Randroids and Irrationality

[mithrandircomics]

I'm having problems finding specific inconsistencies of these supposed objectivist that you are criticizing in this rather long rambling. The video gave me a headache. It's probably just the whinny voice. What have they got wrong? What gives? I'm 7 minutes in and I'm hearing about being annoyed at libel/slander complaint threats. I don't understand. Seems like too much time on one's hands and looking for a reason to be offended and whine.

[XOmniverse]

@mithrandircomics You have too much time on your hands to leave this contentless comment.

[mithrandircomics]

@XOmniverse I didn't mean to offend you. I clicked on the video hoping to hear some irrationality illustrated but the only specific inconsistency that you cited was that one of them threatened to sue. I offer that an objectivist could use the courts or threat of legal action as a tool to serve his selfish interest and be intellectually honest. It is completely true that the sound of your voice menstruating from my speakers gave me a headache. Again, I didn't mean to offend you. "Contentless"?

[xjtyu]

@mithrandircomics You just proved the first minute of his rant.

[charliegorilla]

If objectivism is not allowed to be formed into new abstraction through rational discussion it is in danger of becoming a dogma. It amazes me how many objectivists behave like far right wing christians. If you question their beliefs they want to hurt you. Keep up the good work.-Randy

[sulmagnificent]

Dude you are so right, I personally am a left-wing liberal, but your description of Rand followers is spot on. You made me want to read a little bit more about libertarianism

[VoiceOfModeration]

Are you doing these videos from jail???

[charliegorilla]

Keep up the good work. Socrates taught plato and aristotle. Aristotle expanded those teachings and even challenged some of the concepts of Socrates. Yet if anyone tries to expand the concepts of Ayn Randy They are slammed.-Randy-charliegorilla

[SculptedThoughts]

Also: I agree with many of them being "pricks." It is a frequent issue which I have to call out to the users of Objectivist chatrooms. Instead of arguing rationally, many of them grow offended easily, and become rude and emotional.

I would be interested in hearing your personal disagreements with Objectivism, since you no longer consider yourself one.

[VictorLepanto]

You'd do well to learn about what kind of person Rand was like herself. The sorts of people you describe are acting much as Rand herself acted. You can be a advocate of liberty & property w/o being a Randian. She is hardly the best guide to these ideas. Selfishness is hardly a sound basis for a sound world view. The welfare lay about is also a seflish person. How is living off of one of Uncle Sows teets not compatible w/ this idea of virtuous selfishness.

[samm1809]

in my opinion, a huge issue with society is that few people are aware that approximately 1 in 100 people are narcissists or psychopaths. just as psychopaths are attracted to positions of power and are cruel, hateful people who enjoy the pain of others, many would be attracted to objectivism. don't get me wrong, rand is a genius, but a disproportionate number of her followers would be psychopaths, narcissists or sociopaths. however as forceful people, they wouldn't make good objectivists.

[gratex]

the best measure of a philosophy is its' impact on the people who believe in it?

[Legeon86]

Sneering, villainous, and bullying is the perfect way to describe such people and it's not about you, it's about anyone who is watching and might be impressed with them. They're performing. What you've misunderstood is that you're part of a cult.

[tagkira]

I see this sort of thing alot too, I don't think the problem lies with Ayn Rand's philosophy so much as with the people not being very competent representatives of objectivism. All the time you'll see "objectivist" quoting Ayn Rand but not really understanding the context or the meaning of what they are actually saying I guess. Alot of them come off as stupid AynRand robot pricks and its easy to see why it rubs people. So yeah I understand where you're coming from.

[XOmniverse]

I honestly find that my understanding of Rand's philosophy has grown considerably since I dropped the label "Objectivist" to describe myself.

I think being emotionally invested in adhering to a specific ideology (rather than being emotionally invested in learning/knowing/etc.) has some pretty bad intellectual consequences.

[Sam26100]

@XOmniverse I wonder whether or not you think that Brainpolice is arrogant, dickish, angry, hateful, etc

I certainly do. I also wonder whether or not you would call anybody a "rothbardroid", or an "anarchoroid" if they come across as stubborn once in a while

I meet your fellow anarchists all the time who imediately call me a "randroid" before they even get a chance to digest any of my ideas, and yet I've never called them "rothbardroids" why do you think this is?

