Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 13 January 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>, <3>, <4>, <5>

, (new)(back)

Heh! Heh! I've got my Horsewhip! (and it works!) SJG^sjg 16:54, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Flirty! Moi! SJG^sjg 17:06, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

DP is very sexually repressed. Perhaps more so than Andy Schlafly, who likely thinks that the stork brought his children.-αmεσ (!) 17:11, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Heh! Heh! I've still got my Horsewhip! (and two pairs of handcuffs!!) SJG^sjg 18:18, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Um, this article sucks goat sausages. The plot of Atlas Shrugged is not the plot of all her novels. The others suck for different reasons. Massive rewrite to follow shortly. human^{be in} 18:31, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Did Frank Loyd Write ever blow up somebody else's property because he didn't like how it looked? I think that's a rather notable element of The Fountainhead, that the "hero" commited what today would be terrorism. Garble 14:01, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Wright sucked as an architect. He built according to his own theoretical and aesthetic standards, and not according to practical considerations like putting a roof on a house that didn't leak. He made the ceilings too low to humiliate tall people, he ran over budget, his faulty designs need expensive maintenance, etc. Falling Water deserved demolition as a safety hazard decades ago.Advancedatheist (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

But don't you understand? It was HIS building. He designed it, and they ruined it! He had the right!

Wow, sorry about that...flashback to high school. I'm going to have to go read some real philosophy (or maybe a good poli sci journal) to purge that. Researcher 14:11, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

At least little Alex didn't blow up the Tour d'Eiffel after "they" put fake arches under the first section so people would think it was safe... too bad they haven't removed them, though. human 15:13, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Interesting. Actually I'm just reading Alan Greenspan's The Age of Turbulence. As a young man he seems to have been impressed by her. But it's not all bad - he thought Clinton was pretty good as well.--Bob^{bing up} 14:15, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Impressed? Wasn't he deeply fixated? And, yes, Clinton was the last good Republican president of the US. human 15:55, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Sometimes I do tend towards understatement.--Bob^{bing up} 16:06, 31 January 2008 (EST)

What's with the quotation marks?

You don't agree with her so her philosophy, literature, and fans are all fake? Lurker 14:28, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Well, Andrew Schlafly is a crackpot, we don't agree with him, and we put all his beliefs in quotes (e.g. Conservapedia is an "encyclopedia"). Ayn Rand was a crackpot, and we don't agree with her, therefore we should put all her "beliefs" in quotes. -- ^seulcnamuħ   15:38, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Two wrongs don't make a right. (But three lefts do).

Jokes aside, these are two differen't situations. It's Andy's opinion that his blog is an encyclopedia, even though it's really a blog. Rand's philosophy, literature and fans aren't opinion they are actual things. Lurker 16:02, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Well, the fans are real, anyway. human 16:33, 31 January 2008 (EST)

They are all real, but the fans are still called "the fans". Lurker 16:46, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Not any more, they aren't. Oh, and her "philosophy" is not philosophy, and her "literature" most certainly is not literature - popular and selling well, yes. Literature, no. human 18:20, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Is this for any reason other than you just don't agree with them? I'm guessing no. Lurker 20:23, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Certainly. Philosophers come up with new thoughts or approachs. Rand's entire "philosophy' is a moralised rephrasing of "greed is good", the very oldest philosophy --Ebon 11:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

"Yes" - students of philosophy don't get fed her drivel, and students of English literature are not made to suffer her bad novels. And I agree with a lot of what she says. Trouble is, some parts of it are so terribly, well, stupid. human 22:05, 31 January 2008 (EST)

That's a pretty piss poor rubric. Bad philosophy is still philosophy, and bad literature is still literature. Lurker 22:36, 31 January 2008 (EST)

I'll take my case as made, based on your comment. "Bad" deserves the q marks. human 23:47, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Let's face it: you were probably going to take your case as made anyway, it was just a matter of when. I'll keep to my own standards, however, and not add quotations marks where in other articles if I think other people have bad [fill in the blank]. Lurker 23:52, 31 January 2008 (EST)

No, you gave up the argument and made my case with "bad" lit. and "bad" philo. Do you expect me to keep making a case when you have made it for me? human 00:14, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I never actually said it was bad philosophy, you did, and I said that bad philosophy is still philosophy. That doesn't matter, because even if I had agreed that it was bad philosophy, in order to be bad philosophy it must first be philosophy, right? How can something be poor in an atribute if it does not actually have said attribute? Lurker 00:26, 1 February 2008 (EST)

In the same way that "bad" science is not "science". Some bad science can still be science (poorly conducted experiment, for instance), but some simply is not science at all. What we should do is find a current series of "history of philosophy" texts (you know, the 16/17th, 18th, 19th, 20th century type ones used in the first few introductory college philosophy courses), and see if "objectivisn" is covered. human 12:36, 1 February 2008 (EST)

<--I think I could use the same argument against "bad" science as I did "bad" philosophy, but I'll skip to your next point. I honestly don't know anything about college philo texts, but I don't think it matters. If, say, Aristotle had decided not to show his work to anyone, or if all of it was lost in a fire before it could be copied, would he not still be a philosopher? Therefore I think we can rule out being taught in college as a necessary requisite for something to be defined as "philosophy". So what is the definition? According to Merriam Webster (def'n 2), a philosopy is "pursuit of wisdom; a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means; an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs." I think Rand qualifies. It's not the best, or most famous or (at least in the opinion of many people here) most correct philosophy, but it still is philosophy. I could make the same argument for literature. And let me ask you this, it may clear up the debate entirely: if it is not philosophy or literature, what is it? Lurker 03:38, 3 February 2008 (EST)

As a former Randian, I'm with Lurker here. She attempted philosophy, she wrote some honestly philosophical work, even if it was mostly garbage. Researcher 11:03, 3 February 2008 (EST)

" . . . if it is not philosophy or literature, what is it?" I'd have to go with kitsch. Jon in Iowa 12:57, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

No, it has been scientifically proven that Ayn Rand's books are not literature, and other scientific studies have clearly established that the mumbo-jumbo spouted by her megalomaniacal characters is not philosophy. If it was, then my 4am drunken ramblings about my ex-girlfriend also counts as philosophy, and trust me, you DON'T want to read those. DogP 20:50, 31 January 2008 (EST)

yes, the truth is clear now!

