|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:How is responding to Irish Joe still a thing? And if I recall correctly, they have since distanced themselves from her horseshit.
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
I've finally gotten around to playing the first Bioshock, seven years after it came out, and holy God is it a great indictment of Rand and her oddly contagious strain of sociopathic horseshit. The difference between her and Andrew Ryan is that Ryan at least has a sense of aesthetics. e: Ithle01 posted:edit: VVV This guy makes a good point. I've been persuaded and I repent. That's part of it, I think. The other part of it is that Republicans in the 1980's wanted to claim their shitheadedry had some sort of philosophical underpinnings beyond pure nihilistic hedonism, so they cited Rand a lot and prayed that people wouldn't actually read her books. Majorian fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
I think many Americans in high school had at least one of her books assigned for English class. Mine was "Anthem", and I knew even then it was a lovely book. And I wasn't a hard person to impress. Things considered, it's probably better off that people learn about her in high school so they can figure out on their own it's poo poo before their "freshmen political science major" phase in college. I often get the impression the biggest Randtards were people who were never exposed to her poo poo and suddenly just discovered her in college.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Irish Joe finally explicitly outing himself as a shithead Randian objectivist is literally the least surprising thing ever
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted:So, how is Ayn Rand still a thing? Anyone have their own pet suggestions? I'm going to go with the name being the biggest pusher. She had a very strong cult of personality following her. Combined with the fact that she died relatively recently, it makes sense that mixing up her ideas with the idealization of her still exists a few decades later. It's probably also why there's never been any serious attempt to retool or reform the philosophy of objectivism. Belief in Ayn Rand requires a certain dogmatic approach to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
She's "still a thing" because no one actually gives a poo poo about political philosophy or ideology except as labels and symbols, and Ayn Rand has been grandfathered in as shorthand for I Like Capitalism. No one gives a poo poo about the contents of The Fountainhead just like no one gives a poo poo about the Bible. People have been claiming to love Jesus and Mammon equally for a lot longer than Rand's been around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 08:05
|
|
|
I think it's rather funny how Americans are attracted to Rand while noone in the rest of the world has heard of her or does really care about objectivism. There is little novel thought in her novels and why the gently caress would you look for your world view in(what I assume based on the comments people made here and the synopsis on wikipedia, never read that poo poo myself) really bad romantic novels/mommy porn?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 09:21
|
|
|
Ayn Rand is no different in this regard from any other political philosopher/writer with a following. She's still a thing because influential people agree with her basic message in the form they received it; from her best known and most accessible works. Most of the time people are willing to overlook specific, subordinate points of disagreement along with any unfortunate personal opinions expressed by the Master outside of his or her major works (eg. in letters, interviews and suchlike). The segment was weak because it felt muddled and rushed. If the point was to show that her followers are either hypocrites or ignorant of her philosophy, they should probably have spent more than ten seconds on that. Instead they just crammed it in with what appears to be the real point of the segment; that Ayn Rand was a bad person and that certain leading businessmen and republicans are petulant, selfish assholes. I agree with both of those points, but I don't think the show made them very well and I can't say I understand what they hope to achieve by reminding an exclusively liberal audience of these facts. That leads to my main problem with shows like this: they only ever seem to cover stories where they're absolutely sure that their bosses and target audience are in 100 % agreement with them, and that neither will be offended by what they have to say. Since this is the case they never have to work very hard to make their case, they don't take any risks and they only have something (apparently) original to add to a topic when it's a story that the rest of the media ignore. This segment is a good case in point. I understand that this is a minority opinion, but I still have to ask what people get from shows like this. John Oliver is funny, but I think his talent is wasted here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
Sakarja posted:Ayn Rand is no different in this regard from any other political philosopher/writer with a following. She's still a thing because influential people agree with her basic message in the form they received it; from her best known and most accessible works. Most of the time people are willing to overlook specific, subordinate points of disagreement along with any unfortunate personal opinions expressed by the Master outside of his or her major works (eg. in letters, interviews and suchlike). It's a comedy show for making me laugh. I laughed, because I am the target audience. I think that counts as a win for the show.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
Ayn Rand's philosophy is useful as a placeholder, since there haven't been any famous not-crazy philosophers playing the devil's advocate against socialism for a long time now. It's really fitting that everything about her falls apart on closer examination, since it goes to show that there aren't really any overarching philosophical underpinnings to capitalism like there are for communism. Capitalism is just what ended up happening over time. And seeing as how we're still talking about it, they must've done something right with the segment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Sakarja posted:The segment was weak because it felt muddled and rushed. It was rushed. He had just spent half the episode discussing our government's drone program and how little we understand about it. Ayn Rand doesn't deserve that much effort, why is Rand even still a thing? The light-heartedness went right past you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 17:54