[XOmniverse]

@Sam26100 My experience with brainpolice is that, for the most part, he is ok when dealing with people, though he is occasionally passive aggressive and demeaning.

I'm sensing a lot of defensiveness in this comment. I think you feel attacked by this video. Is that perception correct?

[Sam26100]

@XOmniverse I do concider "randroid" a sort of ad-hominem. Many people use the word as soon as they discover that I have at least partial sympathy with Rand's ideas. I don't agree with Paul on that particular issue, though I understand his frustruation having dealt with Brainpolice myself

Again I ask whether by the very standard which people use to call objectivists "randroids" many anarchists would qualify being "stefroids" or "rothbardroids"

[XOmniverse]

@Sam26100 I'm going to answer yes but I don't like that I am being pressured to answer, as though saying "No" would somehow prove that I was wrong about something in this video.

To be clear, I have more than just passing sympathy for Rand's ideas; she's largely responsible for my entire framework of philosophy, despite the areas in which I deviate from her ideas. This video is specifically directed at a specific category of Objectivists.

[Sam26100]

@XOmniverse I don't know where you draw the line between the different categories of Objectivists

Also I said "they discover that I have at least partial sympathy", meaning I actually have more than just partial sympathy but even if I had only partial sympathy I would still get labeled a "randroid"

I don't know. To me the very term "randroid" when used immediately backfires on the user. It confesses about the user the very intellectual quality which the term attempts to imply

[aaron0883]

@Sam26100 I disagree that calling someone out for being dogmatic and demeaning towards others implies that I am, in fact, dogmatic and demeaning.

[Sam26100]

@aaron0883 Unless you do it before you have listened to all the points they can make. "randroid" is not a word people use after having listened to somebody thoroughly, every time I've seen it used here on Youtube it was always used as a way to shut somebody's ideas down before any thorough discussion took place

[Sam26100]

@aaron0883 One example would be a post I left about a week ago on a video about Rothbard. I wasn't even being very offensive. All I did was say that Rothbard had used many of Rand's ideas without giving her credit, which is a well known fact. Imediately "randroid" came out. It's a word which has almost a playschool insult quality to it, such as "stupid" "moron" etc.  It's not a word used by thorough intellectuals

[SculptedThoughts]

@XOmniverse 1/2 Am to take from this that you are not opposed to the Objectivist philosophy - just those who do not properly understand it, or who allow themselves to be (I hate to say it but) owned by Ayn Rand?

I've been an Objectivist for a few years, but I can't stand when friends of mine who are also Objectivists turn to source Rand for every argument - especially the ones who will go so far as to change their Facebook names to "Galt," "Taggart," "Roark," etc.

[SculptedThoughts]

@XOmniverse 2/2 If she is right in her ideas, then it should not be "according to Ayn Rand..." but instead: "according to reality/this data/these premises..."

I like to think of Rand as an influence in the same sense that being exposed to certain stimuli throughout my life has has influenced me to develop opinions and mannerisms. She is something that I came into contact with, and reacted to accordingly.

[paulk314]

XOmniverse, I'm an Objectivist and I like a lot of your videos and I think you're pretty cool.

But come on. The guy didn't just insult Paul or disagree with him. He said flat out damaging lies. Paul does not threaten legal action because he "didn't like what somebody said about him" as you childishly imply (2:34). And he doesn't threaten legal action because he can't counter it with the truth (!).

I'll continue to enjoy your other videos, but I think this one is frankly despicable.

[charliegorilla]

socrates taught plato, then plato wrote on and sometimes questioned socrates . Plato taught Aristotle, then Aristotle questioned Plato, Ayn Rand studied Aristotle , she agreed with most of his concepts but also pointed out his flaws. Now we are being told by Leonard Peikoff and others that no one has the right to question Ayn. Philosophical fascism or what? Randy

[WordOfTheLivingLie]

An issue I'm trying to work out is ARI support of Israel. Their line is that it's a democratic state in a totalitarian Islamic region, but it's still primarily a religious state. It's also a socialist state. Current ARI Pres. Yaron Brook grew up in Israel and left because of the socialism. Many of the ARI's director's have been of Jewish heritage. Have to wonder if this rabid support is partly cultural rather than purely intellectual.