PS I can provide references to these scientific studies if you come over to my place at 4am with a litre bottle of whiskey.

Er, no thanks. Usually when people make good on such offers they open the door to find Dateline there with their cameras. Lurker 22:36, 31 January 2008 (EST)

I'll take the whiskey then, as long as it's Scotch. human 23:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)

I'll not countenance a Sasanach 'whisky' in my house, ye blaggard ye! Only the finest Irish will be served! DogP 12:16, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Only vaguely related external link

Worth reading just for the title: Karl, activate the Randroid! -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:53, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Whoever added that link to Cathy Young's piece at Reason, that was a great find, thanks! human 22:48, 5 February 2008 (EST)

That would be EVDebs. I've no idea why he thanked me, though. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:50, 5 February 2008 (EST)

IIRC it was linked from the above link about Greenspan. Seemed very relevant, even if it had the whiff of "Scientists for creationism" lists. EVDebs 23:22, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Ah, cool, well, thank you in person. Why do I like it? Because Cathy Young is, as advertised, quite the modern libertarian, a the magazine Reason is a lib. publication. So she buys into a lot of what Rand espouses, but critiques her for, well, being a bit rabid and inhuman. And a poor writer. Hey, Debs, when are we going to host the First Annual New England RationalWiki Drinkathon? (FANERD - priceless!) human 02:19, 6 February 2008 (EST)

'EV Debs' adding a link against Ayn Rand? That's both awesome and awesome at the same time. -Sρΐяαl.Дгсђıτέςτ^{stand up and shout} 09:57, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

who wrote this piece of crap? a comrade from russia?

ayn rand's work, though not entirely original, is a masterpiece of human freedom and individualistic anarchism.

"a masterpiece"? "anarchsim"? You really ought to get back on whatever meds used to keep you sane. DogP 10:50, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

Oh NO!

They're going to make MOVIE of the WORST BOOK EVER!!! DogP 10:50, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

Every US Congressman has read her?

The Independent article "Don't give to tsunami victims" contains the interesting claim that she "is the only novelist whose work has been read by every single US Congressman". I wonder if that's true? Where does such a claim come from? Is it even possible? DogP 16:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt it's true, although it'd be hard to verify either way, I can find references to people suggesting that every congressman should read Atlas Shrugged (I'd rather give them 1984 and The Prince to be honest). Also, as it says "work" it could be broad enough to be true. ^pathetic 21:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I find the claim ridiculous. Surely they've all read the Bible, and probably have in common quite a few classics. What the truth probably is, or might be, is that someone coughed up cash for copies of one of her books and sent them to every congresscritter. ħuman 22:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that I can believe. ^pathetic 22:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

here's the 2005 article at the LI. He repeats half the article at HuffPo here. The line itself googles very sparsely - basically a couple of blogs and us. Nothing in her WP article about it at all.ħuman 22:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I managed to find it on his official site too, but no comments section that would let someone flag it up and fact-check it. We should just assume it's barely an urban legend and leave it at that. ^pathetic 22:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing on snopes. In fact, the search term "Ayn Rand" yields nothing at all there! ħuman 02:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged

Of course, summarizing the book like this implies that either you managed to miss the entire point of ~1000 pages later (in which case, you wasted your time) and/or have a personal bias again Rand. Sure she had her issues, but it seems as if many of the people who put down her books seem to be people who personally dislike her and allowed it to color their opinion. If one ignores what Rand is, an extremist bordering on lunacy, you can actually see that Atlas Shrugged was not necessarily a bad book. Most of the opinions raised in the book are actually hard to disagree with.

People seem to enjoy misinterpreting her message with this book. An example is the idiot who made the list above. For starters, this book isn't about rich people who happen to be supermen. It's about society's lack of appreciation for men with vision and work ethic, and instead of acquiring such properties themselves, they choose to leach off of the achievements of others. It also shows why communism and socialism end up failing, atleast in theory.

The book is quite large and highly uneditted and features some prominent repetitions and some awkward prose, but despite all this it still contains a compelling story and characters one can identify with. ^{— Unsigned, by: Rivius / talk / contribs}

"Characters one can identify with"? Give me a break; half of them are industrialists and half are Red slimeballs. I put that the summary, while certainly biased against Rand and Atlas Shrugged, is nevertheless very accurate.

But if the summary bothers you, "then don't take cognizance of it." ListenerX^TalkerX 02:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"The book is quite large and highly uneditted and features some prominent repetitions and some awkward prose, but despite all this it still contains a compelling story and characters one can identify with." This tells me everything I need to know. Ulysses was a longer book, but at least Joyce took care and edited it well. 192.43.227.18 03:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"society's lack of appreciation for men with vision and work ethic" No. It's about society's lack of appreciation for the egotistical and self-deluded, whatever their level of talent. In the real world, Galt would be reviled as an undereducated crackpot who, assuming his engine actually worked, had created something he didn't understand and pushed it entirely on the basis of his own ego. In fact, the closest parallel to Galt in the real world I can think of would be people like Pons and Fleischmann -- they too gained a lot of fame for their "discovery", but unlike Rand's juvenile revenge fantasy, essentially lost their careers when their failure was exposed. (They also have many imitators, fellow-travelers (like Joe Newman) and remnant followers. But they're taken about as seriously as mainstream economists do Rand.) EVDebs (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

To which I can only reply: Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged? ListenerX^TalkerX 20:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just being metatextual. I know what Rand was trying to say. I'm just saying what she was actually saying, and what the logical consequences of her story would be in the real world. Truthfully, the only way to square Rand's work with reality is to understand her (the author, that is, not the narrator) as an unreliable narrator akin to the messenger in 300. EVDebs (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Grow Up

