DOMA and Prop 8. Both History.

[LemmingofGlory]

If you go back and read my original post, I didn't say nationwide gay marriage would inevitably create backlash, but that it was a possibility, and one that I think is strong due to the backwards and reactionary political culture of the U.S. relative to other nations.

Yeah, I inferred that if you were mentioning it that you must have thought it probable, which is why I criticized it. My point that you are lacking in a broader perspective to understand this issue is still salient, regardless of your rambling about how "Capitalism IS the forest." The likelihood of a backlash is not understood only from the perspective of examining "the Capitalism." I do not see why you would even begin to think that it would be. Personally, I think whiplash is more likely than backlash.

Since you seem to praise intelligence and learning so much, the following may help you. There are some very important things a wise student learns which are indirect consequences of course work, and these should be known to anyone who attended university.

(1) No discipline exists in a bubble.
Every academic discipline benefits from intellectual cross-pollination with other disciplines. Where this relates to this conversation is that we're discussing a social issue. Social phenomena are interesting because this idea actually scales down further. The understanding an observer has from a distance is very different from the understanding the observer has after interacting with those being observed. You should routinely expect your perspective on social issues to be refined the more you interact with the groups involved, which is not a refinement due to understanding how terrible capitalism is. You can be certain that capitalism is a tree in this forest of knowledge, because social scientists need not assume the hypothesis "A society is based upon capitalism."

(2) Know the limits of an idea: Every explanation we've ever found only goes so far.
To date, we've not found any grand theories that completely explain an entire academic discipline. Moreover, some ideas work very well at one scale and not so well at others. Newtonian physics works great at some scales, but at others it breaks down and we need Relativity. "The Capitalism" also most likely has a problem with scale, which is also why you often come across sounding like a crackpot or conspiracy theorist. Well, that and the fact that you take every opportunity to derail threads into discussions of capitalism and have a general difficulty understanding metaphors in your very literal interpretation of things said to you.

(3) Not everything is intuitive.
If it was, we wouldn't have academic disciplines anymore. We'd just be right all the time, and it'd be amazing. This is probably my favorite list item because Republican politicians, on social issues, are incredibly fond of appealing to the intellect of their constituents by invoking "It's just common sense" when the issue under discussion is so gravely misunderstood it's unclear whether the misunderstanding is deliberate or if the speaker is really that dim. This item, at the moment, I'm not relating to anything you've said; it just belongs on this list.

So while such a prediction isn't inevitable, it is possible, and given the circumstances one could make the argument that it is even probable. I don't think any person, unless they have some sort of crystal ball that we are deprived of, is going to say such an outcome is inevitable. That would be overly deterministic. Systems of analysis (Marxist or non) aren't used to predict outcomes, but to show which outcomes are possible or not possible. Which of the possibilities will result is anyone's guess, it all depends on a variety of material factors and how they play out.

Do you just assume your audience is stupid? This whole paragraph is an explanation to a reader who does not know the difference between "certain" / "probable" / "possible" / "impossible". Assuming an audience is stupid is the mistake made by Stephen Wolfram, and it's why he has to play in the sandbox by himself. (It's the uncovered sandbox that the cats poop in.)

My friend, I'm not at any disadvantage in accessing the material conditions of society - quite the opposite actually. People like Hammer though, who are dumber than shit to begin with, are at a multitude of disadvantages when speaking on any intellectual based topic.

The court may think the fool a simpleton when his wit outstrips their own.

I know all this already. The point I was making to Kandrathe was that lists, awards, and other such things that measure how good or popular something is in our culture should be taken lightly, and that he shouldn't necessarily be using such things to try and drive his points home. I was using Beebs as an analogy to point out that Rand topping some novels reader list is meaningless. Marx's "Capital Vol.1" skyrocketed in sales after capitalism dropped over dead for the millionth time in 2008 and had to be resuscitated by the state, but it doesn't mean anything. That's all.

See, I was ribbing you by talking in buzzwords and jargon.

