/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4188568]

I"M NOT TRYING TO BE AN ASSHOLE. I'M NOT TRYING TO GET THE BANHAMMER. I KNOW /lit/ HATES THIS CHICK. I DON'T LIKE OBJECTIVISM EITHER.

I just want to ask a question: why the hate? Why does /lit/ single this girl out? Why is she the only person on the absolute shit tier on this board? I'm honestly curious. I'm not gonna defend her. I just really want to know.

[Anonymous No.4188575]

high profile author, wrote some really bad prose, and the majority of people here disagree with her vehemently

[Anonymous No.4188581]

Really really tedious writing by most accounts. Really really long and takes a long time to get to the point.

Advocates hyper-selfish Master Morality type capitalism and basically says that the world is driven by "creative" sociopaths motivated by their own greed and self-aggrandizement, but it improves the world for everyone.

Legitimately offensive or annoying on some levels, but moreso it's just a good combo of easily comprehensible reasons that she sucks, so it turned into a meme. When you say FUCKING HEGEL WITH HIS FUCKING STUPID IDEALISM YOU STUPID SHIT HEGEL no one cares except that they're vaguely aware of a cartoon where Marx mocks Hegel. When you mock Rand, ten seconds of Wikipedia can back up the mockery enough to cause the person to go mock Rand to someone else, so they can seem like they have complex enough political stances that they have to hate some random bitch with a passion.

[Anonymous No.4188586]

>>4188575

Sure. But what makes her so special that she is practically the only author no one is allowed to discuss, de facto

[Anonymous No.4188603]

>>4188586
Have you read, or tried to read, Atlas Shrugged?

[Anonymous No.4188608]

>>4188603

To tell you the truth, no.

[Anonymous No.4188625]

>>4188608
Do it and all will be revealed.
There's a very peculiar sort of awful, boring ineptitude to every aspect of that book and the ideas within that just makes it intolerable.
I can't really explain it more than that. If you are curious, read it. I guarantee it is not worth the read.

[Anonymous No.4188642]

>"I swear by my life that I shall not live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

This statement causes immense butthurt amongst social egalitarians, collectivists and other would be economic and moral thieves of the world. People who have been brutalized into believing that democracy works, countries exist or that their is inherent virtue in authority, (most notably parents or parental figures) suffer from a great emotional reaction at having the lies of their life become shattered because they've accepted them as the truth.

People who sustain themselves through positions of power and their sycophants; statists and their ivory tower intellectuals respectively, will constantly abhor Rand since the lies and emotional manipulation they put out as truth in order to control people is criticized to a degree which they cannot refute on any meaningful level. You see this with most internet critics who make refutations that are nothing more than conjecture or ad hominems.

[Anonymous No.4188671]

>>4188568
Her literary work, with the exception of Anthem, serves as a promotional platform for her philosophical work, and these literary works are, because of it, highly tedious -- there's a thirty page speech in Atlas Shrugged. They're only passably written in all of their other elements.

Her philosophical work is largely derivative, based on tons of questionable axioms, is vague and potentially self-contradictory, and the rhetoric it is couched in is absolutist and arrogant. The people who adhere to the philosophy do so in a cult-like manner, with a few exceptions.

[Anonymous No.4188677]

>>4188642
>bludging off social externalities
I will tear the tongue from your mouth for living off my words.

[Anonymous No.4188684]

>>4188581
>Really really tedious writing by most accounts. Really really long and takes a long time to get to the point.

Long and tedious is Philosophy 101

[Anonymous No.4188693]

>>4188684
>this is how rand and her robots actually defend objectivism

[Anonymous No.4188698]

>>4188677
It's like you don't even understand what's being said

[Anonymous No.4188709]

>>4188693
>amateurs thinking philosophical ideas can be constructed and conveyed within a few sentences

[Anonymous No.4188729]

>>4188568
>>4188608
So OP, I'm actually reading it right now. I just got to page 1000, and have about 150 left to close it out. I was reading on a more-or-less daily basis, but took a 3 week break when classes started and I had assigned readings again.

