What is it about Rand that triggers Veeky Forums so hard...

>Reminder she accepted social security.

What a stupid fucking statement, fag.

yeah after paying into it her whole life. dumbass

Because being a philosopher or intellectual is more or less worthless in a free market economy. So natural these people are going to want to receive more for their "talents". They feel like they deserve credit for expressing such intelligent thoughts and that they should be rewarded by society.

She gets so much hate because she is so correct. People get mad because when they read her books, the truth is undeniable, it's powerful, so their only reaction is vociferous, passionate hate and ridicule. They see that Ayn Rand is basically calling them evil for thinking her message is ridiculous, and in their hearts they know she is correct, and they hate being called evil.

she could have tried to understand architecture, quarrying, railway operations, and self sufficient farming practices before writing about them. about the only thing she got right was marble fireplaces are cold to get raped on.

Nobody says you don't have the right to be a hypocrite, but don't get buttmad when called out on your hypocrisy.

Ayntologists seem more triggered by this

She is the definition of pseud "Veeky Forums"
She literally can't write (or think for that matter)
She is only read today because some political currents thought they could use her ideas and people fall for it
She is a meme

>Mental gymnastics.

Writting skill: bad
Political view: radical
View of reality: rational-objective
Other shit: saying ecologism is a meme for example

this is why she is so plebed by everyone, but she is actually rigth, and that triggers the shit out of them

>communist
>state
try again

She's just a spooked and inferior stirner

Why is it always Jews who come up with most vicious, sociopathic ideologies?

I don't hate her. I'm reading Atlas Shrugged right now, and I don't necessarily like her righting, but I have no reason to hate her. It's important to read what everyone has to say, even if you don't necessarily like their ideology; it's the reason I've read Marx and the Qur'an too. Trying to attach a single person to be the figure head of a movement, for the sake of criticizing that movement usually doesn't work out well; it would be like trying to argue against Peronism by bringing up the holocaust. It's nonsensical, and juvenile.

Most of the sperging out seems to be over people who just use her as a meme, and not as an actual author.

I love Rand. Liberals and "moderates" hate her because she shows that the logical conclusion of supporting capitalism is inhumane oppression and putting value where there is none. They don't want to give up their cushy first world priveleges, but they also want to be the good guys, and she makes them smell their own bullshit. No one likes being exposed as a hypocrite. Used the right way, Rand is top tier socialist pedagogical lit.

My biggest problem with her is that she fails to answer the question of the underclass. Her enemies are always looter socialist or progressive Elites, not the plebs. Yet it is the plebs that clamor for socialist policies. And no Eddie Willers does not suffice to explain this problem away. Furthermore, what about the leeches who are not of their own volition? The infirm elderly, the disabled and retarded, the orphans demonized with the conversion of roarks temple, and addicts/mentally ill. I have no problems with a small non-predatory state, but there have to be nets and she just doesnt touch on these well.

It's a combination of this and being a homo about reality and the nature of man.

It's easier in intellectual circles to be a hopeless fucking wanker than to bring real talk

Faggot

>I have no problems with a small non-predatory state, but there have to be nets and she just doesnt touch on these well.
The idea is, if you get out of the way, people will be more charitable. In an Objectivist utopia, there's enough philanthropy to cover the small amount of people who cannot or will not work. The key is no one is forced to support these people. They must rely on the free goodwill of others.

Seems pretty simply until you realize there are cities that prohibit feeding the homeless. Yes, there are city managers making it illegal for an individual with a home to give food to an individual without a home.

The state very much wants to be the sole benefactor of the people. This way individuals have no power and the state has all the power.

Capitalists completely ignore the huge volume of people who can work, want to work, are currently working their asses off, and are still trapped in destitution.

Randians have this completely childish worldview, that the country consists of (1) working people who are doing fine, (2) poor people who don't want to work, and (3) poor people who can't work, and we need to help group (3) by directing them to private charities and help group (2) by making them poorer so they work harder.

Progressives are concerned about group (4): people who are working their asses off and still living pathetically awful lives. And no, it's not the state's fault, and no, they can't all start businesses. Randians pretend group (4) doesn't exist. Or worse, they think group (4) does exist, and it's the core charming narrative of the country that you have to be a borderline slave and make no mistakes in order for your grandkids to live a remotely comfortable life and that's somehow a beautiful system we need to maintain.

Beautiful post

>(4): people who are working their asses off and still living pathetically awful lives
nice meme. show me these people. they are probably the victims of their own foolish choices. debt, kids, mcmansions, all this shit hobbles people because they don't think through their financial decisions.

i have worked minimum wage and just north of minimum wage and it is very doable if you don't fall into the trap of car payments, excessive rent and bank overdrafts.

if you can't play ball, keep your money in a mattress or a coffee can and budget with a piece of scrap paper. whatever it takes. people need to be responsible for their shit and stop expecting mini-bailouts.