[spayce99]

Count the number of arabs on the ARI pay roll. AR, NH, LP, YB - all jews.

[overmind25]

LOL! THIS VIDEO WAS HILARIOUS FROM 6:15towards the end.

[WordOfTheLivingLie]

Oh hell no. Scientology is a random assemblage of outlandish sci-fi story elements concocted by LRH as the basis of a religion. I.e., not a lot different than Xtianity.

Objectivism is a philosophy put forth by Ayn Rand with reason, logic and the relationship of the reality of existence to Man's life as its basis. She did outline many of her ideas in fictional works but not remotely similar to what LRH did.

[Noscetum]

That, and Hubbard was nowhere near as shit a writer as Rand was.

[WordOfTheLivingLie]

Noscetum "That, and Hubbard was nowhere near as shit a writer as Rand was."

I look forward to hearing about your best-sellers written in your second language.

[XOmniverse]

No. Not at all.

[WordOfTheLivingLie]

Off the cuff - I haven't actively studied objectivism for some time but I've heard that Rand herself, Peikoff and others have a rep for alienating people. There's a history of schisms within Objectivism. This doesn't invalidate valid ideas. Perhaps what you're observing is more an issue of personality than of philosophy. Perhaps a certain "type" tends to be drawn to Objectivism.

[WordOfTheLivingLie]

Vehement disagreements over politics and philosophy are nothing new. People tend to be strong in their beliefs. You've seen how tenaciously the religious embrace nonsense. Efforts to forge this country's first government were plagued with white-hot disagreement. Leonard Peikoff and David Kelley both consider themselves Objectivists, were probably equally versed in AR's ideas and yet don't see eye to eye. The marketplace of ideas isn't a placid place.

[WordOfTheLivingLie]

I knew a guy who had some sessions with Edith Packer - a psychologist who I believe was on the ARI board of directors - he found her to be offputting in her approach. Ironically, a lot of people felt the same way about this guy.

[thesouthparkguy]

Really, this is what happens when people get so stuck on an idea that they're unwilling to change their mind on it. It doesn't matter what that is, even if you're generally RIGHT about what you're fanatical about, fanatics are by nature dicks just as a matter of course.

Fanaticism leads to dickism always...even if you're usually right. You always need to question everything or you're gonna end up flaming anyone who disagrees with you. It's just human nature, I guess. :(

[thesouthparkguy]

By the way, I love the word "randroid"! :D

[thesouthparkguy]

"maybe I was wrong about Objectivism...Maybe it's just people who are sorta right about some things...but who don't really THINK and don't ever consider that Ayn Rand might have been wrong about some things"

Yeah, that's pretty much Objectivism in a nutshell: "sorta right about some things but not willing to consider that Ayn Rand might be wrong."

I know exactly what you mean about Objectivists. They're vicious.

I'm probably gonna get skinned alive for this comment...

[jalil124]

lol, ive got to watch some of their vids now.

[djangothecat]

My only comment is, Let the Philosophy of Objectivism speak for Objectivism. And as far as YouTube Objectivists or On-Line or whatever individuals, if they misquote or misrepresent Objectivism, blame them, not Objectivism. Either agree or disagree with the philosophy, not with self-appointed, un-authorized 'spokespersons'. I usually stick to listening to Leonard Peikoff and Yaron Brook and give the amateurs less credibility unless they can prove their points.

Thanks

[BlackProteus]

Randroids are unadmitted mystics.

[truthadvocate]

If someone is running for a political office. And someone else spreads lies about him, thus damaging his reputation, why shouldn't he be able to threaten legal action. In my understanding of Objectivism, one can use force in defense of oneself. If what you say about Paul McKeever is correct, he was defending himself. I have to admit. I'm a little biased. He's the one person I agree with most of the time. In my opinion there are more important battles to fight on YouTube. Why pick on a good man?