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Ayn Rand's philosophy is useful as a placeholder, since there haven't been any famous not-crazy philosophers playing the devil's advocate against socialism for a long time now. It's really fitting that everything about her falls apart on closer examination, since it goes to show that there aren't really any overarching philosophical underpinnings to capitalism like there are for communism. Capitalism is just what ended up happening over time. Well, there haven't been that many famous philosophers. If you want to find a case against socialism it's probably better to look for economists (e.g. FA Hayek, "Road to Serfdom"). I believe that the two virtues of Rand are 1) she has a much wider appeal because of her followers work in distributing her novels to schools for free and 2) she makes a much easier target to ridicule.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
I had no problems with either the drone segment or the Ayn Rand bit. I thought both were well-done, informative, funny and completely loving horrifying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
The only problem with the segment is Rand really isn't a thing at all. Libertarians get what, half a percent of the popular vote in most elections, even at the local level when they bother to field a candidate? The parts of conservatism which coincide with Rand's views have deeper roots in the early industrial origins of the Republican party. Grinding the poor into dust for fun and profit predates some dumb lady mad that she can't live in the USSR no more. If you want to know why Ayn Rand isn't a thing it's because these are the only people who take her seriously: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAITnMv1j8Q Alec Bald Snatch fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
That unfortunately is just not true. Many republicans in congress today are followers and pushers of randian ideals. It's hardly the fringe. Examples: Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Mitch McConnel, Michelle Bachman... Paul Ryan encouraged his entire staff to read her books and even gave them each Atlas Shrugged as a christmas present (I'd rather get tube socks) Ted Cruz read some Ayn Rand before and after green eggs and ham at his little Obamacare sit in. GutBomb fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:That unfortunately is just not true. Many republicans in congress today are followers and pushers of randian ideals. It's hardly the fringe. See also this cocksucker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan#Objectivism
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Ayn Rand's philosophy is useful as a placeholder, since there haven't been any famous not-crazy philosophers playing the devil's advocate against socialism for a long time now. It's really fitting that everything about her falls apart on closer examination, since it goes to show that there aren't really any overarching philosophical underpinnings to capitalism like there are for communism. Capitalism is just what ended up happening over time. I don't think they were playing devil's advocate, or that they defined themselves by their oppostion to socialism. And a champion of capitalism would happily admit that its development has been spontaneous and organic. But I think they see that as a strenght rather than a weakness. And it doesn't seem to to have anything to do with Ayn Rand. People who attack her always seem to focus on her personal life and opinions, rarely if ever on the actual content of Objectivism. Here again the segment is a good case in point. But seeing as how we're still also talking about Ayn Rand, we could just as well say that she must've done something right. I'd rather not. GaussianCopula posted:Well, there haven't been that many famous philosophers. If you want to find a case against socialism it's probably better to look for economists (e.g. FA Hayek, "Road to Serfdom"). I believe that the two virtues of Rand are 1) she has a much wider appeal because of her followers work in distributing her novels to schools for free and 2) she makes a much easier target to ridicule. Right, and those who actually became famous did so by self-promotion and successfully popularizing their message. As for the interviews, people want to hear things that flatter or outrage them (or, as with this type of show, be flattered through collective outrage) and Ayn Rand was good at both.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:See also this cocksucker
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Greenspan was an actual legitimate Rand disciple. Sat in on book meetings with her at her apartment and everything. He also wanted get in the sack with Rand but ended in the ol' friendzone
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Sakarja posted:People who attack her always seem to focus on her personal life and opinions, rarely if ever on the actual content of Objectivism. Here again the segment is a good case in point. What about attacking her hypocrisy and her selfish, childlike opinions is not part and parcel to objectivism? It is literally her terrible opinions and nothing more. You can argue that her hypocrisy isn't inconsistent with the philosophy, if you deign to call it that, but it's still relevant. She rode the red scare for all it was worth and now 30 years after she died rich white manchildren buy into her bullshit because it allows them to internally justify their privilege and FYGM attitudes. Are you an Irish Joe parachute account?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
IRQ posted:What about attacking her hypocrisy and her selfish, childlike opinions is not part and parcel to objectivism? It is literally her terrible opinions and nothing more. You can argue that her hypocrisy isn't inconsistent with the philosophy, if you deign to call it that, but it's still relevant. She rode the red scare for all it was worth and now 30 years after she died rich white manchildren buy into her bullshit because it allows them to internally justify their privilege and FYGM attitudes. All that is fine, of course. But what's the point? It doesn't answer the question why she's still a thing (or do anyhing to change it), and it has no bearing on her philosophy. This isn't particular to Ayn Rand, nor is it defending her. The same could be said of any popular political philosopher. It's always possible to find evidence of hypocrisy and discrepancies between what's practiced and what's preached. But that has no bearing on their doctrines. To say that it does would be magical thinking. That's why I think the segment was weak and pointless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 10:12
