Why is this clown taken seriously by so many people, particularly in America?

Why is this clown taken seriously by so many people, particularly in America?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ci-JuKYYZOg
youtube.com/watch?v=mQVrMzWtqgU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

She isn't taken seriously anywhere

You would be surprised

>objectivist philosophy
Because people should be for themselves and not for others.

How long until pointless rand threads get banned?

because her half-baked tenets are more accessible than egoists, utilitarians, etc. not only the her content, but her audience make her influence dangerousl

Explain why Stefmeme Molycuck praises her all the time.

why would I think about that? are you clinically retarded?

visit Silicon Valley sometime.

Sorry, I missed a letter.
>Explains why Stefmeme Molycuck praises her all the time.

Because for them there is no middle ground for anything, they are prey of dichotomies.

don't people like her stories if not her 'philosophy'? i thought atlas shrugged was a good read

she appeals to young, sheltered, middle-class, white, american males.

guess what Veeky Forums's core demographic is.

Outside of your safe-spaces she's not taken seriously at all

...

she's a woman and she's american

also she's basically nietzsche except nothing she says makes middle-class boys uncomfortable

What do you mean by this?

which part

there are few american and female philosophers and america and women are in vogue at the moment

she's a pseudo-egoist in that she turns selfishness into a group virtue, but she also says that all violence and war is wrong, bizarrely

The she's like nieztche but nothing she says makes middle class boys uncomfortable

>all these non- arguments

None of you braindead idiots can refute a part of objectivism, if you tried to argue anyways I guess.

>she's a pseudo-egoist in that she turns selfishness into a group virtue, but she also says that all violence and war is wrong, bizarrely
there, also she doesn't say that suffering is a virtue
there's nothing to refute because it's not a system, just like nietzsche's work

Rand couldn't uphold the tenants of objectivism, otherwise she would have formalised it instead of packaging it into a hack YA novel

>it's not a system

Really now? Better go edit the wiki page, and tell over half a century of debate to pack it up.

what didn't she uphold?

before you say welfare you might want to google 1st before embarrasing yourself.

>better go edit the wiki page
i rest my case

yeah...whatever...she's no marx or anything so i don't see why people get so excited by her.

do you wear a fedora?

she couldn't form it into a coherent philosophy.....it was fodder for bad fiction. If she spouted objectivism in an academic environment she's get torn a new asshole

poor understanding/corruption of positivism, same for egoism, falsely concluding that laissez-faire capitalism naturally follows as a prescription and supports her descriptive effort.

simply wrong on all accounts. people like her, either because they do understand her and are stupid, or they don't understand her, but see her as inspirational and/or are stupid.

>still no arguments in this thread

go to bed stefan

her books were bad, and Veeky Forums is full of leftists what do you expect honestly?

No one here cares enough to argue, or even read rand outside of media hitpieces.

She's not. People who claim to take her seriously are lying cynical fucks, every time.

>Veeky Forums is full of leftists
you must be new here

>still no arguments for this thread that comes up once every two days

Any idiot will be taken seriously somewhere if they say it'll make you better.

they act as containment threads.

great job

She fulfils the ideal of the individual and the self-sustaining, which is the prevailing influence for narcissistic people that predominate in the West

this is an acceptable argument

because she wasnt a fucking communist like all psuedo intellectuals of this dump board, who spend their time trying to impress strangers over the internet over what words they learnt at their last uni lecture.

winrar

Alan Greenspan took her pretty seriously when he was inadvertently accelerating the collapse of capitalism

butthurt: the post

just take a look at the white house. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan reportedly made everybody on his staff read Atlas Shrugged as a requirement. The Head of the Civil Rights office Candice Jackson published many papers supporting libertarianism and analyzing Ayn Rands """philosophy""". It's all quite fitting for a meme presidency.

yet she praised colonialism, supported the vietnam war, and called draft-dodgers cowards lmao, not to mention she was on welfare for half her life.
Why are cuckbertarians so pathetic?

My God Paul Ryan radiates middlebrow dullardness. I bet he eats at Chipotle and shops at J. Crew.

>Ayn Rand
>Comparable to Nietzsche
Haw haw haw

>J. Crew

dude he's a rich republican, I'm sure he only buys Italian shit from Saks when he flies into NYC on his private jet, folksy republicans are so full of shit. Trump is at least a breath of fresh air in the sense that he appeals to folksy people but is out of the closet and unashamed about being rich af

>she's a woman and she's american

uhh, she's a russian jew

Lots of influential politicians take her seriously.