This is supposed to be RATIONAL wiki, yet here is an article about a fellow atheist that is nothing but childish smears. And it isn't even funny. Distorting someone's ideas isn't humor, it's just lame. This crap is just as bad as the creationists who make fun of Darwin by saying: "Maybe your parents were monkeys, but mine weren't!"MarlinFlake 15:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone should do something about that. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"fellow atheist" = gold! ^______^ What are we klingons now? -- =w= 14:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of Rand's beliefs are far from rational. As Mei said, just because she is an atheist that does not mean we should automatically glorify her. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hell, if anything that's the reason to mock Rand. ^pathetic 15:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Did I say we should glorify her? No, I just said we shouldn't make childish smears that aren't even funny. Pay attention, children; here's someone making fun of Rand who is actually funny: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004ugh MarlinFlake 15:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well that just proves humour is relative. But if you want to rewrite parts of the article to make it "really" funny, go ahead. No one is stopping you. ^pathetic 15:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The Scott Ryan essay is funny because he's making fun of views Rand actually held, and things she actually wrote. This wiki article is lame and unfunny because it's just smears (e.g. Rand is boring, simplistic, greedy, her fans are 11 year olds, etc.) and distortions (the whole "literature" section). I don't want to re-write it. Like whoever wrote this wiki article, I'm not a good comedy writer. Unlike whoever wrote this wiki article, I have the good sense not to pollute the internet with lame jokes. What I'd like to do is delete it, because it is stupid. Will you still say "No one is stopping you"?MarlinFlake 16:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Fix it or move on. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

MarlinFlake, your suggested article is, ahem, comedy phail. However, comedy is of course subjective, so please - go ahead and rewrite this article to your heart's content. None of it will change the fact that Ayn Rand was one of the world's most terrible novelists. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 16:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think that article is worse than the one on this wiki, then you either haven't read Atlas Shrugged, or you need to repeat second grade. If you haven't read Atlas Shrugged, you shouldn't be commenting on it, let alone making fun of it.MarlinFlake 18:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As the author of most of what you're complaining about, I am eminently qualified. It was the reading of Atlas Shrugged from cover to cover in all its grim unloveliness that also qualified me to write about how it is, in truth, the very worst book I have had the great misfortune to read in my life so far. It is total and unmitigated shite. Let's start with that 100-page speech to the workers, shall we? Have you EVER read such boring prose? EVER? Rand's writing technique is simple - start with a naive, absurd libertarian premise, then write a thousand page book, ensuring that in each and every sentence, you lay out that simpleton's premise. Again. And again. And again. And again. Keep battering the heads of your readers with your premise. Then, batter them some more with your premise. After that, some more battering is next. Then, when you're done with the battering, ram it down their throats. Then, some more ramming. Then, condense this incredibly ridiculous premise (which can be broadly summed up as "We've got all the money, Ha HA! And you don't! So fuck you and the horse you rode in on! HA HA!") into a series of sentences which repeat this premise, and jam them into the mouth of your hero, and then make him speechify for one hundred pages on the topic. Good Christ man, that book should be considered a Weapon of Mass Production. The only thing to be respected about Ayn Rand as a writer is that she, uhm, could write a lot of words. However, clearly you think the Sun shines out of her arse. That's fine, you're entitled to your utterly incorrect opinion. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 02:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh no! All this time I've been criticizing you for distorting Rand's views and smearing her, and I never realized you were QUALIFIED to make up bullshit. My whole world view has changed. All this time, I thought "rational" meant logic and evidence. But now that you've told me you read one of Rand's books I see that all your opinions about her, her other books, and her fans is all gospel. And I even made matters worse by saying I think Scott Ryan is funny and you're not. Apparently I must believe the sun shines out of Scott Ryan's ass. I'm am sorry and very humbled, my master. From now on I will only believe that the sun shines out of YOUR ass. "Rand's disgusting attempt at making an excuse to satisfy her conscience that being greedy and selfish is alright is ironically subjective." Oh the irony! I am overcome with laughter! "Most philosophers today would dispute Randroid claims that Rand is a philosopher of any importance." Wait a minute... that word sounds like... ANDROID! Good heavens, that's divine! "The world goes to Hell in a handbasket, except for them, 'cos they're in their seekrit mountain hideout." Ah! Now I see what you've done--misspelling is humorous! Oh.. the humor.. it's... it's racking my body... it's... ORGASMIC!!1 Your words are having romance-novel sex with my mind! It's like DogP is driving trains up and down my libido! Oh my lord DogP, I will never doubt you again. With my still-quivering hand resting on the RationalWiki logo, I swear by my life and my love of it, that I shall have no other gods before you. MarlinFlake 04:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, I'm glad you've come to your senses and can see how correct I am. Well done. You get a C+. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 04:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The invitation has been made for you to rewrite the article to your impeccably high standards. Either clarify your criticisms more precisely than you're doing right now, edit the article directly or stop complaining. ^pathetic 18:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I wish this were Conservapedia. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"MarlinFlanke" (specialty not in breast cancer), I wasted time with your unsubstantial additions and your use of "BCE" and "CE" denies historical basis, so clearly you're an Obama supporter. You also refuse to accept that God helps resist autism. Observation and logic dictate that polls demonstrated that something like 30% of young evangelical Christians, and even higher percentages of other Christian denominations, voted for Obama. Many of them are YECs. So there is nothing startling or remarkable about the possibility that a YEC is liberal. Are you credentialed in this field?????? If so, then state your credentials. If not, then forget about it here. Unlike Wikipedia, credential bullying is not allowed here. Thanks and Godspeed.--aschlafly 04:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, fixed.MarlinFlake 18:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The general idea is to correct parts of an article rather than delete them... ListenerX^TalkerX 18:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I know. I was told to "do something about that," to "fix it and move on," and "edit the article directly or stop complaining." So I took out the parts that were smears or distortions. I know the article isn't funny, but it wasn't funny before either. At least now it isn't stupid.MarlinFlake 18:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

All right; I will start small. (1) What part of Rand's metaphysics were not attributable to Aristotle? (2) How can the anti-smoking lobby be considered exclusively a State campaign? (3) What factual inaccuracies were there in the removed summary of Atlas Shrugged? ListenerX^TalkerX 18:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to keep it short. 1) Her concept of consciousness is different from Aristotle's because she rejects the possibility of Aristotle's "prime mover." 2) I changed the line from "government conspiracy" to "government violation of rights" because she was not a conspiracy theorist. But you're right in one respect--the anti-smoking lobby is not exclusively a state campaign, so I should have removed that part entirely. 3) Do you want me to respond to every line? I'll do the first half of them, and you can let me know if you need me to hold your hand through the rest of them:

1) The first line is just a smear

2) the second line introduces the subsequent items, so I removed it when I removed those items

3) Item 1: the hero has many friends, the line "steeped deeply in pseudoscience" is a distortion of the fact that the book has science fiction elements, and the machine he invents is a power plant that harnesses lightning, not a perpetual motion machine.