Also, kandrathe is entirely correct when he says we all love Canadians. It's just something everyone knows, but they might not be aware of it. The thing is, you cannot actually choose to hate Canadians. It's not a choice. It's just how everyone is born. Even if you say you do it's just not true, like when ex-gays say they're not gay anymore.

-Lem

[Hammerskjold]

I like music, of course. I don't say musicians are worthless. I just think that someone who makes millions by singing crappy songs does not earn my respect.

Of course Bieber will not care if he has my respect, so you should also not.

Still not what shoju and others have pointed\talking about. No one is asking you or anyone else to carry tributes or pay him or anyone respect -AS A PERSON-. That's a separate field.

Playing guitar, singing a song that's not to your liking, chasing a ball on a field, all these things don't cure cancer. This is not a big shocking revelation to anyone with two neurons to rub together.

But since this seems to be stuck in a ditch, let's try a different tack.

I'll ask you something simple, and you don't even have to answer.

Have you ever tried to play a sport at a professional level\standard?

Since playing with\against pro level athletes may not be feasible financially\realistically. Let's imagine the next best thing. You playing a game (futbol\soccer, anything really.) full tilt, pro league duration. Even something like just running a soccer field up and down for a full length game time. That's not all though. There's practice remember? Sure there are stories of pro athletes getting perks and luxuries that would make Caligula blush, but that's for later. Practice is now.

But that's sports, that has nothing to do with music\creative field. Allrighty, again you don't even have to answer. I'll just ask this real simple like.

Do you have a song\film\book\play\painting\sculpture\videogame that you happen to like? Ever tried making something of a similar quality? Oh right, it's a somewhat subjective field isn't it.

Ok, how about just plain and simple mimicry. Nothing wrong with it by the way, art students have done copies of 'Master works' for their learn- ons for a long time. As long as they label it as a copy, it's considered ok and fair use. Ever tried picking up a hammer and chisel to go make a copy of 'David'? Both Mikey Angelos, and Berninis version? Or sing a pitch and note perfect copy of a song? Or do a moonwalk perfectly?

Many of these people on a personal level, could very well be spoiled scumbags. (With some of them it could be said with 99.9% certainty.)

That still doesn't change my question. Have you or anyone else that thinks that what they do is all 'money for nothing and the chicks for free', ever attempted any of the things they have done? On the same level that they did?

[eppie]

That still doesn't change my question. Have you or anyone else that thinks that what they do is all 'money for nothing and the chicks for free', ever attempted any of the things they have done? On the same level that they did?

Eee no, I am neither a professional athlete nor a musician.
Still I don't see what the point is. I am amazed and excited about a song or a great goal...but thinking more of the person who achieves this?

When seeing a professional athlete up close (I have had the chance to talk a few minutes to one of the better NBA center of the 90's) you can get flabbergasted and don't know what to say (of course I was a teenager at that time) but if his achievements in professional sports made me respect him more?

Of course there are people in these worlds who do earn my respect, but not just the fact that they are talented and decide to go for that career.

I am personally more of an all rounder. I run a pretty OK 5k compared to my peers. No that's a joke......I only look to people better than me when I am running or so. I am not the kind of person who gets overexcited because he ran a marathon under 4 hours.


Still getting back to your question. Thinking that somebody does great at sports is not the same as respecting that person. If you think it means the same, we are just talking about different things.

[LemmingofGlory]

And now, I want to vomit, because I've defending him twice.

Just keep in mind it could've been worse. Instead of defending Bieber you could've been defending ICP. I'm not sure if that thought makes the vomit go down or come up, though.

-Lem

[Hammerskjold]

Eee no, I am neither a professional athlete nor a musician.
Still I don't see what the point is. I am amazed and excited about a song or a great goal...but thinking more of the person who achieves this?

I didn't ask if you were a pro. I asked if you ever attempted any of the example endeavours, at a pro level. Even something simple like a pro level exercise\training. Physical or otherwise.