Most people simply don't understand Objectivism, or at best they have a surface-level understanding. I'm sure there are people who have even read the novels that didn't get it. Critics almost never delve into her non-fiction and most criticisms from the Left tend to attack Ayn Rand the person, and not her ideas. Try keeping a tally sometime, it's remarkable.

Objectivism is difficult to attack in any way except muh greed. It is a citadel on a hill.

Weak and beta specimen are triggered by alpha trait.

Yeah, just ignore that the system relies on excessive consumerism or it collapses. If everyone suddenly became 'responsible' the economy would crash

I have 4 major problems with her:
1) Perception is clearly an incomplete and indirect means of interpreting reality.
2) Pursuit of happiness is pursuit of an irrational and subjective emotional state.
3) If an individual's life comes before all values they should not be expected to subject themselves to reason or Objectivism, especially when their life is in danger.
4) Romantic realism is an oxymoron

Neet-chan>Stirner>>>>>>>>>>>Anne Rind

What's with Veeky Forums having far and away the worst analogies of all time?

You can't believe in keeping your own money if you accept a fraction of your own money back from the people who stole it from you

That one isn't very Veeky Forums-like. More like something you'd read in the imgur comments section.

>If everyone suddenly became 'responsible' the economy would crash
almost like capitalism isnt sustainable in an educated and intelligent society...
really makes you thunk

>implying they shouldn't be

lol your not getting the point, the end of atras strugled is tha biggest economic crash, being the consecuence of atlas strugling.
the fucking idea is to destroy the actual economy if its necesary, merly cebause of moral reasons.

Philosophers can be "rewarded" when they come to a consensus on anything. It's been 2400 years and all you have is "Aristotle made mistakes and we're still figuring out what the next steps are"

Philosophers can be rewarded when they write a book that has any effect on the reader without starting a war

this is what happens when somebody read the novel but ignores the main philosophy of something. every one of your problems has nothing to do with objetivism

Prove to me those select categories of people make up the poor. Prove to me how making a few bad choices in your life equates to deserving to be punished for the rest of your life.

I find it so fucking hilarious and facetious of libertarians to criticize the Soviet Union and Socialism for producing mass misery, and yet when they're called out on their bullshit of capitalism being this magical device that provides for everyone's needs, and then immediately fall back on just world hypothesis when proved wrong.

They have made progress, you're just too blind and arrogant to see otherwise; and you're judging philosophy on the standards of science.

>not Aynocologists

She literally died in public housing collecting money via medicaid checks. If you got back what you put into social security, how would it be theft? The entire program only works because people get back more than they put in because not everyone cashes in on it. There is no way around it, Rand took money from the state. It wasn't her money. It wasn't just what she paid into. The state's money helped her live, and she gladly accepted it like the hypocritical coward she was.

>What is it about Rand that triggers Veeky Forums so hard?
her writing is bad

ignoring all the political shit; she is a terrible writer, and this is supposed to be a literature board

Do frogposters realise that their trolling does nothing but push us ever closer to a censored internet. Frogposters play into every cliche about abuses of the internet, and lawmakers are going to make examples out of this whole community because of them.

headshot

I AM OP
AND I AM HERE TO ASK YOU A QUESTION
IS A MAN NOT ENTITLED TO 20 MONSTER DICKS IN AND AROUND HIS MOUTH?

Could you at least enlighten me on how I'm wrong, or does doing so not offer you enough material benefit?

She doesn't trigger me at all. Atlas Shrugged is very effective propaganda for a kind of Neo-Nietzschean superman theory, or Social Darwinism.

The book is interesting, in it's own radically ideological way. It's like reading the right-wing equivalent of Noam Chomsky.

Progress towards what? Away from what?

Philosophy is the only field whose members get mad when outsiders ask anything. People who study dolphins fucking love to talk about dolphins and all the cool things being discovered about dolphins. Imagine being in a field like that instead of having to be mad all the time because you are studying without learning anything

Is this ironic?

Or perhaps because you're encapsulating thousands of years of human discourse and reasoning in a superficial glance: like many writhing little modern nihilistic wieners. If it bothers you then ignore it. Nobody's asking you to ponder things you obviously don't comprehend nor care to.

you would understand if you read her
damn, you would know just by watching youtube videos of her conferences

>they are probably the victims of their own foolish choices
This. If you can't afford kids, don't have them. Cancel the cable, settle for a pre-paid flip phone, and quit your expensive habits. I see people living in shit trailers with two shiny new cars in front of them. I see people flushing all their money down the toilet buying lottery tickets, cigarettes, and fast food.
I fail to see why we should subsidize that behavior.

>their bullshit of capitalism being this magical device that provides for everyone's needs
I've literally never heard anyone claim that. The upside of capitalism is that everyone has an opportunity, not a guarantee.

What, so we should give them money for...what, exactly? Saying they deserve more money?