked into conversation with pretty much every female I've been in contact with that I do this and they all resoundingly sing my praises. In addition to this I've also been grooming myself more and working on my wardrobe and basically taking all of their advice. One of them recently said something like "Oh, men only do things to win our approval!" and I just respond dryly, "guilty as charged"

I'm actively trying to turn myself into a gentleman who puts women on a pedestal (the exact kind of way men behaved in the 19th century when men had higher status than women), but in doing so I'm actually lowering their station and raising my own (this is my head canon, go with it). I've earned their respect and now I'm starting to shepherd them around little by little by telling them to drink more water and stop drinking celsius energy drinks. I'm advocating for them, with the subtext of my advocacy being that they are incapable of advocating for themselves, which we should all know by now they very well aren't.

[Anonymous No.23020309]

>>23020294
Is this copypasta

[Anonymous No.23020310]

>>23020294

You sound autistic but you have female friends and you're playing normal social sorts of games with them, and you never really rejected what I had to say. You instead launched into a blogpost. I have no complaints. Good for you, keep improving and I hope you get a gf. You sound like you're doing all the right things.

Don't go too autistic with the suits or affectations or anything like that.

[Anonymous No.23020313]

Rand was a deeply flawed person who basically had a small personality cult. However, she played an important role for many people, which is that she urged them to fulfill their creative visions, and not allow themselves to be held back and weighed down by the mediocrity and parasitism of those around them. I think she's actually an important figure because of how accessible she made these messages. Philosophers will point out flaws in her thinking and say she's shallow and unsophisticated, and ultimately inferior to someone like Nietzsche. Radicals will point out how she didn't challenge the status quo or say anything as powerful as, say, Max Stirner, or if they're leftists Emma Goldman. However, I don't think either of these critiques are really that meaningful because nobody's bothering to go back and wade through what Nietzsche or Stirner wrote, aside from philosophy majors. Rand had a huge impact on right wing libertarianism, even if she herself disliked that movement.

>>23020216
I really don't think it's that black and white. Sure, communism is stupid and delusional. However, ultracapitalism, or, as it really exists, corporatocracy, leads to so much wealth accruing at the top that it no longer actually fuels innovation. To keep a healthy economy, normal people need the resources and education to innovate. And atheism may be more accurate than something like biblical literalism, but lots of religious people really just use religious philosophy to help themselves explain a basically interconnected, pan(en)theistic universe.

[Anonymous No.23020314]

>>23020183
Triggering for weak people

[Anonymous No.23020341]

>>23020310
Yeah my apologies for the time wasting blogpost could've cut out most of that and still made my point.

I hope I'm not autistic. Thanks for reading my blog anyways

[Anonymous No.23020348]

>>23020341
>apologizing
You faggot. Grow some balls you pussy. Never care about what some nigger on 4chan thinks of you again or I'll rape you.

[Anonymous No.23020356]

>>23020348
A harmless courtesy, trust me I do not care what any of you say.

[Anonymous No.23020399]

I have never read anything by her, but I have always be curious because it seems people tend to have very strong opinions of her. Is she worth reading?

[Anonymous No.23020432]

>"Hey everyone, I've just invented a miraculous frictionless motor! This will change the world!"
>"Oh rly? Well you can just stick that up your ass because COMMUNISM! Isn't communism so great? We don't care about literal magic!"
and many more reasons

[Anonymous No.23020467]

>>23020432
my favorite is
>why are you government men pumping so much money into this obviously failing company?
>because they give us bribes
>but they're not making money, they're going to go bankrupt in 2 days at this rate and then they won't be able to bribe you
>well we can deal with that problem then - IF that actually happens lmao get out of my office dumb fearmonger

[Anonymous No.23020488]

>>23020183
Because, in a world where quality is subjective, she had the wrong opinion and people with the wrong opinion liked The Fountainhead.

[Anonymous No.23020561]

>>23020399
The Fountainhead and Anthem are. Atlas Shrugged can be hit or miss depending on how you feel about her philosophy.

[Anonymous No.23020574]

>>23020183
She was too extremely based and called out the 99% of people that are shitty collectivists

[Anonymous No.23020584]

>>23020313
>However, ultracapitalism, or, as it really exists, corporatocracy, leads to so much wealth accruing at the top that it no longer actually fuels innovation. To keep a healthy economy, normal people need the resources and education to innovate.
Baseless commy retardation, by all empirical evidence and a priori reasoning capitalism should reduce wealth at the top and proliferate it on the bottom

[Anonymous No.23020585]

>>23020205
/thread

[Anonymous No.23020597]

>>23020561
I try one of them. Is her philosophy really 'selfish good' or is that an unfair representation of it?