I didn't ask why anyone would 'think more of the person who achieves this'. Unless it's a language factor, that you wrote that makes me wonder if you understand that a slam dunk or any creative thing doesn't just automagically pops out.

When seeing a professional athlete up close (I have had the chance to talk a few minutes to one of the better NBA center of the 90's) you can get flabbergasted and don't know what to say (of course I was a teenager at that time) but if his achievements in professional sports made me respect him more?

I didn't ask you to pay respect to these people -ON A PERSONAL LEVEL-. Please stop talking like I asked you to. edited clarification: (As if I asked anyone to pay 'spects to them on a personal level that is. Don't read that as me telling you to stop talking. Ah the english langwich. )

Still getting back to your question. Thinking that somebody does great at sports is not the same as respecting that person.

Great. Because that's not what I said at all. There's the craft\art\vocation, and the humanoid.

I can loathe someone and have little to no respect for them on a -personal- level, but still give credit where craft is concerned.

If you still think I'm advocating people to genuflect and throw rose petals on the floor for athletes and musicians. I'm not sure what to say.

/Separating art from artist, how do they work?!111

[kandrathe]

I know of her because the papers are full of articles about her every time she wears a strange dress or farts...

SHE FARTS?!?!?! OMG!

Also, kandrathe is entirely correct when he says we all love Canadians. It's just something everyone knows, but they might not be aware of it. The thing is, you cannot actually choose to hate Canadians. It's not a choice. It's just how everyone is born. Even if you say you do it's just not true, like when ex-gays say they're not gay anymore.

True. True.

When I travel abroad, I always take it as the height of flattery when people believe I'm a Canadian. Imagine their shock when I reveal my secret identity -- a reasonable, polite, reserved, and gracious American. And... humble... did I mention humble?

That still doesn't change my question. Have you or anyone else that thinks that what they do is all 'money for nothing and the chicks for free', ever attempted any of the things they have done? On the same level that they did?

Exactly. Which was my point with Ms. Rand. I'd truly be ecstatic were I to write a novel and have it merely published, let alone widely read. I've never "been on tour" like a musician, but I can imagine the travel and the endless shows for up to a year would be extremely difficult. The longest I've ever been "on tour" for my job has been six grueling weeks in Atlanta in July. I can't count the gig I did in California where I was in Redmond 2 weeks a month for a year designing and building a system, because I talked them into flying my wife and newborn with me. Perhaps it's human nature, but no matter what we do, there are always the Albert Schweitzer's and the Mother Teresa's putting it ALL on the line for an entire lifetime -- making us all look like couch potatoes.

[kandrathe]

Atlas Shrugged imho is a cautionary tale of "parasites", "looters", and "moochers" run amok. All classes in the novel were rife with corruption, seeking to get their wealth by taking it from others who had earned it honestly.

But it isn't. It is a PROMOTION of, not a cautionary tale against, the whole "greed is good" philosophy, selfishness, and materialism.

So I thought I would attempt to unwind this mess you've made. It will probably do no good -- meaning you will ignore it -- silk purse out of a sows ear and all. But, first, let me state that I'm not an adherent of "objectivism", but you cast so many untruths and logical fallacies that it pains me to just let it stand. Rand was casting about for a philosophy to be her moral compass having rejected religion. I find her attempt interesting. Much as I find the Bhagavad Gita or Lao Tsu to be interesting. Interesting doesn't mean I'm busy reworking my worldview. Interesting does not mean endorsement either.

Her novels are designed to paint the laughable notion that somehow it is the rich who are becoming oppressed in society.

She came from the Soviet Union, where the government seized her fathers pharmacy and her family nearly starved to death. She studied philosophy, and history -- but finding the university replete with communist bullies opted to study screen writing instead. She came the the US to visit a relative, then ended up in Hollywood and met Cecil B., DeMille and actor Frank O’Connor, who would become her husband. Her novels were meant to be drama, and she drew inspiration from what she had been through and learned. She saw America as a place where people could be free.