Because she relieves them of their superego by convincing them of the validity of their id, and assuages their conscience by distracting them from the horrific consequences of unbridled self-profiteering.

you realize Alan "Bubbles" Greenspan used to regularly chill at her parties in Manhattan right?

>horrific consequences of unbridled self-profiteering

and these horrific consequences are what exactly?

how about the american health care system?

She wasn't wrong.

The in-group mentality ruins every large movement. A "collective" can corrupt and abuse a good cause, turn it into mush and use it as an excuse for other bad behavior while never really doing much to help said original cause in the first place. The psychology behind this and the human need to be accepted by the group is all pervasive in our society, yet most of you supposed "intelligent" people never even talk about it because you yourselves indulge in it and your demagogues utilize it. This I think is in part why Ayn Rand peeves your posteriors so. She really touched a nerve, utterly tearing apart your most heartfelt beliefs in a single stroke.

The funny thing is she isn't even that talented. The only reason she became famous was because you left yourselves wide open and all she had to do was fill the niche in the market like one of her plucky entrepreneur characters undercutting a cartel. I don't agree with everything she says but I think her notoriety is great, she really makes people think.

You don't need collectivism to cooperate with other people, the group ceases to serve the people once it becomes collectivist because of the extremism and cult-like behavior, it functions when it is full of individualists willing to scrutinize leaders. Society is a spook but we are individuals, it is just a more realistic view of the world. Individualism is the way to go. Individual rights achieve much more than a "people's republic".

Of course she wasn't wrong.
Why do you think Zizek is so interested in her?
When the 2008 crash happened, he wrote an article saying that it was caused by John Galt. He sees the truth.

People look down on Rand or put down her books but no one I met in real life can ever name anything as good or better. most people either never actually read Rand, don't understand it or they can't get past seeing mirror images of themselves being portrayed as villains.

She gave people an excuse for being greedy and unsympathetic under a guise of intellectualism, just like how Marx gave people an excuse for stealing and murdering because like it was totally yours man.
People aren't so much influenced as they are justified.

Not soon enough.

I don't get that from Rand at all. If anything I get a message of meritocracy. Don't use charity and selflessness as an excuse to feel superior or a reason to expect what hasn't been earned. Don't give a man a fish, teach him to fish and then get by on his skill as a fisherman. You can be charitable as long as you are doing it for selfish reasons....to make yourself feel good but not so you can look down on or control another person.

I read Atlas shrugged in its entirety when I was a teenager. My guess is most of the people who laugh at her haven't ever picked up a book by her.

Why do that? Jon Stewart already told you that she was crazy and evil and them books is long.

They were banned for years when Veeky Forums started

...and to elaborate, I don't consider myself a Randian or Objectivist, but I still respect her as a critical thinker and a brave person.

That's the fault of the people, not Rand herself.
She hated crony capitalism, she hated religion yet the people that praise her name the loudest are all for that.

The only thing Rand argued heavily was meritocracy. The problem with her is that she idealizes master morality, and pursuing your dreams. Essentially telling psychopaths 'do whatever, find your dreams so long as you don't harm others physically' and there's only so much a philosophy can do to stop people from doing that. When you romanticize capitalism and an Apollonian mind to that extent as an ideal to pursue, it's obvious that some people will keep that sense of superiority without doing the work,

Trump isn't even middlebrow, he's full-blown lowbrow. I'm pretty convinced that's why Trump connects with the working class so well. I mean, he likes his steak well done and he plates everything in gaudy gold. Trump is exactly what the average working-class American would be like if they were a billionaire. Trump relates to them because he IS them.

Rand produced a clear example of how western socialism works, although with some cut corners.

To trash her completely just means you're a communist faggot, but she isnt perfect either

the amount of nothing you say here is quite something

>fascist healthcare, decades of regulation
>crony capatilism

these are exactly what she preached against you dumb mongoloids

Rand's #1 fans are ancaps

And we are getting sick of her views being misrepresented and all the strawmans.

youtube.com/watch?v=ci-JuKYYZOg

What did he mean by this?

>Clown

>((( )))

Ayn Rand was a hypocrite, and so are all her supporters. Libertarian rhetoric against "crony capitalism" is just that, rhetoric.

She let her family starve in the countryside while she enjoyed theater and education in the urban centres, both for free and was guerenteed by the government, something that Jews and women were prevented from attending (and for free at that) prior to the October Revolution.