4) Item 2: Not all of his friends are wealthy, they don't "wail like babies" (the opposite, actually), and they don't "flee in a huff," they leave silently and without warning (again, the opposite).

5) Item 3: Many elements of the "outside world" are described in positive terms, including the NY skyline, the Taggart Building, Rearden's Mills, the John Galt Line, for starters.

6) Item 4: There are many happy, productive people outside the valley too. Galt refers them in his speech. And there were no trains in the valley, because Dagny didn't join until the end of the story.

7) Item 5: Contrary to this tired mainstay of anti-Rand propaganda, there are happy, faithful couples, even couples with children, in the valley.

MarlinFlake 19:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand rejected some of what Aristotle said, but did she make anything new on that topic that was not what Aristotle said?

"Just a smear" is not a charge of factual inaccuracy.

Item 1: At the time Galt vowed to stop the motor of the world, he had only two friends and kept himself to himself at the Starnes plant. The motor is not only scientifically, but logically implausible. (Gathering atmospheric electricity from inside a voice-locked bunker and then a Faraday-cage? Give me a break.)

Item 2: Although not all the friends that follow him to the Gulch are wealthy, the strike means nothing without the presence of the rich ones.

Item 3: The positive qualities fade out of the said locations throughout the course of the book.

Item 4: True, but he has withdrawn the cream of the crop into the Gulch. The business of trains is obviously hyperbole.

Item 5: Very few romantic commitments were made throughout the course of the book, and all the couples I recall from the Gulch are childless. What child was explicitly referred to as resident there?

Go on. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Aristotle's concept of consciousness included the possibility of a prime mover, while Rand's didn't. These are two different concepts of consciousness, not just "rejecting some of what Aristotle said."

The word "just" in "just a smear" means the negative statements are unsubstantiated. "Michael Shermer is stupid" is just a smear. "Michael Shermer has an IQ of 25" is factually inaccurate. Neither one is funny.

Item 1: "Only two friends" is not "no friends." Many science fiction plot elements are logically implausible. If you think the author seriously believes they are plausible, you could criticize the author as "steeped in pseudoscience," but if the particular plot element is possible within the story itself, then the character is not steeped in pseudoscience. Atlas Shrugged is not a science textbook, or even a novel about science. The machine is a plot element and nothing more.

Item 2: The important aspect is productivity, not wealth. The fact that they are wealthy is irrelevant; most of them leave their wealth behind in the outside world.

Item 3: Of course they do. There's a difference between "the rest of the world is grey" and "the rest of the world becomes grey"

Item 4: Whatever.

Item 5: There are a few paragraphs, starting p.784 in the softcover. Here are just a few lines: "...her own childhood kept coming back to her whenever she met the two sons of the young woman who owned the bakery shop. She often saw them wandering down the trails of the valley--two fearless beings, aged seven and four. ... 'They're the profession I've chosen to practice, which, in spite of all the guff about motherhood, one can't practice successfully in the outer world. ... I would not surrender them to the educational systems devised to stunt a child's brain, to convince him that reason is impotent...'"

I've just shown what's wrong with this stuff. For now, that's all I have time for. If you guys are honest, you'll leave these items deleted. If you're consistent, you'll see why the rest of what I've deleted is no better, and leave it out too. Anyway, you're going to do what you're going to do. I just wanted to point out how hypocritical it is for RationalWiki to contain so much irrational material in this article. If you disagree with me, it's your call. If you honestly don't see what's wrong with this stuff, and you want me to tell you, I'll do it. But I don't want to spend a bunch more time just to be ignored and have the old article re-posted anyway.MarlinFlake 21:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think both of those statements about Michael Shermer are pretty funny. But then of course, being a libertarian, you have no sense of humour, of course. My bad. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 03:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It takes very little creative work to take part of an existing theory. Making something altogether new is a different matter.

Item 1: I know that Objectivists have a problem with statements that are not as literal and exact and precise as a sniper's bullet, but most people do not.

Item 2: I am aware of that. However, the departure of productive people who did not use their productivity to make themselves rich was not the cause of the economic crash recorded in the book.

Item 3: See Item 1.

Item 5: Nameless children of nameless parents; a mere detail. ListenerX^TalkerX 01:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

While that linked "satire" was marginally funny, the deletion of half this article wasn't... ħuman 20:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it was a real tragedy. We're all pretty broken up about it.MarlinFlake 21:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"We"? While you may have some points, most of what you deleted was accurate, or humorous. Did it need improvement? Probably. Deletion sort of pre-empts that, so chances are the missing bits will be restored. ħuman 21:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I just showed line by line why a bunch of stuff was not accurate. If you've read Atlas Shrugged or know anything about Rand or her philosophy, you can see that the rest of what I deleted was inaccurate too. As for humor, well that's up to you. As I've said, I thought it was about as funny as the creationist smears against evolution, and I explained why. I was told three times to just handle it, so I solved the problem the best way I could. Like I said, I'm not a comedy writer. I never claimed I could write a funnier article. But I could delete the material that was childish and stupid, so I did. If you disagree with me and want to restore everything, go for it. But if you're serious about being an editor, then read what I deleted and consider the hypocrisy before you restore it.MarlinFlake 21:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"I just showed line by line why a bunch of stuff was not accurate." Your line-by-line rundown is currently disputed. ListenerX^TalkerX 01:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's not. You have already conceded my points. Now all you're doing is arguing that it doesn't matter that I'm right.MarlinFlake 02:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not conceding most of your points; you are erroneously interpreting the section in the literal, overly precise fashion. Secondly, the dispute is not over whether or not your points are true, but whether or not they are relevant as reasons to remove the section. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