I am actually enjoying it, and it is the only book which I have read in public which has sparked people to come up to me and talk to me about it, which happened about 20 or so times. I would say 15 or so of those comments was along the lines of "Oh God, your professor must be a terrible person"

I don't think I've read another book which makes me want to push myself to actually do things more than Atlas, and while it is EXTREMELY onesided in its portrayal of philosophy, I find her view to be interesting, though I don't agree with it. (Especially her thoughts on love)

TLDR; People hate her one-sidedness, but if you look at her ideas, and water them down, the philosophy isn't too bad. She does drag shit out though.

[Anonymous No.4188794]

>>4188568
>why the hate?
Bad philosophy.
>Why does /lit/ single this girl out?
She's the only one who has a legion of drones who can trun /lit/ into /Ayn/ if not dealt with.
>Why is she the only person on the absolute shit tier on this board?
She's not.

[Anonymous No.4188804]

>>4188642
>This statement causes immense butthurt
Not really. This statement alone doesn't make anyone mad. It's the implications of his pro-capitalist ideas what causes butthurt.

[Anonymous No.4188825]

>>4188586
it's because obnoxious internet libertarians love her

[Anonymous No.4188859]

>>4188709
She tried to write her ideas into fiction is the problem. Long-winded philosophy can make for good philosophy but it almost always makes terrible fiction.

[Anonymous No.4188921]

Just bough Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead. Going to give her novels a try.

A lot of the people I know hate her just because its the "in" thing now. Fuck that. Read it and find out yourself.

[Anonymous No.4188974]

>>4188568
Objectivism is cool for the most part and anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism is a good system.
>Government is antiquated and a vestige of the past -- it can't keep track of the billions of microtransactions per day. It is a bastion of inefficiency and corruption. Like it or not as the global economy grows so too will government diminish.
However, objectivism as a life philosophy is terrible and inhuman. She also has weird fatalistic views on love and marriage which are taken to the utilitarian extreme.

[Anonymous No.4189102]

I think it's because it just sucks.

her logical positivism is wrong
her view on human nature is wrong.
her economic view is wrong.
her views on art dumb as fuck.
her rejection of anarchism makes no sense...

I think the reason why I don't and most people sit back and snipe at her is because there's way too many errors, way too many lines of thinking she uses that were better argued from someone else and still for the most part refuted.Also she a interesting character I like making jokes about her wild lifestyle then about her works with have no substance.

[Anonymous No.4189117]

b-but SHE'S A HYPOCRIIIIIITE!

*waves finger*

When someone is revealed to be a hypocrite we can no longer discuss her work rationally and must always tar and feather her by bringing up her personal drama.

[Anonymous No.4189137]

>>4189102
ive never heard rands view on art? what is it?

[Anonymous No.4189178]

>>4189137

the only thing that is art is romantic representational painting,basically.

Which is strange because she doesn't think photography, cinematography are art either however they are far more capable at representation then painting.

[Anonymous No.4189843]

>>4188671
60 pages of speech, actually.

[Anonymous No.4189848]

For twelve years, you have been asking: Who is John Galt? This is John Galt speaking. I am the man who loves his life. I am the man who does not sacrifice his love or his values. I am the man who has deprived you of victims and thus has destroyed your world, and if you wish to know why you are perishing-you who dread knowledge-I am the man who will now tell you.” The chief engineer was the only one able to move; he ran to a television set and struggled frantically with its dials. But the screen remained empty; the speaker had not chosen to be seen. Only his voice filled the airways of the country-of the world, thought the chief engineer-sounding as if he were speaking here, in this room, not to a group, but to one man; it was not the tone of addressing a meeting, but the tone of addressing a mind.

“You have heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis. You have said it yourself, half in fear, half in hope that the words had no meaning. You have cried that man’s sins are destroying the world and you have cursed human nature for its unwillingness to practice the virtues you demanded. Since virtue, to you, consists of sacrifice, you have demanded more sacrifices at every successive disaster. In the name of a return to morality, you have sacrificed all those evils which you held as the cause of your plight. You have sacrificed justice to mercy. You have sacrificed independence to unity. You have sacrificed reason to faith. You have sacrificed wealth to need. You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial. You have sacrificed happiness to duty.

“You have destroyed all that which you held to be evil and achieved all that which you held to be good. Why, then, do you shrink in horror from the sight of the world around you? That world is not the product of your sins, it is the product and the image of your virtues. It is your moral ideal brought into reality in its full and final perfection. You have fought for it, you have dreamed of it, and you have wished it, and I-I am the man who has granted you your wish.