She spent her whole life a parasite, never working a day in her life, leeching of her wealthy patrons, but as time grew on and when the people she associated with grew tired of her leeching of them, she spent the rest of her life on social security,

So is it no surprise that her followers are just as hypocritical? Those big fucking corporations that suck the money out of the government are almost always free-market liberals, if not outright Randroids. Every single Libertarian organization in America (and by that I mean EVERY SINGLE ONE) is supported by the Koch brothers, who themselves rake in tens of millions of dollars of subsidies from the US government. If they truly cared, instead of pushing for legislation to curb this, instead they push for definancing if not outright getting rid of the very social institutions that tens, if not hundreds, of millions (MILLIONS) of Americans need to survive in today's world

It's past your bed time.

You ever heard of the saying give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish, he'll eat for life? Instead of constructing decent social institutions of government, instead cut corners on everything, and pour that money into those precious subsidies. These barely functioning institutions require more long-term investment to put bandages on their delapidation rather than fix problems so that they don't require as much investment later. Think about it like this, you spend ten dollars on something shitty that lasts a month, or you could buy something seventy bucks for something that could last longer than a year. By year's end, you'd of spent 120 bucks compared to the 70.

If the Koch brothers ilk really cared about this, they'd advocate for directing away subsidies to corporations (who honestly don't need it) and investing that into constructing quality institutions that directly affect everyday people's lives. But they don't, because they don't really want to cut government spending. In the end, all they wanna cut for government spending would be what could cut into their precious profits, because ultimately all what matters to idiot corporate libertarians is just that - profit.

Also Ayn Rand's metaphysics are complete garbage.

Because her philosophy actually makes sense and is compatible with american values. It's literally just work hard, earn your keep and don't be a fucking leech. No wonder so many whiney brats get pissy when she's brought up.

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll eat for life. Make him teach himself how to fish, everyone wins.

>Why is this clown taken seriously by so many people
By definition, those aren't people.

top 10 modern-library reader's picks for best books
(the modern library critics list is pretty good in contrast)

ATLAS SHRUGGED
by Ayn Rand
THE FOUNTAINHEAD
by Ayn Rand
BATTLEFIELD EARTH
by L. Ron Hubbard
THE LORD OF THE RINGS
by J.R.R. Tolkien
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD
by Harper Lee
1984
by George Orwell
ANTHEM
by Ayn Rand
WE THE LIVING
by Ayn Rand
MISSION EARTH
by L. Ron Hubbard
FEAR
by L. Ron Hubbard
ULYSSES
by James Joyce
CATCH-22
by Joseph Heller

My only issue with Rand is that she seems to be obsessed with escaping the necessity of an "other", but she measures the success of such an action by a relation to an other or by the reaction of an other.

Which is pretty much my problem with all individualists I've encountered so far. I don't claim to know them all, I'm just stating that's been my experience.

STEM retards are irrelevant

>the people who allow you to shitpost on the internet are irrelevant
>the people who will develop the medicine that allows you to live through your inevitable failing health are irrelevant
>the people who could potentially develop the technology that ends humanity or saves it from itself are irrelevant
>the people who develop the only form of communication that is fast enough to spread a philosophers knowledge to the masses and actually accomplish anything with that work beyond academics furiously masturbating in university closets to their own intellect are irrelevant

Man, I wish I had the kind of insight into society and culture that you do.

People make their own excuses for being greedy and unsympathetic - Rand just wanted people to acknowledge that much of the good and bad they do is done for their own sake. You do good by others because it pleases you, so it's an action bound in your own egotistical and selfish need.

Most people are scum, doing good in places where not much effort is needed and not much beneficial is done. They say "oh, what a terrible thing that people starve to death and are bombed to pieces" and then they'll switch the channel and forget all about it, because they don't REALLY give a shit. They just want to posture as moral people because it makes them feel good.

Very few humans are truly doing "good", and Rand claimed that even this altruism was spawned from the ego's need to be pleased

What I meant was, their opinion on philosophy is irrelevant. They treat Rand like a motivating self-help author.

Who in life takes you seriously, OP?

Why is so hard to understand what she really means.
>youtube.com/watch?v=mQVrMzWtqgU

because she triggers Marxists almost as well as Stirner did, and it's fucking hilarious

"Objectivist" Randfags acts the same as spookfags and nietzsche edgelords. Same demographic, same attitude.