From the beginning I have said that the point is that these jokes are stupid, because they are nothing but childish smears and distortions of her views--they're not jokes about what she actually did or said. That's lame. YOU are the one who asked for "factual inaccuracies." Now, after I have shown you that the article is filled with factual inaccuracies, your response is that it doesn't matter anyway. How childish. The hypocrisy in here is getting thicker with each of your posts. MarlinFlake 13:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Because something is a "childish smear" does not make it factually inaccurate, and slight exaggerations are par for this Wiki; this article does not have to be dry and stuffy and literally accurate to the last detail like an academic research paper. I know Objectivists have trouble comprehending that the same words can mean different things in different contexts, but there it is. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A better approach would be to discuss sections or paragraphs at a time. For instance, much of what you deleted has not been touched on here. If you know anything about Frank Lloyd Wright, for instance... I will try to restore the hacked out material while looking to integrate any improvements I can see in your edits. Then we can go "line by line" and fix things if they are wrong. ħuman 21:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. The only issue of fact in that subsection is the claim that the book was a biography of Wright. It isn't. It's a fiction novel using architecture (in the style of Wright) as a plot element. The theme has nothing to do with architecture per se, any more so than it does with newspaper management. For reference, both Rand and Wright himself denied that the book was about him. As for the rest of that subsection, it's just more smears (e.g. the main character isn't as good as he thinks, and the book is poorly written).

On the Drooling Fans section: Both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are very popular books. Most critics haven't liked them, but often this has more to do with their political disagreements with Rand than with anything that is actually in the books (e.g. see the review by Whitaker Chambers; you can find it on Google). Are some fans "drooling, greedy, callous wankers"? Probably. But you could say that about practically any popular book. But most of the Ayn Rand fans I've met are normal, intelligent people who are very easy to get along with. Maybe whoever wrote this had a bad experience with someone who likes Rand? I don't know.

The Enemy. Rand never said there was anything wrong with sleeping in, or about taking time for R&R. Yes, she had a moral problem with intentionally being unproductive, but that doesn't mean everyone has to be a great engineer or businessperson in order to be moral. People can be productive in many different ways and at many different levels. This is stuff that Rand has said, often explicitly, in both Atlas Shrugged (Galt's speech) and her nonfiction essays. There's nothing wrong with tipping waiters (I don't even know where this comes from), and she wrote quite a bit about her ideas on the proper education for children, which did not include a 12-hour work day. The only thing relevant about child labor was an article by historian Robert Hesson that was included in one of her nonfiction compilations, in which he writes about how child labor during the 1700s was a matter of necessity, as those children otherwise would likely have starved to death, and that child labor had largely ended by the early 1830s, before child labor laws were even passed, as a result of the growing prosperity of the poor during the Industrial Revolution. None of that is radical; it's all well accepted among actual scholars of child labor (e.g. see Clark Nardinelli's book).

Environmental Perspective. Oh come on... And again with the "doorstops"?

Medical Perspectives. The book will "cure insomnia"? har har har

MarlinFlake 22:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

FLW

As far as the Fountainhead/Wright thing, if you can't see that the story is based on FLWs career, you either haven't read the book or you know very little of his career. Of course they both deny it, since it isn't an actual "biography". But, um, why do you think they feel the need to deny it? Because people other than myself have noticed the "similarity". ħuman 02:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

My neighbor is a cop. Does that mean the movie Die Hard was based on my neighbor's life story? Obviously there is similarity between Roark and FLW. Nobody denies that. And Wright was probably an inspiration for Roark's character. Both were renegade architects who played by their own rules. Both dropped out of school to start working (very common in the early 1900s, and still not uncommon today). And of course their styles are similar, as I already mentioned. But that's about it. The essential events of their lives are different in all but the most superficial way. Early on, Roark had trouble making ends meet because he gave up a lucrative career path to work for an unpopular but genius architect. Early on, Wright had trouble making ends meet because even with a steady job, a wealthy spouse, and work on the side, he had a lot of kids to feed. Later on, Roark couldn't get anyone to buy his designs because they wanted to follow the crowd, and they didn't want to take a chance on an unusual architect. Later on, FLW had trouble getting work because of a sex scandal with someone else's wife. When was Wright targeted for destruction by an influential collectivist journalist? When did Wright submit designs under someone else's name, then get stabbed in the back? When did Wright go to court over his principles, and make a dramatic public speech defending his philosophy? The Fountainhead is a fiction novel about individualism vs. collectivism, and the story is told (largely, though not exclusively) from the point of view of an architect. Roark's character may have been inspired by FLW, but that doesn't make the book a biography. If that's difficult for you to understand, then get a dictionary and look up the word "biography." MarlinFlake 03:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"Probably" an inspiration? FLW also had a young successful period, followed by a blackballed period where he survived by making houses for people, followed by a later triumphant success. Your attempts to whitewash this article, by the way, are boring. Calling teh book a "biography" is a fucking "joke", you moron. ħuman 04:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Instead of calling me a moron, you should read the thread, douchebag. I know it's supposed to be a joke. From the beginning I said the article was full of childish smears and distortions, and that it isn't funny. I said if you want to be funny, make fun of things Rand actually said and believed, instead of making up bullshit. It was ListenerX who asked for examples of factual inaccuracies, so I listed some. That's where you asked for my input on the other sections, that's where I said the Fountainhead isn't a biography, and that's where you argued with me. Now that you've been proven wrong, if it's boring to you, then stop arguing.MarlinFlake 13:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)After someone restores the article to its former glory (obviously it will be someone who cares far more than I do about this) I may or may not add language to the Fountainhaid area along the lines of "a character in a Diego Rivera mural throwing a tantrum." Never read the Galt one, nor do I intend to, having mercifully forgotten most of the impressions the Wright one left me with. Sprocket J Cogswell 21:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