One of the key points of Objectivism, the ideology which her novels were based off, is that selfishness and exploitation of the weak by the powerful is a good and natural thing, so how can they be cautionary tales?

You have either misunderstood, or just lapped up the pablum fed to you by others. Selfish is not the word she uses, it is self interest -- meaning that ultimately she saw a persons life purpose to be satisfying self interest. That may mean being altruistic, if by being altruistic you achieve some self interested goal. She believed that no one should throw their lives away for others, nor should anyone's efforts or life be seized from them. Obectivism is really more that people should live for themselves. The distilled version would be; 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

The simple answer is they are not, and it doesn't take rocket science to figure it out. Her stories were her sick, twisted, sociopathic version of how she thinks society should look, and for the sake of humankind, I hope that such a thing never takes place.

Did you ever hear of a guy named Thomas Harris? Do you confuse his stories for a personal sick and twisted worldview? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to separate a persons art, from the artist.

It is no surprise that much of the current GOP and prototype capitalists view her as a hero, but what is worrisome is that she seems to be developing a cult following among brainwashed high school/young college students today.

As opposed to the cult of brainwashed Marxists? Let's cut to the GOP though, since this is utterly false. The vast part of the GOP is solidly moving toward the evangelicals who reject Rand the atheist, and second Rand the live and let live libertarian. The faction of the GOP who are Tea Party hardliners on small government but socially more liberal who are the niche who are resonating with her more libertarian message -- but in order to not alienate the evangelicals hold Ayn at arms length -- at least publicly in front of the big donors.

All one has to do is have a basic understanding of what objectivism is, and read/watch any of her interviews to see that her works were not warnings, but diatribes on how she actually saw the world as it should be. Anything else is just a cover-up, or turning the facts around to make her views look like something that they really are not.

Ah, then, since ANYTHING else is cover-up, distortion and lies... Interesting argument tactic... Let's try it out; Marx is a self absorbed coward who spent most of his time mooching off Engels money to spend in beer halls getting drunk, and any claims to the contrary are the ravings of a demented, sick, twisted, perverted, deviant liar. This is the classic fallacy of the excluded middle. You are either with us, or a self hating, baby seal clubbing, nose picking, ankle biting, vermin. Well, which is it?

This same women called a real life child rapist/killer the victim in the crime he committed for being persecuted and ultimately executed for it. She was scum, her work is utter crap, and objectivism is the virtue of the sociopath (and the hypocrite).

Have you ever disagreed with the government executing people? How do you feel about the 40+ people who were executed by our government last year? Change.org has a petition signed by 1200 people to save Beunka Adams, who was convicted of an equally heinous crime.

But, again I also think you have her writing and character development confused with her again. She wrote, but never finished a screenplay, based on that guy where the anti-hero murders a KKK deep south preacher. The book was going to be -- "The Little Street", with a Hickmanlike hero; a character named Danny Renahan, who kills this evil minister in a way similar to the way Hickman killed his victims. So, in her journal, she's writing about her planning of the book, and she's writing about Hickman: "Yes, he is a monster—now. But the worse he is, the worst must be the cause that drove him to this. Isn’t it significant that society was not able to fill the life of an exceptional, intelligent boy, to give him anything to out-balance crime in his eyes? If society is horrified at this crime, it should be horrified at the crime’s ultimate cause: itself. The worse the crime—the greater it’s guilt. What would society answer, if that boy were to say: “Yes, I’m a monstrous criminal, but what are you? "

So, in her notes it's clear she thought he was a monster. But, she was also intrigued by his rejection of everything society has told him to believe. We shrink in horror at the crimes we see around us, yet we reject the idea that it is our society that makes the monsters.

[eppie]

Great. Because that's not what I said at all. There's the craft\art\vocation, and the humanoid.

I can loathe someone and have little to no respect for them on a -personal- level, but still give credit where craft is concerned.

If you still think I'm advocating people to genuflect and throw rose petals on the floor for athletes and musicians. I'm not sure what to say.