|
|
|
It was an interstitial segment to replace an adbreak, lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 11:09
|
|
|
Sakarja posted:All that is fine, of course. But what's the point? It doesn't answer the question why she's still a thing (or do anyhing to change it), and it has no bearing on her philosophy. This isn't particular to Ayn Rand, nor is it defending her. The same could be said of any popular political philosopher. It's always possible to find evidence of hypocrisy and discrepancies between what's practiced and what's preached. But that has no bearing on their doctrines. To say that it does would be magical thinking. That's why I think the segment was weak and pointless. The reason we're batting this question around ties in with the weird little purity tests that have developed in and around the Tea Party, which has been doing a dandy little business of throwing vetted-by-the-establishment candidates (often long-standing incumbents) under the bus for what would usually appear to be slight differences of opinion. Any softness or nuance on button issues is just cause. So the whole thing becomes more of a "conservatives' internal consistency vs. Rand's" question. It's possible this didn't happen with Rand for the same reason that Thomas Paine hasn't been disallowed for some of the stuff he cooked up in The Age Of Reason--they're both dead, dead, dead, and when a person isn't around to be a breathing contradiction to some of your core beliefs, you can pick and choose what to take from them. And in a way, that's how it should be, but apparently these days that's only a luxury you get after you're dead. There's always an Option B, and in this case it's the likelihood that Main Street voters really don't give a poo poo where all of these theories come from as long as they get a decent payday. At a time when a lot of people don't read another book after graduation, each one of the Atlas Shrugged movies has performed more miserably than the last, which is some heavy-duty disregard for the invisible hand of the marketplace on the part of the producer. Exclamation Marx posted:It was an interstitial segment to replace an adbreak, lol We sure got a lot of mileage out of it, didn't we? EasyEW fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Oct 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
If you don't follow the show's Twitter, you probably should. They post a lot of great graphs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:If you don't follow the show's Twitter, you probably should. They post a lot of great graphs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 10:22
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:I get the feeling that after a certain point there should be a drastic dropoff, because once you have so many hounds it's probably less because you're crazy wealthy and more because you're some deranged junkyard supervisor Don't you know? Deranged junkyard supervisors make the megabucks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 19:37
|
|
JT Jag posted:I get the feeling that after a certain point there should be a drastic dropoff, because once you have so many hounds it's probably less because you're crazy wealthy and more because you're some deranged junkyard supervisor But you can't "release" those hounds on anyone because they just live on your junkyard.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Was the show on last night?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 11:30
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Was the show on last night? The twitter account certainly claims it, but found nothing yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 12:13
|
|
|
Yeah, it was on. The two main topics were the Hong Kong protests, and corrupt police using byzantine search and seizure laws to steal people's private property.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 12:15
|
|
|
The long segment (about Civil Forfeiture) is online on youtube.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 12:15
|
|
|
Detective Jeff Goldblum interrogating $2,500 worth of cash was magnificent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 12:17
|
|
|
Brian Williams is a goddamn national treasure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
That Columbus bit reminded me of Hari Kondabolu's Totally Biased rant. But Kondabolu instead suggested Joe DiMaggio as an alternative. It was still alright. The more people casually pointing out that we have no real reason for Columbus Day, the better. That Law & Order sketch does make me think (but not for the first time) what role cop shows play in legitimizing law enforcement with sympathetic characters. With all the stories (and statistics) of cops using excessive force and generally abusing their power, it'd be nice to have a network show portray cops in a more complicated light.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
The more I hear these days, the more I think The Shield may have been one of the more accurate cop shows.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Chamberk posted:The more I hear these days, the more I think The Shield may have been one of the more accurate cop shows. I hope somewhere in America there is a cop going around unironically using the line "Good Cop and Bad Cop went home for the day. I'm a different kind of cop."
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
This episode was the best yet at exposing a horrible aspect of American life yet keeping you laughing through it. That's tough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Chamberk posted:The more I hear these days, the more I think The Shield may have been one of the more accurate cop shows. Actually, yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_scandal
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
You know the ONE quote from Jeff Goldblum's long and illustrious career I would've loved for him to, with the context being as it is, reprise? GODDAMN RICH oval office! I KILL RICH CUNTS!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 11:58
|
|