[fortunatus]

Hail Kelly!

[xiala1980]

To me, the definition of a "Randroid" is someone who blindly follows everything that Ayn Rand has said. I'm a fan of Ayn Rand but certainly there are things that she has said that I don't agree with, such as her stance on mentally ill/retarded individuals and homosexuals; things of that nature. For that reason, I consider myself a post-objectivist.

[brainpolice2]

That's about the definition I use.

[sssswwwsssss]

Well said.

[qtronman]

Look at the scum you attract with videos of this type. YOU should be ashamed of yourself.

[grantsinmypants2]

oh, you philistine... don't you realize that philosophy is just a head game we all play on the internet?

did you miss the sign which said that we're not to take any of it seriously? that we're not to seriously, directly consider how it is to affect our daily lives?

how dare you insinuate that we act on all of our wild theories - when we are so much more comfortable pontificating towards a box; and keeping the rest of our irrational fetishes immune from rational scrutiny?

[qtronman]

You don't even know what that term means.

[Agnotio]

Fantastic video! You hit the nail on the head at the end when you said that some people actually avoid Rand because of what they see in Objectivists. I'm one of those people.

Because of what I've seen on youtube, I have little interest left in reading her works (though I was initially going to). I still respect and watch your videos though...

[nero8289]

well if some one desides not to read soemthing. Because some one pissed them of are morrons. Commies piss me of it dident stop me from reading marx

[leorana2]

boohoo

[DotPaulish]

I agree, I have noticed people acting like douche bags a lot. If I say 1+1=2, clearly I am right. But what happens if I say "1+1=2, and you are a fucking moron for not knowing". It is completely unnecessary to put the truth like that, but it seems like a lot of objectivists feel they need to, and they feel justified in doing so. I really don't understand it.

[ArrogantEgoist]

X, I watched jwoodswce's entire 3-part video series in reply to you, and assuming his recitation of the evidence is accurate, the claim that he is an irrational, bullying prick *is* unfounded, or at best, ill-founded. And, ironically, it *does* raise the issue of whether you did ever answer the question he repeatedly states you are evading. Who exactly *is* the irrational one here?

[grantsinmypants2]

I think you're looking for an excuse to not be heroic.

[spayce99]

Oh my fucking god what an Objecticunt you are.

[XOmniverse]

And I think you're making shit up.

[grantsinmypants2]

I wasn't simply making an assertion. I was suggesting you consider a far larger topic - and because I am familiar with your intelligence and proclivity for independent thought, I figured you would.

I'm disappointed.

[XOmniverse]

I don't consider being unnecessarily mean and trying to cow people into submission "heroic." Far from it.

It takes far more patience and effort to take the time to actually explain and discuss your ideas calmly, and it's far more effective.

[grantsinmypants2]

Thats not what I was addressing; and you know full well that anything other than independent, objective judgement is not part of what Objectivism advocates.

Its irrelevant if what these Youtubers who call themselves Oists are doing is or is not Oism. Youre just using it as an excuse to abandon Oism because integrating it - seriously, fully, long into adulthood is painful

It certainly wont allow you to escape the need to consider the objective validity of, say, Aism - let alone heavy metal

[spayce99]

For those of you who remember a user named joelmac1983 from 2007, he left because he was tired of this kind of idiocy.

[DemonzLunchBreak]

Fucking brilliant. This is why I've never referred to myself as an Objectivist. Although Ayn Rand's philosophy was against it, her movement gradually became dogmatic and irrational. Holding beliefs that are approximately true (Objectivism) is useless if you do not understand how those beliefs are derived.

[PaulMcKeever]

A falsehood was published, multiple times, without retraction, by brainpolice2, that part of my income comes from the murder of people.

[soitoldhimno]

I'm with you, Paul.

[qtronman]

I agree with you Paul. If I said brainpolice2--as a claim taken to be serious--murdered people for his income, and people took my statement seriously and he actually, say, lost his job (if he has one), he believes he should have no legal recourse?

[Sparkygravity]

youtube has killed my response 3 times so needless to say I agree with this video completely.

[Chuloloc]

Interesting.