[Anonymous No.23020626]

>>23020205
>>23020585
>tfw you realize these posts were made by a neurotic jew

[Anonymous No.23020631]

>>23020597
Her philosophy is more like being selfish is right and just but she does argue it from a utilitarian perspective in the fountainhead if morality is not your thing

[Anonymous No.23020739]

>>23020183
>plagiarizes from other, better authors(stirner, Nietzsche), then adds her own misinterpretation of said writings after the fact

[Anonymous No.23020798]

>>23020183
>Why is Ayn Rand disliked by so many people???
Communists aren't people

[Anonymous No.23020937]

>>23020294
Strangely based, be careful not to fall into simpdom

[Anonymous No.23020940]

Imagine sending pre-2010 /lit/ this thread and tell them this is the state of the board right now

[Anonymous No.23020946]

>>23020467
This post didn’t age well considering the federal reserve is losing money

[Anonymous No.23020951]

>>23020294
>when you stoop so much into inceldom
you lost when you posted this

[Anonymous No.23020952]

>>23020940
imagine talking to your 2010 self and letting him know you're still a virgin

[Anonymous No.23021073]

Because at best most people are capable of being Eddie Willers and it doesn't sit well with them.
Also that most of them more resemble her antagonists, which they call straw men but who are literally walking around in the world today.

[Anonymous No.23021076]

Because most people stop being 20 at some point in their lives and deal with their inferiority complexes which mask as feelings(delusions) of superiority.

[Anonymous No.23021080]

>>23021076
>if you think x you actually think the opposite of x except if you agree with me of course
You are the most annoying type of person with the most annoying type of non-argument

[Anonymous No.23021092]

>>23021080
Go produce cringe somewhere else randfag.

[Anonymous No.23021098]

>>23021092
Never read her, simply hate your kind

[Anonymous No.23021104]

>>23021098
Ah that's right, I forgot for a moment /lit/ doesn't read yet has opinions on everything.

[Anonymous No.23021106]

>>23021104
Your opinion said exactly nothing relevant to any of her books. It is generic trite, almost a platitude.

[Anonymous No.23021108]

>>23021106
If you read her maybe you'd understand she's as shallow as that assessment makes her out to be, but as it stands it's beyond you.

[Anonymous No.23021143]

>>23021108
Aww, look who has a superiority complex now. Must be because you’re actually inferior!

[Anonymous No.23021153]

>>23021143
>As it stands
If you read her, you can change that. Will you, that's up to you.

[Anonymous No.23021161]

>>23021143
Also that would be correct, superiority complex does originate in deeply seated inferiority.

[Anonymous No.23021163]

>>23020584
>by all empirical evidence and a priori reasoning capitalism should reduce wealth at the top and proliferate it on the bottom

[Anonymous No.23021212]

Why leftists praise marquis de Sade but hate Rand? The marquis had a philosophy that would lead to individualism too, right? He was an actual pedo too

[Anonymous No.23021228]

>>23021212
de Sade revels in his depravity, while Rand clocks her depravity in conservative platitudes, making her unappealing to leftists

[Anonymous No.23021257]

>>23020219
She never claimed to be a libertarian. And if you actually read he writings, she is the opposite of that.

[Anonymous No.23021272]

>>23021257
She was against taxes entirely, that is being a better libertarian than a lot of libertarians

[Anonymous No.23021320]

>>23020183
BECAUSE SHES A DEMONIC JEW,
-
-
JEWS
-
-
-
-
JEWS

[Anonymous No.23021395]

>>23020584
How stupid are you? Look at what is. happening in capitalism for the last century. Wealth is concentrating more and more at the top. In the 1800s, CEOs on average made about 30x as much as their average worker. Now that number is more like 400x. And as that wealth becomes more concentrated, those wealthy CEOs take measures to protect their wealth and accelerate this process, which actually undermines utopian libertarian visions.

You don't know the very first thing about economics, it's actually amazing. I'm actually very impressed anyone could be this ignorant.

[Anonymous No.23021412]

>>23020219
Dumbass she's wasn't a librarian she wrote books.

[Anonymous No.23021432]

>>23020183
To be fair its mostly marxists faggots seething at her because they literally cannot refute her without sperging out in some kind of pseudo Walltext of word salad which they think is fooling anyone but in reality makes them look even more stupid and pathetic.