MarlinFlake, in response to your continued talk about "smears," etc., I am going to give you a quote from Atlas Shrugged: "Don't tell me your evaluation. Give me the facts." ListenerX^TalkerX 01:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey happy thanksgiving you guys.MarlinFlake 04:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me say that I'm happy to see this many atheists against Rand. The number of people who are atheists and cite her as the reason scares me. (Well a world ruled by the objectivist's scares me)^{— Unsigned, by: 96.42.214.127 / talk / contribs}

Revert

I reverted your changes, since although the did perhaps "remove bias", hey used a chainsaw when a scalpel would be necessary. You basically deleted several important section, claiming that they were "unsubstantiated smears", and they needed to go. So, let's try again. Post proposed changes on the talkpage. Then when people look over it, change the article itself. Although others may like it, I'm not a fan of "well-rewrite-the-article-then" kind of mentality, as it leaves no room for other opinions. So, to summarize:

Post any major rewrite below

We will look over it, revising it as necessary

Then, we will post it, trying to have a more neutral tone

After all, isn't that what talkpages are for? --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 22:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In the above thread I already posted my reasons. The sections The Drooling Fans, The Enemy, Environmental..., and Medical... should be entirely removed because they ARE nothing but unsubstantiated smears. If you don't know why I say this, then READ THEM. If you still don't get it, then read my explanations in the thread above. To claim that any of these is an "important section" is clearly absurd.

For similar reasons, I propose removing the section on literature, because none of it is factually correct. In the above thread I already listed why the first half is incorrect. If you recognize that my criticism is valid, then remove the first half. If you still can't see why the second half is invalid, then leave it there and I will be happy to explain after the first half is gone. I agree that a section on literature is important, but even an absence of material would be better than the smear job that is there now. As a compromise, why not just put a list of her works in that section to replace everything that's there now?

As for the introduction and the sections on Biography and Philosophy, I did not remove those sections. I used a "scalpel" not a "chainsaw", and I explained my reasoning above. The parts I removed were either unsubstantiated smears or distortions. If you read the original, and read my changes, you can see this quite clearly. So I propose that for those sections, the changes I previously made be brought back.

MarlinFlake 01:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I don't know, you are doing a good job of proving The Drooling Fans section right. - π 01:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

MarlinFlake, if that is your real name, you have obviously confused this site for your beloved Wikipedia which coddles libertarian pederasts who live in their mother's basement and probably masturbate to Randian pornography. Maybe you should take your baseless complaints to someone who hasn't read their Kant. Phallus of Satan 01:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And you two are doing a great job of proving my accusation of hypocrisy right.MarlinFlake 01:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

MarlinFlake you have two options, say something I find entertaining enough to read or prepare for me to taunt you for my entertainment. - π 01:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I vote for number 2. Phallus of Satan 01:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I also vote for number 2. Anything is better than the crap you people have put on this page so far.MarlinFlake 01:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this wiki isn't serious enough for you? I mean, I'm just a big cock. Phallus of Satan 01:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit, if Satan had a big cock he would not be constantly participating in a dick off with God now would he? - π 01:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(Groan) Is it too late to change my vote? MarlinFlake 01:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

See my comments above re. the book. Are her books literature? No. Are her books political manifestos? Yes. Simple. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 02:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fountainhead is at least "readable". Not literature by any means, but readable, and moderately inspirational. Atlas Shrugged is the most painfully unreadable tripe I have ever endured in order to say "yes, I read it". AS is probably the worst waste of trees ever foisted on the English-reading public. ħuman 04:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Human here. I've got two friends who are Objectivists, and they loaned me a copy of Shatless Rugged. After about page 50, I lost all interest. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 04:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I consider it a great personal failure of judgement that I read the whole fucking monstrous tome all the way to the end. I wish I was smart enough to have stopped myself, but somehow I was drawn in by the sheer horror of it all and like a rubbernecker at a crash site, I simply had to see the horror fully unfold. A horrifying experience. PS To try to be a little more positive about big books, I highly recommend The Sot Weed Factor, a wonderful but gigantic tome by John Barth. It has the big advantage that it's not written by a shit novelist. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 04:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

See, I am very ADHD, so if it doesn't captivate my attention within a short period of time, I will forget that I ever cared. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 04:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious that you don't like Atlas Shrugged. That's fine. To each his own. So what? I hated The Sixth Sense. But if I write that M Night Shyamalan blows goats, that's still childish, and the fact that his movie sucks doesn't make my lame joke funny. What makes all of you hypocrites is the fact that you are specifically making fun of Rand for pretending to be more rational than she was. Meanwhile, you're all doing the exact same thing. I also have to wonder about people who write so viciously about something they found so boring. Obviously I enjoyed the book, so I'm sticking up for something I thought was good. But to put so much energy into attacking something you just thought was boring is weird. I mean, where's all this hostility coming from? Like practically everyone else on earth, I can rattle off a list of books I thought were boring. But also like everyone else, I pretty much just forget about it and move on. What's your problem? Did someone with an Ayn Rand bumper sticker run over your cat? Did you get dumped by an objectivist? Did your mother get hit by a train bound for Colorado? I mean, thinking it's boring I can understand. But all this overkill hostility is just weird. Anyway, I'm done now. Do whatever you want. My last suggestion is to change the name of your blog to "Rational"Wiki with the quotes, so people know what the deal is here. MarlinFlake 14:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Good questions all, and I'm not here to answer them, but to mention a fellow I once knew who said something like "research and development? That's not what we do here, it's just the name on the sign outside." Just as CP proclaims themselves trustowrthy, RW names itself rational. No biggie, and puffing accusations of hypocrisy will be silently ignored, at least here at this node I'm using. I enjoy Shyamalan's stuff for what it is, cinematic entertainment. Other people calling him Johnny One-Note didn't take anything away from that; who knows, I may even watch some of it again sometime. Rand, on the other hand, had an ism founded around her stuff, which deserves a different style of comment. Sprocket J Cogswell 17:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