[jackson32]

I understand that if someone disagrees with you on something, they can sometimes be brutally honest and harshly criticize your statement, but as long as they don't turn it into something personal, I think it's ok.

I do sometimes engage in personal insults, but only when the other person started, which is probably not very smart.

I think we should use logic to tear apart bad ideas, and trust that at least other rational people will see the truth, without engaging in personal attacks.

[qtronman]

Rand supported slander and libel laws. I can pull up some quotations, if you want.

[brainpolice2]

Unfortunate if true.

[soitoldhimno]

I haven't been able to find anything so if you could that'd be great. Peikoff does have this to say on his website:

"A provably false accusation against an innocent individual is libel or slander and, assuming some economic damage is involved as a result, its author is punished, not protected by a proper government; the author must know in such a case that his claim is false or have reckless disregard as to whether it is true or not.....

[soitoldhimno]

....(A celebrity, in my judgment, has the same right to protection against libel and slander as every other individual; he should not, as he is today, be turned by the courts into a free target for envious mediocrities to hurl slime at.)"

I've been thinking about this since I heard about Mckeever's suit, and I still don't know what to think. Intentionally lying and accusing someone of a crime they did not commit seems to be moral grounds for a suit, beyond that I'm not sure.

[horvay]

I actually am annoyed by anarchist who have studied Objectivism a good bit for this reason: as far as I can tell, it comes from a lack of understanding of Objectivist epistemology.

I've noticed it is rampant in even Objectivist circles. Anarcho-capitalist can generally tell you Objectivist ethics and politics through and through, but a real good walk through of the epistemology hasn't really been seen until Peikoff's "Understanding Objectivism". Its pricey, but very good.

[XOmniverse]

Does it present any ideas that aren't available in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology?

[horvay]

Understanding Objectivism is actually a step on top of that. It is required reading before actually listening to "Understanding Objectivism"

It really goes over in detail: 1 the process of "chewing" concepts to really understand them, 2 the importance of conceptual hierarchy, 3 the difference in the subjective, objective, and intrinsic form of gaining knowledge (not just value), and lastly, 4 how the intrinsic form (the easiest to be caught by, by honest people) leads to rationalism.

(cont.)

[horvay]

He talks about his own battles with it as well, and how he fraught with it for 20 years.

He's the one who convinced Ayn Rand that Objectivism's theory of knowledge is not something that everyone obviously picks up on.

[chris3443]

lol randroids, I love it

[Seksivince]

case in point: "Be careful; your epistemology is showing." HAHHAAHAH

[spayce99]

Sek, or whatever your ridiculous name is, are you saying there is something funny about the misuse of Man's Reason!?!?! His sole means of survival!!!

You are scum!!!!!!!

Kidding, I'm kidding.

[Seksivince]

speaking as a former randroid, i conclusively agreed with you.

[thorsmitersaw]

your new room seems less dreary :)

[Oppp2]

although i would still call myself an objectivist, i agree with you on every count, Xomni. keep it up

[D4rkReaver13]

Hopefully I am an exception. :P

[XOmniverse]

Never had a problem with you.

[horvay]

throw new D4rkReaverException("D4rkReave­r is an Objectivist");

Now you are an exception.

[D4rkReaver13]

Haha. Very good.

[neutrinoide]

Awesome rant

[chris3443]

Yeah, agreed, there are wayyyy too many narks on Youtube. Douchebags, all of them. Keep up the great work man.

[Moragauth]

I think neo-Aristotelianism is superior to Objectivism, though it is reinforced by Randian insights. On another note, there are some good Objectivists on YT, like Qtronman or Nine9s or Horvay, who are not just blind fanatics, and who actually understand Rand.

[spayce99]

Nine9s continually surprises me. A large part of Objectivist dogmatism comes from an inability to understand another person's view. Except her, in her conversations with SD she at least got what he was saying.

[horvay]

I don't agree with Aristotle's Intrinsic view of knowledge, though it isn't too bad. All knowledge is contextual though, something that even Objectivist miss out on alot. Relative doesn't mean non-objective.

It probably comes from just a pure hatred of subjectivism.