[Anonymous No.23021452]

>>23020265
What lol anthem is her worst book, its saving grace is how short it is compared to the droning nature of almost dystopian novels

[Anonymous No.23021460]

>>23020798
>>23021432
>If you don't like her subversive Judaic spiel, you're a commie
Shalom!

[Anonymous No.23021464]

like most libertarian types her worldview breaks under the slightest scrutiny, she famously said selfishness is a virtue and wrote bootstrapper fiction that completely lacked the presence of any old people, sick people, or children. spent her entire life bitching about self responsibility but died on government programs, she was kinda just a fucking antisocial retard that thought her shitty ideology was somehow virtuous despite not living up to her own expectations.

[Anonymous No.23021465]

>>23020467
see: south america

[Anonymous No.23021470]

>>23021272
Lol, lmao even. As I said, read her writings.

[Anonymous No.23021476]

>>23021470
I read capitalism and virtue of selfishness and what I gathered was that her idea of a state was an arbitrator funded by the businesses that used it, namely the financial sector, and that the vast majority would go untaxed

[Anonymous No.23021477]

>>23021464
Unfortunate circumstances do not entitle you to the slavery of others, her words

[Anonymous No.23021518]

>>23021477
ah yes the classic taxes = slavery underwriting in the social contract

[Anonymous No.23021527]

>>23021518
Income tax is slavery for sure, your income is nationalized and returned to you in a diminished form, but for someone who thinks they can apply scrutiny obviously entitlements to tax dollars are an entitlement to the work of others ie slavery. Speaking of social contract theory, how do you reconcile the fact that this implies abortion should be illegal because you were carried to term?

[Anonymous No.23021813]

>>23021477
And yet she was on wellfare at the end. I can tolerate a crappy writer, but a crappy writer who can't even adhere to their own childishly simple ideology doesn't deserve anyone's time of day.

[Anonymous No.23021824]

Objectivism is basically the libertarianism of philosophy. It just the path of the asshole, which is what she was. I'd imagine she's mostly popular with pseuds who are smart enough to look down on people but stupid enough to think they're special.

[Anonymous No.23021919]

>>23020183
I think it's because people want the government to do stuff, and her philosophy was hostile to left's belief in government and the right wanting to turn the clock back to the Middle Ages. She was an atheist who believed in the individual. The idea that the state should try to regulate morality in any kind of way would be anathema to her. It makes sense that she was Russian, despite their reputation for authoritarianism, they practically invented anarchism (Kropotkin, Bakunin). Russia seems like the kind of place that would create anarchists or ultra-libertarians or punk rebels. It's like the whole regime is an ideological construction, false to its core. Kind of like growing up in Washington D.C. really. You probably can't grow up there without becoming an anti-authoritarian of some sort even if it's expressed with just a roll of the eyes.
https://youtu.be/MdOI4My90aY

She also loved Hollywood movies so her characters talk like wise guys from the 1930s.

>>23020584
I think capitalism has its positives and negatives. The problem with Rand's worldview is that capitalism and the state have always been intertwined, and depend on each other in a thousand ways, as Adam Smith and virtually everyone who has tried to trace the historical origins of capitalism agree. It's bound up in national currencies, to regulated equities markets, and so on. When we've had capitalism at its most rocking moments (say, 1870-1910 in the U.S.), it has been deranged in its practical oppression of workers and the absurd inequality in the distribution of resources that it generated.

But I think one of the strongest arguments for universal healthcare in the U.S. (like "Medicare for all") is because businesses right now foot the cost for a lot of their employees' health plans. Socialists will tend to argue this is to make workers dependent on the capitalists. But it's much more difficult to do re-shoring of low-margin manufacturing -- which everyone across the spectrum says they want to do -- when the employers are paying $20,000 per year per employee for their health coverage, which is something you'll learn if you've ever run a business. So the laissez-faire approach has paradoxically made the U.S. less competitive by raising the cost of production.

[Anonymous No.23021976]

>>23021919
I agree to some degree however when it comed to universal healthcare you like many other people are extremly naive on this subject. Biggest issue with what these brainless marxist call " free healthcare " is that its not actually free consider the amount people have to pay in taxes for it is usually the Middleclass that gets screwed in this deal having to foot most of the bill for people who dont actully work for a living or pay taxes or even live in the country. This puts a huge strain on a system which many people are extremely naive too. Not a single marxist have ever been able to argue this point that I just made as usual they go into a seething rage calling you racist for being right. And again this is coming from someone with " free healthcare " i would honestly rather have the same US system of healthcare with some tweaks

[Anonymous No.23021983]

She doesn't do anything particularly well and her followers are annoying, especially the silicon valley types.