MarlinFlake, Murray Rothbard said, in specific reference to Objectivists, "No cult can withstand the piercing and sobering effect, the sane perspective, provided by humor." Who is to say that our goofiness is "irrational"? There is a large difference between rationality and speaking in formal syllogisms like a bunch of soulless robots. Most of the people who call the SPOV "irrational" are objecting to its exposure of their world-views for the piles of bunk they are. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Understanding the USA

It's interesting to see how much heat is generated by the author and the novel. As a Brit, if I were to read it, would I end up understanding more about what drives the American psyche? (Or would I be better off reading something by L Ron Hubbard?)--Bob^{Not Jim} 17:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you're right Bob - there's a significant streak of Libertarianism in many USians - there's this totally inexplicable hatred of anything Government-related, a deep kneejerk reaction against the very principle of taxation, an obsession with the idea of 'Freedom' (which mostly seems to be about allowing millionaires the freedom to become billionaires, or the freedom of businesses to sell you crap 365 days of the year, 24 hours a day), and something about guns. Rand absolutely gives you an insight into that mindset. However, she will also bore you completely senseless with her lumpen prose and build tremendous anger in you at her thesis that rich people are just completely entitled to do whatever the fuck they want, and have no responsibilities whatsoever to anyone else in the society in which they live beyond looking after No.1. Selfish cunts. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 19:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

To better understand US'ns, better you should get a boxed set of wrestling-show reruns and watch them. "In other parts of the world," ^{one of Wilbur Larch's lines from The Cider House Rules} children grow up sometime soon after reaching the teen years. Here, individuals may remain quite full of themselves and maintain a sense of entitlement well into their thirties, forties, and beyond. We are still a juvenile nation, in most respects. Sprocket J Cogswell 18:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed so. As an immigrant to this (wonderful) country, I am constantly astonished by the general fear of growing old in the average American. While none of us particularly want to age, there's a way to ease gracefully into one's years that I rarely came across, and playing online videogames at 50 while rocking a combover/ponytail combo and hightops doesn't exactly spell 'edgy', 'youthful' or 'hip', but mostly 'ridiculous looking idiotic old fart'. The same, it has to be said, is true of women attempting to look 28 all the time. Mind you, hanging out in a vaguely rational wiki-forum-thingy with a bunch of students poking fun at fundamentalists may also reek a little bit of the saddo, but hey. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 09:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"...would I end up understanding more about what drives the American psyche..." Dream on, dream on; Ayn Rand was Russian and her views were atypical of Russians, especially at that time. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a mistake to reify "the American psyche" as anything graspable by a single human mind. Too many different cultures, some meshing more or less, some hardly aware of some of the others. I can hear four or five different languages just by walking up to the coffee shop/BBQ/convenience mart corner, and this neighborhood is pretty uniform compared to many. Visiting family over Thanksgiving, I saw a lot of Punjabi faces in Maryland. By the time you cross the Mississippi, things are totally different. Someone once told me that west of the Rockies has more in common with Asia than with the rest of the USA, and he wasn't far wrong in my estimation. Sprocket J Cogswell 20:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hubbard..er, no. Except maybe as an example of crank utopianism and new religious movements that have characterized much of U.S. history. Come to think of it though, Rand's "Objectivism" is another example of the same thing. There seem to be competing things that drive the American psyche. One is the aforementioned crank utopianism - and for a good insight into this the best book I can think of is an obscure book, probably long out of print, Dreamers of the American Dream by Stewart Holbrook. The same thing that drives Rand and Objectivism, Scientology, Mormonism, born again Christianity, environmental radicals, and YEC, has been seen time after time in the U.S. going back to the Puritans, Shakers, Owenites, Transcendentalists, radical temperance and abolitionist movements and so on. The other competing influence is, ironically, a kind of anti-utopian pragmatism, of the cut-through-the-BS-and-git-r-done sort. See Born Fighting by James Webb (now U.S. Senator, D-Virginia) for one possible source of the latter influence on the American psyche. At their best the two influences keep each other in check while both promoting the idea of limitless possibilities, that you can accomplish pretty much anything you want and don't have to be held down by tradition, class, or repressive social strictures. At their worst, the two influences lead to movements that attempt to combine the worst aspects of both. Objectivism comes to mind. Secret Squirrel 13:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to read fiction that exemplifies this strand of American thinking (because it by no means represents all of American thinking either), Heinlein is a MUCH more readable source, if only because he takes his role as novelist more seriously than his role as political propagandist. Of course, that requires you to like sci-fi. Researcher 15:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm. Actually I do like Sci-Fi. But I remember thinking that "Starship Troopers" was a bit of a fascist romp.--Bob^{Not Jim} 17:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I enjoyed Heinlein's stuff immensely before I hit puberty, but since then I've thought that a lot of it should have been written under a nom de plume such as Richard Head. Bradbury, on the other hand, could have been a queyntessential bleeding-heart liberal. Sorry, ranting in over-generalised terms there. How about "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest" for a Pacific Northwest take on things? Sprocket J Cogswell 18:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is all I can think of whenever I hear/see someone use the phrase "nom de plume". *grabs coat* ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I gotz a mama bird across the room sitting on a clutch of eggs, and soon as they get all grown up there'll be enough of em to kick that cat right square in the slats and the ass it rode in on. *busts off a branch and swats the ground with mighty hollerings and raisins of dust* Sprocket J Cogswell 18:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Heinlein veers all over the right-wing spectrum, including some interesting libertarian/anarchist books (Stranger in a Strange Land, or even more so The Moon is a Harsh Mistress). Researcher 21:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I adore Heinlein. Well, not really, but I do think that he's a great author. He shoves political philosophy down your throat like you were a Foie Gras goose, and I actually enjoy it, mainly because he can write a damn good story while doing it, causing you to focus more on the story, while the philosophy gets shoved aside. Then, long after you have forgotten the plot of Starship Troopers, you remember that the military should have control over everything, and that voting should be restricted to those who served to get the right to do so. TANSTAAFL. However, when new writes try to accomplish this(cough cough Orson Scott Card cough cough), they forget that you actually need a story to perform this trick. Thus, when I survived a reading of his Empire by chewing off one of my own legs, I was left with no concept other than that he was WRONG, and that no, a crazy right-wing neofacist system "watched" by a few random former marines is not, in fact, the way to govern the United States of America. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 22:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(Aside: someone who agrees with me about Orson Scott Card? Wonders never cease!) ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 06:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the requirement to vote in Starship Troopers any kind of service, not necessarily military? I mean, a lot of the story was just an excuse for him to reminisce about his military experience anyhow, so when I read it as a teenager I was able to pretty much ignore why the character joined the service. --Kels 23:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my non-sequitur. Announcing my new theory: "Avatar" = "Starship Troopers". You heard it here first, folks. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 06:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"A crazy right-wing neofacist system "watched" by a few random former marines." Wow, I had now idea a concept like that could be portrayed a something positive. BTW Avatar look's like it might be "Dances with Wolves" in space. I hope it's better then that.^{— Unsigned, by: Ryantherebel / talk / contribs}