Anyways, I think anarchist usually use the intrinsic theory of knowledge as well. That is, contextless absolutes.

[XOmniverse]

I know there are. I watch all three of them.

[subach]

I like a lot of the values of objectivism, but Rand was the one who said something along the lines of 'if you don't agree with all of objectivism, then you're not an objectivist.'

[spayce99]

I think the full quote said that they can "believe whatever irrational hodgepodge they want". Not one to concede the honesty of opposing views.

[brainpolice2]

My general rule of thumb has always been that I like Rand herself (despite my disagreements and despite libertarian criticisms in general) a lot more than her supposed followers. I think it's been the worst recently with all of the videos attacking aaron made by most youtube Objectivists, all of which were blatnatly snide. It indeed is bullying people into submission, and proceeding to make a ridiculous on the spot psycho-analysis of them.

[spayce99]

Remember, its not a gross personal attack if you call it a 'moral evaluation'.

[neutrinoide]

Agree, they make it to easy the psycho-analysing. It like they aren`t self aware of their own emotion and we are here seeing through their skin made of optic fiber.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

**"My general rule of thumb has always been that I like Rand herself (despite my disagreements and despite libertarian criticisms in general)"**

Tentatively agreed, though I'm more inclined to say "respect" than "like." I was lucky to have read Atlas Shrugged before delving headlong into the philosophy itself or encountering the abundance of unpleasant Objectivists out in the world.

[brainpolice2]

Yes, it would make more sense to say "respect".

[AnarchyIsForMe]

Mr.Cropper and the like needs to stfu before they drives more people away from libertarian

[jwoodswce]

A, The fewer Libertarians, the better. Any other suggestions....

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

Depends on what kind of libertarian you're talking about. If you mean Big L Libertarians then yeah, the fewer the better.

[horvay]

Objectivist generally agree that the big L are more destructive than good. The little l, well, the concept of liberty is always good. But I don't think anarchist and Objectivist agree on what it means.

[jwoodswce]

X, Keep some Vaseline next to your computer as you will need it....to extract your foot from your mouth.

Why do you keep doing this to yourself?

[spayce99]

People often ask me why I am so obsessed with hating objectivists.

Because of you.

[jwoodswce]

S,

Given that I have made only one explicitly Objectivist vid and rarely make explicitly Objectivist comments, your sample of data from me must be extremely small given the breadth of your extrapolation.

Be careful; your epistemology is showing.

[UnhealthySalad]

I used to be an Objectivist and it always surprised me how people kept saying that Objectivism was like a religion. I have since rejected Objectivism because I found it logically inconsistent, and after seeing brainpolice argue with Objectivists and totally destroyed their arguments, I then realized why everyone called Objectivism a relgion. Objectivists are like zombies who don't ever want to admit that maybe their Goddess and her philosophy were wrong on certain things.

[Wonderbread167]

Excellent video, particularly the last point. Objectivism is seen as a weird cult in mainstream society because of people like this.

[spayce99]

Objectivism is like religion, people get 'converted' because of the imagery and emotion, not usually the logic. Religion also is a safe haven for angry moralists, lets face it, the movement has seen a lot of people choose Rand because she provided a safe haven for libertarian pricks.

People like yourself and other rational Objectivists seem to be an extreme minority. Like Taliban homosexual jewish feminists.

[Moragauth]

That is wrong without qualification - in the first place, Randroids are fanatics, not Randians/Objectivists. Second, many are neocons, not even libertarians.

[spayce99]

In my own personal experience only about 2 in 10 self identified "Objectivists" are honest and rational. But personal experience aside the organization that controls the publishing of Rand's work, established the major Objectivist 'academic' center and spends far, far more in 'promoting' Rand then any other Objectivish group, the Ayn Rand Institute is very, very fanatical.

[spayce99]

Obviously there are intellectually honest Objectivists out there (and groups like The Atlas Society) but the fanatics control things to the point that XO is forced to idenitify as a minority or a quasi-Oist in his vids. Only the fanatics seem to be able to say "I'm an Objectivist!!" without a string of qualifications.