[Anonymous No.23022001]

She wrote badly and her ideas were boring.

[Anonymous No.23022052]

>>23021919
>as Adam Smith said
Fuck adam smith retard, he is not an authority on anything.
>It's bound up in national currencies, to regulated equities markets, and so on.
I defy you to explain how
>When we've had capitalism at its most rocking moments (say, 1870-1910 in the U.S.), it has been deranged in its practical oppression of workers and the absurd inequality in the distribution of resources that it generated.
this is bullshit, we have never had capitalism and things really went to shit after lincolns crony capitalist dictatorship but the post civil war american golden age was still a great time to be alive, prices went down constantly. Imagine living in a world where the newest cars every year cost less than they last year? That was america after the civil war and before the federal reserve. Our food raised in quality, our work hours reduced, our wages went up and our costs went down. This is because capitalism is not a conspiracy to keep us down, it is the opposite, the free market makes conspiracy against the people impossible.

>healthcare
Jesus you retard there is so much more to this picture than you realize but why are you even talking about it, everywhere healthcare is nominally free it is a much worse experience than here so why would you believe the situation here is zero sum so we may as well centralize it because that makes your anno city builder video game playing brain happy or something. Our healthcare is stupid expensive because of government involvement, because we have an FDA that is a flawed concept that kills as many people as it saves and just infringes on freedom (seriously I cannot think of a better example of the failure of government than FDA type regulatory agencies), because we have a fucking medical doctors union, and probably some less obvious reasons to do with pharma companies in bed with officials that I am not privy to.

[Anonymous No.23022075]

what a weird fucking thread

[Anonymous No.23022536]

lolbertarians earned their reputation

[Anonymous No.23023140]

>>23021228
>assumes she's as depraved as him
What is this bullshit

[Anonymous No.23023147]

>>23021320
That's not why anyone dislikes her

>>23021395
We don't live in "ultracapitalism." Was America more capitalist now, or in the 1800s?

[Anonymous No.23023961]

>>23020216
SPBP

[Anonymous No.23024113]

>>23021395
>be leftist
>make it harder and harder to do business with increasing encroachment
>value of good managerial skyrockets as a result
In all seriousness though, I don't know why CEOs are paid as much as they are now but I do know it is not a conspiracy and people are paid what they are worth to the shareholders. CEO pay is too across the board for every single case to be the board embezzling funds or whatever the left thinks is happening. Equality is also not an end in itself, if everyone gets 3x richer and the ultra rich get 30x richer then we have all gotten richer. Another thing is you can't value things compared to a bygone era by only adjusting for inflation, you also need to adjust for deflation to be accurate. I will cite for example black reparations (not that I believe in it), whenever this is mentioned they only try to adjust what blacks are owed by inflation of what the wages they should have been paid for plantation work would be worth today when in order to ascertain the true value of that work we must also adjust for how much the cotton picking of a hand picking laborer is worth compared to the automation and big machines we use for the process today, the value of slave labor has significantly depreciated over the years as well as the nominal wages have appreciated. Another example is the east india company, often cited as the worlds most valuable company of all time, but the value of ships of the line and spice holdings have significantly diminished over time as well so it isn't actually accurate to say they were richer than some of todays companies that have holdings that are still valuable.

[Anonymous No.23024192]

>>23024113
>Equality is also not an end in itself, if everyone gets 3x richer and the ultra rich get 30x richer then we have all gotten richer.
Literally who said anything about equality you complete faggot? The point was concentration of wealth.

[Anonymous No.23024252]

>>23024192
Sorry, sounding the depths of left wing retardation is never an easy task. Let me explain with some simple math. Say at point A we have 3 units of wealth split between 2 people, one person holds 1 unit and the other person holds 2. Then we reach point B and we now have 100 units of wealth, and one person holds 3 while the other holds 97. Both peoples lives have improved, and both are richer than either of them were at point A even though the wealth has become more concentrated in the person holding the larger share. There is not a set amount of wealth in the world like pieces on a checkerboard, more wealth is created every single day and we are all better off today even if more unequal and quote unquote suffering from wealth concentration.

[Anonymous No.23024254]

>>23020183
what a lovely shemale

[Anonymous No.23024493]

>>23024192
>The point was concentration of wealth.
Why does this matter? In relation to what anon said about
>if everyone gets 3x richer and the ultra rich get 30x richer then we have all gotten richer.