“Your ideal had an implacable enemy, which your code of morality was designed to destroy. I have withdrawn that enemy. I have taken it out of your way and out of your reach. I have removed the source of all those evils you were sacrificing one by one. I have ended your battle. I have stopped your motor. I have deprived your world of man’s mind.

“Men do not live by the mind, you say? I have withdrawn those who do. The mind is impotent, you say? I have withdrawn those whose mind isn’t. There are values higher than the mind, you say? I have withdrawn those for whom there aren’t.

[Anonymous No.4189849]

>>4189848
“While you were dragging to your sacrificial altars the men of justice, of independence, of reason, of wealth, of self-esteem-I beat you to it, I reached them first. I told them the nature of the game you were playing and the nature of that moral code of yours, which they had been too innocently generous to grasp. I showed them the way to live by another morality-mine. It is mine that they chose to follow.

“All the men who have vanished, the men you hated, yet dreaded to lose, it is I who have taken them away from you. Do not attempt to find us. We do not choose to be found. Do not cry that it is our duty to serve you. We do not recognize such duty. Do not cry that you need us. We do not consider need a claim. Do not cry that you own us. You don’t. Do not beg us to return. We are on strike, we, the men of the mind.

“We are on strike against self-immolation. We are on strike against the creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. We are on strike against the dogma that the pursuit of one’s happiness is evil. We are on strike against the doctrine that life is guilt.

“There is a difference between our strike and all those you’ve practiced for centuries: our strike consists, not of making demands, but of granting them. We are evil, according to your morality. We have chosen not to harm you any longer. We are useless, according to your economics. We have chosen not to exploit you any longer. We are dangerous and to be shackled, according to your politics. We have chosen not to endanger you, nor to wear the shackles any longer. We are only an illusion, according to your philosophy. We have chosen not to blind you any longer and have left you free to face reality-the reality you wanted, the world as you see it now, a world without mind.

“We have granted you everything you demanded of us, we who had always been the givers, but have only now understood it. We have no demands to present to you, no terms to bargain about, no compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you.

“Are you now crying: No, this was not what you wanted? A mindless world of ruins was not your goal? You did not want us to leave you? You moral cannibals, I know that you’ve always known what it was that you wanted. But your game is up, because now we know it, too.

“Through centuries of scourges and disasters, brought about by your code of morality, you have cried that your code had been broken, that the scourges were punishment for breaking it, that men were too weak and too selfish to spill all the blood it required. You damned man, you damned existence, you damned this earth, but never dared to question your code. Your victims took the blame and struggled on, with your curses as reward for their martyrdom-while you went on crying that your code was noble, but human nature was not good enough to practice it. And no one rose to ask the question: Good?-by what standard?

[Anonymous No.4189852]

>>4188586
The republican party love her because her work acts as propaganda for small government. Due to this, I think her shit gets taught in schools in the US, which is absolutely insane. I'm pretty sure that is the only reason she comes up so much.

[Anonymous No.4189853]

I think this post by some Anon, while tongue in cheek, summarizes it:

>After all, Vampire rape fantasies are not that different from wealthy industrialist rape fantasies

It's something about the wishful thinking of sweaty fedora that tickles every autistic nerve inside of me and fuels this kind of kneejerk response whenever I see her face. It's a fantasy, it's a power fantasy-- it's reducing the whole complexity of morality and metaphysics into a narrative that simply does not correspond with anything but the aforementioned fedora types' view of the world. it's just 2edgy

[Anonymous No.4189861]

>>4188642
>"Psychopaths rule O.K.!"

Feeling no empathy, altruism or love for your common man is due to a mental deficiency, normally caused by a stunted upbringing, more than often from a lack of care in the first 3 years of life.

This is not to say that people who suffer from psychopathy should be ostracized from society, only that their numbed moral compass should not be help up as some sort of ideal.

TL;DR: Basing your moral beliefs on those of a psychopath is directly analogous to learning spelling from a dyslexic.

[Anonymous No.4189864]

>>4189853
You need to unpack some of that terminology. You are not using the word "fedora" in the normal sense. Honestly, I have no idea what you just said.

[Anonymous No.4189868]

>>4189849
And then the world was a better place.......