[Moragauth]

Yes, TAI is perhaps the worst. I think The Atlas Society is in better form than it.

[spayce99]

Its a trade off. The TAS is more rational and open but is organizationally ineffective. Because it has no income derived from sales of Rand's works it relies on ex-ARI folks, its conferences are less well attended, its clubs far more sparse and its publications tend to be watered down responses to ARI screeds (google Noodle Food, a blog, and read about these issues). The ARI however has vast wealth to draw on and has even been making main stream media head way.

ARI = Ayn Rand Institute.

[marneedear]

TAS is a mess. They promote nothing, support obvious liars like Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. Their op eds are mushy, feel good, futility that rarely speak to principles and are often disintegrated.

Just because they seem "nicer" doesnt make them better.

[spayce99]

I am about as anti-ARI as one can get without foaming at the mouth but i have to agree. The TAS is not an effective organization.

[aaron0883]

"Just because they seem "nicer" doesn't make them better." I disagree with you. I welcome you to comment on my condescension video and tell me where I messed up. Yet, I am absolutely trying to make the case that people being nicer does make them better.

[horvay]

What do you think of Ayn Rand's heroes? Even to their closest friends they would not try to be nice on issues. They would say their opinions without regard to making it sound better. They would straight, to the point, with no fluff.

I think Marneedear and you might be talking about a different meaning of, "nice." I found Roark's reaction to Steven (the sculpture) very nice and caring, but many might not think it was "nice".

[aaron0883]

I find Ayn Rand's heroes to be awesome in many ways. I would not call them nice. I think I might make a video about this soon. When we pick the words and manner in which we speak we can not help to relay our emotional context. I do not ask anyone to add fluff, per se ... however, i do require them to have a respecting manner. However, a lot of this is contextual, and would depend on the interaction. Although, i agree, we might have different meanings of the word nice.

[MrCropper]

"When we pick the words and manner in which we speak we can not help to relay our emotional context"

Emotional context is actually irrelevant to the meaning of a statement.

[Agnotio]

Emotional context is irrelevant? What about a statement like: "I hate you".  If said within an angry context, it's a serious statement, but if in a joking or friendly one it's something completely different...

[Nelapidae]

Two good examples of an 'Ayn Rand hero' being "nice" to someone without engaging in some kind of feeling-appeasement...both from Atlas Shrugged:

The first is Dagny and Cherryl when Cherryl comes to apologize for her previous behavior towards Dagny. The second is Rearden and the Wet Nurse (in a couple of scenes leading up to the Wet Nurse's death). In either case, the hero was not being charitable or nice for niceness' sake; they were being fair and just and their compassion was deserved.

[MrCropper]

"I welcome you to comment on my condescension video and tell me where I messed up"

Yeah, good luck with that.

[saxmanmax]

good to see you back

[aaron0883]

I have the same frustrations and fully agree.

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

I too can't stand the Randroids. Of course, I don't really like Rand much anymore. I guess you could say some of her ideas affected me but I'm not sure I really want to associate myself with her.

[WordOfTheLivingLie]

FistsoFuckinFreedom - Okay, some of her ideas affected you, point out which of her ideas you find to be incorrect.

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

Big one... Government.

Also, I agree a lot with Aaron0883's Ayn Rand missteps videos.

[WordOfTheLivingLie]

How was she wrong about government.

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

She advocated it.

[WordOfTheLivingLie]

So you don't have an argument nor did you actually grasp any of what she said. You just like to make meaningless noise.

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

I have an argument, but I know you're not going to listen and argue from emotion, so I don't really care for this conversation.

[WordOfTheLivingLie]

I'm going to judge your comments on whether they reflect understanding of what Ayn Rand stated and whether you can present a logical argument if you say she was wrong. So far you've taken the pussy way out, partially engaging in a discussion with a few naysaying thought fragments and then stating you don't want to engage in a discussion. I say you've got nuthin'.

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

No, you've got nothing.

[D4Shawn]

I think if you just read Ayn Rand on your own, you'll be just fine. If you associate with any of the institutions formed in her name/in the name of Objectivism, you're likely to end up fucked in the head. That seems to be the way it works. I don't think that reading some philosophy is going to transform you into a humorless jerk, but that seems to be what happens to those involved with Objectivist organizations.