[Anonymous No.23024640]

>>23020216
Holy shit nigga touch some grass and realize there is more to life than consuming product

[Anonymous No.23024846]

>>23020183
>a woman writes

[Anonymous No.23024927]

>>23020216
Correct. Her antagonists, who many criticized for being cartoonish, are made real every day in political actors, such as the Delaware judge who took 55 billion dollars from Elon Musk for defrauding the investors by being too successful.
>>23020294
This is a much more incel-ly post than what you responded to.
>>23024640
Clearly; materialism is a leftist trait.

[Anonymous No.23024974]

>>23021813
>>23021464
If you pay into government programs your whole life there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of them at the end

[Anonymous No.23025059]

>>23024640
based

[Anonymous No.23025548]

>>23020183
cons hate her because she is a jewish women. libs hate her for being a capitalist. everyone should read Atlas Shrugged

[Anonymous No.23025552]

>>23025548
>cons hate her because she is a jewish women
Cons believe jews are God's chosen people, retard.

[Anonymous No.23025920]

>>23024252
This will fall on deaf ears. They literally cannot comprehend it.

[Anonymous No.23026006]

>>23020183
There are lots of third-worlders and Euros on this board--not to mention the /pol/tards who shift the entire IQ level of this board down a deviation. They can't get how incredibly well she parodied the USA and forecasted the entire progression of the Marxist infiltration via the greed of the few.

[Anonymous No.23026072]

>>23024640
You think capitalism is about consuming products?

[Anonymous No.23027326]

>>23021919
>When we've had capitalism at its most rocking moments (say, 1870-1910 in the U.S.)
wages grew more during this time than any other time in US history. the idea that the gilded age was "bad" was a lie that we've all been told. meanwhile in modern times wages hardly ever go up

[Anonymous No.23028100]

>>23025548
>>23025552

She's offputtingly atheist, Jewish-origin and radically anti-Leftist, which would alienate conservatives, nationalists and Leftists, but overall she accurately characterized the emerging shitlib pretty well.

[Anonymous No.23029693]

>>23025552
Not the Cons that hate her. Christians dont like her because she's Jewish, but because of the ideas she spoke of. Her race is either a coincidence or part of the conspiracy, depending on who you speak to.
>>23028100
Checked, that she did.

[Anonymous No.23029743]

>>23020183
rand tried to write literary fiction from a right wing viewpoint. the people that would be the initial audience and arbiters of her work, academia and co., hold left wing beliefs. so they made rand a perennial joke, a lesser thing. to not do so, to take her seriously, would in some regard lend credibility to her beliefs, which would essentially be allowing a threat to their ideology into their court.
logically, it makes sense. i'm not approving of this happening or agreeing with the academia stance, but why would anyone allow themselves a vulnerability if they can instead opt to not?
the specifics of her views don't matter. her writing skills, or lack thereof, don't matter. she was on the other team, and the best way to win a game like this, is to disable your opponents before they can play.

[Anonymous No.23029747]

>>23020626
the true /thread

[Anonymous No.23029864]

>>23029743
/thread

[Anonymous No.23030540]

>>23021464
>spent her entire life bitching about self responsibility but died on government programs,

[Anonymous No.23032051]

>>23021320
he's got a point

[Anonymous No.23032061]

>>23020597
Selfish = caring about one’s self.
This is the highest virtue according to Rand.

Everyone who hates her are left acedemic types, which should tell you everything you need to know about her demonization

[Anonymous No.23032067]

>>23020183
>why do people not like sociopaths?
Gee, I wonder.

[Anonymous No.23032110]

>>23021464
>her worldview breaks under the slightest scrutiny
It breaks under slightest contact with real life too. People actually tried to create a Galt's Gulch-like community once. It fell apart almost immediately as people started suing each other. As it turns out, society needs people to be willing to cooperate in order to actually survive.

[Anonymous No.23032135]

>>23032110
Just like marxist ideology it ignores human nature and only pseuds actually follow such utopian nonsense.

[Anonymous No.23032142]

>>23020183
Talk to one or her followers for 2 mins and you'll see why.

[Anonymous No.23032247]

>>23021477
>her words
And that is a perfect sign of what kind of a fucked up persion she is. Yes,
>Unfortunate circumstances do not entitle you to the slavery of others
is technically correct. The implication behind explicitly stating that, however, is that even unprompted pity is evil. Who would actually say that except a sociopath?