So you are talking about making an effort, and respecting that right?
So but why would I respect someone more if the person happens to be good in something (e.g. playing on a professional level). There are many people doing the same training (well less of course because not being professional they need a job which costs time) and do not reach the same levels (sports and music requires some abilities you get born with).

It is probably a very American thing to think that only people who reach the top try hard enough.

So I can enjoy someones music or athletic achievements, I can appreciate and respect the hard work behind this (I have been doing tough trainings in running while I knew I would never reach anything near the top....so I was just doing it for the sake of it), but I don't respect the person just for that.


Don't forget that the level of self-centeredness among artists is much higher than that in the normal society. Of course this property is necessary to make it (I fully understand that, don't get me wrong), because the wish to 'make it' and become rich and famous is so important to actually do so. I mean this is the reason communism hasn't spread over the globe and capitalism has. Seeing yourself as the center of the universe will help a person put in much more effort in something than he would otherwise manage to.
........

.......


.....

I decided to check out his wikipedia page and read some things I am a bit disappointed of that no-one here mentioned them here.

It talks about his giving to charity, investing in high tech start-ups and work for PETA. Well, this is exactly the sort of thing I can respect.
Much more than the usual Scientology, and dog-fighting hobbies that many of them have.

[shoju]

1st. I find it really hard to understand why you have no respect for bieber when you admitted you've never heard a song by him.
2nd. I respect all musicians. From the 4th grader just starting in a music program at an elementary school, to Bieber, to Jay Z, to Slipknot, and everyone in between.

Because, I know how hard it is to write music.
I know how hard it is to bare your soul in lyric and movement.
I know how hard it is to step on that stage for the first time, or the 100th time, or the thousandth time.


And I absolutely positively RESENT your comment that there is somehow more "self centeredness" amongst artists. What? Because I can create a piece of photographic or digital art, or write a song, or write a poem, I'm somehow more prone to be self centered?

That's a load of Bullshit.

We don't see ourselves at the center of the universe as a way to motivate us to become more famous. That's really, not the goal. The goal is to share, and spread, and experience the art, in whatever medium, and share it with as many other people as possible.

We shouldn't have had to bring up the fact that he is a charitable guy, or that he's into tech stuff, or that he is a huge advocate of PETA. You shouldn't be such a damn Bieber Bigot when you haven't heard a song that he's done, you haven't taken the time to understand him.

You took the Record Industry bullshit, pre conceived notions, and media stuff and ran with it, and created a monster in your head out of a pain in the ass bratty kid who is probably a decent guy if you know him, but is struggling under the enormous weight of the spotlight with which our consumeristic society uses to consume the public beiber.

This, is why I would never have made it as a "famous" musician. I would have either killed someone, or blown my brains out. I couldn't take even a portion of that kind of public scrutiny.

[Jester]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to separate a persons art, from the artist.

If you look in the dictionary* under "Author Fillibuster," you find Ayn Rand. Both of her major novels end with stupendously long lectures from the heroic, Objectivist main character, telling us how wonderful self-interest is. She is very much instantiating her social fantasies in the form of novels. (This is not inherently bad, but it is true.) She didn't even manage to convincingly separate herself from her characters, let alone her ideas from those expressed in her novels. There might be some authors where this is a reasonable argument. Ayn Rand is not one of them. The philosophy she held, the group she founded, and the ideas expressed in her novels all follow exactly the same Objectivist doctrine.

-Jester

*Okay, TVTropes.org...

[FireIceTalon]

^^That is more or less what I was thinking upon reading Kandrathe's prior post. I am able to separate Stephen King the author from Stephen King the person. He simply wrote scary, twisted novels - but there was no political agenda behind them, nor do I think he personally connected with the chars in his stories. With Rand, there blatantly was. The political philosophy and worldview she adhered to was what her novels were entirely centered around, and so very clearly so that I don't see how one could come to a contrary conclusion.