[Moragauth]

The Atlas Society is an exception...

[marneedear]

The Atlas Society is a total mess.

[nine9s]

How is the Atlas Society a total mess?

[AynRandOeuvre]

"Question: Why don't you approve of Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works?

Aynswer: Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagarize my ideas when it fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality.

They'd like to have an amoral political program.

...

[AynRandOeuvre]

"Question: The Libertarians are providing immediate steps toward your goals. Why don't you support them?

Aynswer: Please don't tell me they're pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That's how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout all history: by means of people who understand and teach it to others.

...

[AynRandOeuvre]

"...Further, it should be clear that I do not endorse the filthy slogan. 'The end justifies the means.' That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by the Communists and Nazis. The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, the Libertarians aren't worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism."

(Ayn Rand : TheAgeOfMediocrity @ TheFordHallForum\76AR)

[nine9s]

"I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas."

Which political party are those philosophically educated people supposed to vote for? Or is voting itself immoral, given the present choices? If it's ok to vote for a Republican, it's ok to vote for someone better.

[AynRandOeuvre]

"I am speaking to those of you who desire to live and recapture the honor of their soul. Now that you know the truth about your world, *stop supporting your destroyers*. The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. Withdraw your sanction. Withdraw your support. Do not try to live on your enemies' terms or to win at a game where they're setting the rules..."

(JohnGalt:'StateOfTheEgoAddres­s'\ AtlasShrugged\AynRand)

[nine9s]

Hey Oevre, you responded but didn't answer the question. Why is it ok to vote for a Republican but not a libertarian? It doesn't make any sense to vote for the second-best candidate just because the first-best still isn't good enough.

[Nelapidae]

If you get a cogent answer from that bot nines, I will be really really surprised. I blocked them all from my channel and my videos.

[grantsinmypants2]

When I get videos sent to me by Moragauth of some weird German professor taking a sociological view that the democratic form of government is the source of all the world wars. That the modern idea of self-government is the root of imperialism, aggression, and genocide...

...that's when I know that the cult of non-objectivity - even in it's extremely sophisticated, hold-out forms such a Rothbardianism, Libertarianism, and Anarchism - has come full circle...

[grantsinmypants2]

...This speaker I watched was actually defending medieval monarchism!

[Aynology]

"Why is it ok to vote for...?" (nine9s)

Its not.

And this is where faculty & cheerleaders (delapidae included) are terminally mixed-premise-malade by voting strategically.

"There are two sides to every issue. One is right, the other is wrong. The middle is always evil."

(ThisIsJohnGaltSpeaking)

*p.s.- Its 'Oeuvre'! Between your spelling and the Spartan politics & pronunciation of BrandoniusCroppernicus I am fearful for future Objectivites.

(not really Sweetie, the motor is done $8D

(A $ A)

[ArrogantEgoist]

Check the premise that a libertarian is *indeed* the first best option. I strongly suggest you *carefully* read and evaluate Schwartz' article "Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty," which is *not* primarily about who to vote for, but about the *ideology* of libertarianism. Also, given the current (very sad) state of politics, I don't even think that a *Republican* would be the first best option. Unfortunately, I think someone like Obama would be.

[nine9s]

"I don't even think that a *Republican* would be the first best option. Unfortunately, I think someone like Obama would be."

You have GOT to be kidding me. OBAMA?!?!!? You've got some explaining to do.

[ArrogantEgoist]

Nine9s, I wish I *were* kidding, but I'm not. My statement wasn't indended to be an endorsement of Obama, only an identification of him as a lesser of two (or three) evils. And even this I'm not 100% sure about (note that I wrote "I think..."). I would have to more thoroughly examine the candidates to be fully sure.

[Continue]

[ArrogantEgoist]

[Continued from last.]

Further, even if we grant that Obama is the lesser of three evils (which, in my judgment, is highly probable), it doesn't follow that one should vote for him, as against abstain from voting. This depends on whether or not one would be doing *any* good by voting for him, and this is far from obvious.

[Continued.]