Having now seen Avatar, I can confirm that I am correct. Also, it is Matrix Revolutions, in blue. And, it's terrible, though terribly impressive. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 02:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Anthem a ripoff of We

Holy shit, it totally is! I can't believe I never noticed that! I Eat Glue (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? How did you miss it? Researcher (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Primarily because I only read We once and it was over a decade ago. Need to try and locate a copy. I Eat Glue (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah...I read it about 7 years ago, but it was after already having read Anthem (and having once been a Randian). Researcher (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was a hardcore Randroid in high school myself. Ate up everything she ever wrote or said, read up on her 'philosophy', actually believed myself to be a deep and intelligent person and everyone else to be utter morons. Thank gods I grew out of that phase. I Eat Glue (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That reminds me of a quote I need to work in... Researcher (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hah, brilliant. I Eat Glue (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of ripoffs, I have long had a suspicion that the first person plural in Anthem (1938) was a ripoff of Gollum-speak in The Hobbit (1937). Probably not, but you never know. Secret Squirrel (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, that was one of the things ripped from We, but I don't remember exactly. At the very least, the idea of the struggle between I and We is there. Researcher (talk) 12:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I've never read We but a quick look at Wiki sez the characters all have names like D-503 and O-90. maybe I should read it as it also appears to have influenced Orwell's 1984. Secret Squirrel (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We is the grandfather of all dystopias, and definitely worth a read. If I remember correctly, there is no individuality there either (hence the name, We), but I might be mistaken. Been a little while since I read it. Researcher (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Quote

Can I add this quote to the page?

“”Ayn Rand is the curdled remains of a black, bitter, shrivelled apple from the tree of hypocrisy growing under the outhouse in the deepest pit of Hell. She couldn't grope her way out of her own rectum with a flashlight and a copy of Gray's Anatomy. Her entire rancid philosophy could have been killed if anyone had been brave or desperate enough to stick their penis into that frigid arctic pucker of her twat.

Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me}

I think we should keep that one out of the article. ^pathetic 12:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's straight to the point. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

True, and I like it. But. It's ridiculously immature, even by our standards, and it's not really attributed to anyone noteworthy. I mean if, say, Douglas Adams had said it, I'd perhaps sway for it. Until then, it's on par with me saying "Ayn Rand is a total clueless cunt lol" and claiming that it should be included in the article. ^pathetic 14:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

We should use the quote "Ayn Rand is a total clueless cunt lol". I agree with Arm. It's a nice put-down, but a but over the top and not from someone noteworthy. Find Bill Cosby saying that and we're in business! --ConcernedResident ^{deviant for the ladies} 14:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Religion

I am looking for a place to put this anti religion quote.

“”…that, dark incoherent rambling you take as the voice of god… is nothing more than the corpse of your mind

— Atlas Shrugged<ref>[http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/n7yuw7/ayn-rand---paul-ryan]</ref>

^{— Unsigned, by: Corpse in the bed / talk / contribs 22:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)}

Endorsement of American expansionism

I have moved this section to the Objectivism article and expanded on it. I think it is better to have all the specific objections to Objectivism on one page. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

John Galt vs Che Guevara

The horseshoe theory has a lot to answer for. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Liberals hate one of these people. One was a mass murdering bandit. The other wrote books. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Fuck that noise. I'm not a liberal, I'm a straight up communist, and let me loudly declare that I despise Che Guevara for his crimes. And I also think Ayn Rand is pretty shitty.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, those pesky Liberals, who all feel exactly the same way about this week's talking point. You sound like Andy Schlafly. Sophie^Wilder 20:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"The Americans speak about (nuclear war) as if they did not know or did not want to accept this fact. I have no doubt they would lose such a war." And who was the POTUS at that time? Osaka Sun (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wait, Weaseloid, at the risk of lowering your opinion of me even further, I don't get what those images have in commmon, other than maybe being a bit blurry. If you explain it to me, I promise I'll show you this cute video of ferrets I found the other day.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The cap, the commie star, the messianic glow, the inspirational soundbite. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey Weaseloid would it be possible for you to shrink those images down a bit and put them next to the Communism vs objectvism section on the horsehoe thoery page? I would do it but I'm not very good with images but I still think it would be amusing.ClothCoat (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. ClothCoat (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Well Mr. Shutup, if it's mass murderers you have a problem with then there aren't many people who share your ideology whom you can very well look up to are there? Oh and Sophie, was that addressed at me? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Why would I need to look up to anyone?--"Shut up, Brx." 16:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean look up to as a superior, I meant look up to as an example or inspiration, a hero if you will. The only heroic Communist I can think of was Nelson Mandella who was heroic in spite of being a Communist rather than because of it. The rest were mass murdering psychopaths. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Castro, Chavez, Guevara of course and of course the world's current leading Communist Kim Jong-un. My personal heroes are Ayn Rand, Oscar Wilde, Winston Churchill and Christopher Hitchens and yes, I know Wilde was a socialist but that's only because he thought it would lead to individualism so he was wrong but for the right reasons and yes Hitchens was a Marxist initially but he saw the error of his ways didn't he. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That synopsis cracked me up.

This site normally doesn't make me laugh, so thanks to whoever added that. It's hilarious that's actually from the Ayn Rand website. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 17:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)