[Anonymous No.4189871]

>>4188568
>girl
you keep using this word
i don't think it means what you think it means

[Anonymous No.4189874]

>>4188575
>high profile author
nope, not even in murrrka before late 1980s

>wrote some really bad prose
>really bad
not even close, you want really bad prose just read anything /lit/ writes

[Anonymous No.4189878]

>>4189874
She's pretty huge now in the US of A, though people from other countries only really know about her due to the american political right always going on about her.

Her prose is just as lackluster as her philosophy. The only thing of interest about Rand is how useful her ideas are as ideology for the Republican party.

[Anonymous No.4189881]

>>4189878
such insightful post, doge

wowe

[Anonymous No.4189886]

>>4188568

Because she's popular with horrible people. If you live in the US, you've probably met more than a few of them.

[Anonymous No.4189889]

>>4189886
>tfw not the US
>tfw never heard of her

[Anonymous No.4189904]

>>4189853
At first it looked like you have a point, but then:
>complexity of morality and metaphysics
FUKEN LOLD

[Anonymous No.4189905]

>>4188642
this is what babbies who don't know we choose between bad and worse rather than good and bad, actually think

[Anonymous No.4190039]

>>4188568
/lit/ is dependent on public subsidies

[Anonymous No.4190044]

>>4189904
but it's complex and depend on many factors other than "EGOISM IS RIGHT BECAUSE OF MY ENLIGHTENED DEDUCTION AND SPOOKS ;^)"

i thought freddy N was pretty clear about this, and rand just drags his efforts into the shitters by bastardizing it like this

[Anonymous No.4190057]

Her novels aren't really bad, either. The Fountainhead is very good and Atlas Shrugged has its moments (but in the end it is just too contrived; Fountainhead feels organic in the point it is trying to make, but Atlas you can see the author's hand driving events to happen). The extent of her purple prose is also greatly exaggerated; most of the time, she was very much in control of what her prose was trying to do.

Her philosophy has its problems, but it is not unique in having them. She also had some weird ideas about sex, sure. But having weird-ass/repulsive ideas about a particular is also not unique about her.

So in the end, the only reason she gets the hate she gets among the types that tend to frequent /lit/ is that she has the deadly combination of 1) defending capitalism 2) being unapologetic about it and 3) being popular. Given the leftist hegemony in intellectuality, this can't be left unpunished, and leftists, being leftists, do it in the most degrading way possible.

[Anonymous No.4190079]

I just stumbled upon this:

http://www.fanfiction.net/s/9069622/1/A-Conversation-Between-John-Galt-and-Scrooge-McDuck

[Anonymous No.4190124]

>>4190044
yeah son, it's magic, we ain't gotta explain shit

[Anonymous No.4190142]

>>4190057
Fuck you The Fountainhead is not very good. Its shit. The characters are 2d symbols for her philosophy and thats it. None of them even change save one character, who only had a moment of redemption/change, and that was the only good moment in the book. Only one scene, one sentence.

Out of around 800 pages.

[Anonymous No.4190150]

>>4188568
I dislike this bitch for the objectification of everything that is not measurable.

She tried to argue that love is always selfish while saying that her own ideas can somehow improve humanity as a whole.

She herself was striving to be John Galt. She's the bastard daughter of Nietzsche (übermensch) and Marx (my monies) coated with a thick layer of pretentiousness.

She fell in love with a man, yet convinced herself that she didn't feel anything, it was just her superior reasoning skills telling her that that man was the best man for her.

She discards love as selfish, yet agrees that all men should be free to pursue their own happiness.

The fact that she had to hide all of her cheap philosophy inside a tedious narrative tells you what she is: a flea hiding in the dog's fur, waiting to attack you without your noticing.

She thought humans are superior and therefore have to do as many things as big as possible for as long as possible, thinking only in one outcome: your own particular self-realization.

In this day and age, we have to look a little further than what her views preach.

I haven't read anything of her, because I value my own time.

[Anonymous No.4190152]

Well, personally I consider her the epitome of the cancerous "struggling rebel" meme in western society. And most of the terrible behavior in our society is based on this thought process. There's tons of things wrong with her ideology, but that's a somewhat seperate thing from her character.

She's hated because tards treat her like a prophet while she was a pretty bad person even according to her own standards. While I don't like her for the obvious damage she has inflicted on society I also sympathize with her plight and the shitty life she caused for herself. Her story is pretty sad.

[Anonymous No.4190169]

>>4190142
>The characters are 2d symbols for her philosophy and thats it.