As for Marx being a drunk and moocher of Engels - perhaps this is true. "Moocher" is a rather disparaging term, though. Engels and Marx were friends, and Marx suffered from many health problems later in life, and he also lost one of his children. Engels willingly helped him financially as a friend, and I look at it that way more than I do Marx being a "moocher". As for him being a drunk, well, it wouldn't surprise me if he was. Between the hardships he suffered, and observing the horrors of 19th century capitalism and having a better understanding of it than anyone else, would probably be enough to make any person not want to look at the world through sober eyes. I know even in TODAY'S capitalist society, many suffer from alcoholism and depression, and not just because of a personal tragedy or hardship they experienced, but often because of financial problems or the alienation which the capitalist system imposes upon them - whether they understand the system or not. At any rate, I don't think Marx being a drunk and helped out by Engels is even close to putting a dent in the validity of their theoretical framework.

[Hammerskjold]

So you are talking about making an effort, and respecting that right?
So but why would I respect someone more...

eppie ,eppie, eppie, ooh
Like eppie ,eppie, eppie, noo
Like eppie ,eppie, eppie, ooh...


Ok seriously.

...See the part with -on a personal level-, then add: -a separate field-.

I can't help you if you can't or won't grok that part.

(I have been doing tough trainings in running while I knew I would never reach anything near the top....so I was just doing it for the sake of it), but I don't respect the person just for that.

And yet for others, they're just doing it for the 'millions', because that's their goal all along? Ok...has it ever occured to you that maybe, just maybe between the coke fueled orgies and underground dog fighting. You know just maybe.

There are people who are\have, doing it because they actually like to do it? That even if they aren't paid millions, they'd still do it? Kinda like you, when you said just doing it for 'the sake of it'?

Don't forget that the level of self-centeredness among artists is much higher than that in the normal society. Of course this property is necessary to make it (I fully understand that, don't get me wrong),

Wow. The first part of your paragraph kinda invalidated the second. I don't believe you do understand.

I've met some very obnoxious people who are in the creative fields. I've also met some very awesome people. Weird isn't it, how one field can have such a varying level of temperament and behaviour.

Oh wait a sec, it's not weird at all. It's called the 'human race'. You'll find jackasses, and you can find excellent humanoids.

One thing you did convince me though, is you do have an un-informed prejudice against musicians\artists.

Maybe a musician kicked sand in your face once and stole your girlfriend, who knows. All musicians are a wild bunch after all, rocking and rolling and getting people's girlfriend to raise their t-shirts to an obscene level.

And if they're not literally rolling in the millions,they're snorting coke off a 10grand a night prostitute posterior, and betting billions on illegal underground dog fights.

God I'm getting angry! It reminds me of the time when I put in 2 dollars in a street busking Bagpiper coin cup, and he didn't even nod\thank me! I gave him my hard earned 2 dollars, and I know he's doing well cause his cash container is brimming, brimming with coins! And he didn't even acknowledge me and kept bagpiping?! HE DISS-RESPECTED ME!!!

That's it! The next time I see a street musician, I'm totally punching him in the face! For great justice!!1111

That musician, and therefore ALL musician just dissed me. I can't go for that. No. Can. Do. I can't. Go for that. Hmm...I need something to put me in the ragemood... Ah I know. This will get the adrenaline flowing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOE1-2Fza5Q

[Hammerskjold]

-Jester

*Okay, TVTropes.org...

Ah yes, everytime I browse TVTropes I always wind up overspending some time.

But I wonder is it in the presentation that makes the difference? The final speech part of Chaplin's 'The Great Dictator' IMO is important in the historical context. But as a movie, it kind of doesn't fit well. Again it's important given the history and the time, but it is a bit jarring.

Also is it Author Fillibustering or Mary Sue? Or is it a case of 'this one is egg shell...this one is ivory cream...it's a HUGE difference dear!' ;P

But hey, I give Atlas Shrugged one thing, maybe 2. Without it, Bioshock might not have exist, or would exist in a very different form. And 2...it's a big heavy book? Though quantity alone is not quality, I guess it can be it's own kind of quality. I think Rand also said that one.