This is what passes for literary criticism nowadays. People can talk of Rand's novels only to say the following:

>hurr rape fantasies
>hurr power fantasies
>hurr purple prose 100-page speeches
>hurr unrealistic supermen

None of those are actually literary discussions. The purple prose one is the closest one, if the ones saying it actually knew what purple prose was. It is a vice that Rand engages in ocasionally, but most of the time her prose is completely purposeful.

For instance, characters being "2D" and "unrealistic" is only a bad thing if you believe that characters HAVE necessarily to be "3D" and "realistic" and that novels HAVE necessarily to be naturalistic descriptions of reality.

Which is, of course, a stupid belief to have.

[Anonymous No.4190176]

>>4190169
>why the hate? Why does /lit/ single this girl out? Why is she the only person on the absolute shit tier on this board? I'm honestly curious. I'm not gonna defend her. I just really want to know.
>literary criticism

you're on the wrong track, m9

[Anonymous No.4190212]

>>4190169
>Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (or rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.

no wonder her caracters were flat and one dimensional.

[Anonymous No.4190247]

>>4189178

OH BOY.
I bet you're one of those guys who thinks that pictures of a urinal on the floor is art.
Or those white canvases.
Because ANYTHING and EVERYTHING is art, right?
Hahahahahaha. That's hilarious. I usually don't use these terms, but top lel.

[Anonymous No.4190255]

>>4190247
>not the fag you were responding to but:
I bet you're one of those guys who thinks art is that easy to define.

[Anonymous No.4190256]

>>4190212
sounds pretty good

a welcome change from the sadomasochistic communist circlejerks here on /lit/

where should i start with her?

[Anonymous No.4190257]

>>4190247
ah, self-irony is better than no self-irony, isn't that right, monsieur?

[Anonymous No.4190259]

>>4190255

I bet you're one of those guys that thinks Italian Sonnet (pic related) is a wonderful piece of art.

[Anonymous No.4190269]

>>4189102
>her rejection of anarchism makes no sense...
Could you summarize it? I want to laugh a bit, but I don't give fucks enough about it to look it up myself.

[Anonymous No.4190275]

>>4188974
>Objectivism is cool for the most part and anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism is a good system.
Except you're wrong. Stop desecrating the word "anarchist" mixing it up with your libertardian bullshit.

[Anonymous No.4190288]

>>4190275
>stop desecrating the word anarchist

boo fucking hoo, what are you gonna do about it, cunt? i'm gonna desecrate your mom's tits with my cum, how about that?

[Anonymous No.4190311]

>>4190169
A work that uses its characters strictly for symbols has a far higher standard to reach than a normal work. A work that is 800 pages long has a far higher standard to reach than a normal work. A work that attempts to persuade its reader of a specific philosophy, directly, has a far higher standard to reach than a normal work.

The Foundtainhead doesnt cut it.

Also, I dont think Rand was attempting to make symbols in place of characters. She was trying to sell her philosophy by showing something realistic. Even if that wasnt her intention, the work isnt able to cut it. The characters as symbols do nothing else than sell her philosophy, there is no other focus or reason for them.

[Anonymous No.4190360]

>>4190247

[Anonymous No.4190379]

she allows idiots to believe that they are the engine of society
in america, by far the most powerful country on the planet, this mentality causes major problems
because america is eating itself the west is declining faster than it would otherwise
thus less reasons for countries such as china to accept the world order that keeps the west in a privileged position
i enjoy being privileged

[Anonymous No.4190390]

>>4188568
she is good preparation for being ruled with an iron fist in appropriately cowed to order fashion. the sense of a deserved place in society is naturally imperative. however, with her limited vocabulary, it would be inadvisable material to anything above a gamma minus; it would certainly impede the communication capacities of a gamma plus with a beta minus and, therefore, overall efficiency.

[Anonymous No.4190543]

She deserves her own article.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

[Anonymous No.4190610]

>>4190247
die

[Anonymous No.4190618]

>>4190610
don't bump your thread with shit like that brah
if you aren't OP, learn to sage

[Anonymous No.4190878]

>>4190150
>She tried to argue that love is always selfish
But it is. It's just a more subtle selfishness.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.4192322]

>>4190039
This.

[Anonymous No.4192332]

"The Fountainhead" is her 'best' work in my opinion, "Atlas Shrugged" being dreck and the others unworthy of note. I actually adore the film with Gary Cooper as Howard Roark and Patricia Neal as Dominique Francon. Nevertheless, like this pictures suggests, in "The Fountainhead" she explicitly writes idiots to be dumbfounded by Roark. At least Aldous Huxley wrote antagonists who were accurate physical representations of ideas he opposed in "Brave New World." Her work as a philosopher would be greatly improved had she actually engaged with other philosophers rather than merely trying to juxtapose (misread) Aristotle, Adam Smith, and Friedrich Nietzsche. She wrote Nietzsche fanfiction which entirely missed the point and basically became Max Stirner for ignorant capitalists. Fans of her work use this as a justification for their selfish behavior. Her characters are strawmen—the exact same stoic businessman with a square face, or the female lead in "Atlas Shrugged" who is a blatant self-insert: beautiful and always right about everything. Her idea of climaxes are monologues, and her prose is uneven and stiff (only competent at best). It is anomalous she became as big as she did at the time, considering her original nationality (Russian), gender, and views. Granted she did write before the renaissance of liberalism during the 70s, but the bourgeois economists had been plugging away on the same ideas for over a hundred years; her ideas were/are the status quo with pseudo-philosophical sprinkles and are not radical in any way. "The Fountainhead" is void of election funding, lobbies, public relations, the CIA working for American enterprise, agricultural subsidies, environmental problems, religion as a Right-wing rather than Left-wing force, et cetera. The pure ideal of capitalism she describes is obstructed by all kinds of humanist/universalist/egalitarian forces. She ignores all the forces on the Right that get in the way of her ideal. It is rather dishonest.

[Anonymous No.4192386]

>>4190255
Art is asymptotic, even when, in other aspects, it is finite

[Anonymous No.4192421]

>>4192332
Man I agree with you on so much but this is one of the worst-written posts I have ever seen

[Anonymous No.4192484]

>>4190079
It's pretty bad.
And the author categorically does not believe extra-terrestrial life exists, and that the omniscient morality license is a thing.

[Anonymous No.4192485]

>>4189861
Watch Dexter

[Anonymous No.4192489]

>>4188729
future internet objectivist captain of industry reporting in

[Anonymous No.4192499]

>>4188794
The objectivists are threatening to overrun /lit/ every day. Better watch out. Make sure you shitpost every thread with any kind of self promotional ideology to hell before seeing any of those fucking objectivists on this board.

[Anonymous No.4192501]

>>4188921
I actually thought The Fountainhead was OK.

[Anonymous No.4192518]

>>4190390
what?

[Anonymous No.4192747]

>>4188709

http://sqapo.com/

[Anonymous No.4192760]

>>4188568
Mostly because some people spammed the shit out of her when the board was new.
Unfortunately our >lol stirner rip-off comments brought about a lot of people who couldn't wait to tell you about the new philosopher they read about in class this week, every week.

[Anonymous No.4192802]

>>4188568
she's nietzsche for plebs

they actually had some similar (stupid) ideas, it's just that Nietzsche knew how to write them in a subtle/eloquent way whereas Ayn just sucked.

[Omar B !xeS.CIM.Jk No.4192926]

>>4188568
I saw a thread yesterday talking about some other philosopher in relation to her. The gist of the thing was that he saw it as glorifying the businessman who are taking bail outs. Clearly this person never read the book because the businessmen who take from the government are the villains.

So I assume most people don't read her but think they have an idea enough to speak on it. You see it in the threads all the time though, completely unfounded ideas based upon what they think is in there.

Or they point out what they think are fallacies. Confusing her personal prejudices with the philosophy. They mention Ayn didn't agree with gay people. But in objectivism it's fine because it's a personal issue that brings none physical or financial harm so doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.4193357]

It's because this board is full of pretentious trust fund babies who never worked a day in their life.

[Anonymous No.4193376]

>>4193357
Rich people? I don't think many richers visit 4chan.

[Anonymous No.4193400]

>>4193376
are you kidding me? it's full of rich people.

[Anonymous No.4193413]

>>4193400
That's why they can afford to shitpost all day?

[Anonymous No.4193448]

>>4193357
wow really good argument there! solid good!! putting aside the fact that trust fundies are exactly the people who stand to benefit from objectivist regimes