[kandrathe]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to separate a persons art, from the artist.

If you look in the dictionary* under "Author Fillibuster," you find Ayn Rand. Both of her major novels end with stupendously long lectures from the heroic, Objectivist main character, telling us how wonderful self-interest is. She is very much instantiating her social fantasies in the form of novels. (This is not inherently bad, but it is true.) She didn't even manage to convincingly separate herself from her characters, let alone her ideas from those expressed in her novels. There might be some authors where this is a reasonable argument. Ayn Rand is not one of them. The philosophy she held, the group she founded, and the ideas expressed in her novels all follow exactly the same Objectivist doctrine.

Granted more in Atlas, and a lesser extent in The Fountainhead -- much of her work was less so -- but she seemed to be going for more of an Orwellian thing. Still, excepting John Galt's endless soliloquy, and some other notables like Francisco's speech on money, much of the plot doesn't sermonize to that extent. { But, yes, she needed more *editor* }. The novel mainly sets up some clear examples of protagonists and antagonists in Dagny's cohorts, including her pretty detestable brother. I can still glean the artist, even in Atlas, from the art. I never quite understood the need to spend so much of the novel chasing down that engine, except for giving a reason for her and Hank to "fall in love". The anti-Hobbsian and triple confused romance is the main "story", but at least in Atlas -- Ayn does insert herself directly into the novel, but not as Dagny -- as the striking Fishwife at Atlantis who is a writer/philosopher.

[Jester]

Still, excepting John Galt's endless soliloquy, and some other notables like Francisco's speech on money, much of the plot doesn't sermonize to that extent.

Except for the sermons, she doesn't preach much? Sadly, even that's not true. The plots are one gigantic sermon, entire *worlds* constructed to create the characters and situations necessary to validate the author's philosophy. It's all author tract. And unlike Orwell, it does not offer a vision of an existing society, an actual historical event, or anything that resonates beyond her philosophy. It's entirely contingent on the Big Truth of Objectivism, without which, neither the characters nor the plot make much sense - certainly not in Atlas Shrugged, anyway.

The novel mainly sets up some clear examples of protagonists and antagonists in Dagny's cohorts, including her pretty detestable brother.

It's also a little on the long side, and occasionally tends towards the didactic? No Randian hero is less than heroic, no villain less than despicable, with truly absurd amounts of space used extemporizing on precisely why this is the case. No quest of the righteous goes unresolved, nobody with a contrary philosophy is given any quarter.

... but at least in Atlas -- Ayn does insert herself directly into the novel, but not as Dagny -- as the striking Fishwife at Atlantis who is a writer/philosopher.

I still have an extremely hard time not reading Dagny Taggart as anything but a pretty egregious Mary Sue. But that strikes me as the least of the book's problems.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

It's also a little on the long side, and occasionally tends towards the didactic? No Randian hero is less than heroic, no villain less than despicable, with truly absurd amounts of space used extemporizing on precisely why this is the case. No quest of the righteous goes unresolved, nobody with a contrary philosophy is given any quarter.

...

I still have an extremely hard time not reading Dagny Taggart as anything but a pretty egregious Mary Sue. But that strikes me as the least of the book's problems.

She was no Tennessee Williams, neither in quality or productivity. She happened to make some well connected friends, which is the reason we probably even have heard of her.

Although, at times in our society, it seems some of it rings true. Such as, GE paying zero taxes, while getting huge government subsidies. And, the irony of one of the worlds richest men, Mr. Buffet complaining about low income taxes, right up until you suggest we modify capital gains or put oversight and regulation on derivatives/Credit Default Swaps (the very thing that melted down the economy last time). Meanwhile, your average schmoe is strugling to keep their home above water, or ends up paying upwards of 50% effective tax. No, we aren't a society that's brain dead on the opium of handouts -- although we get closer and closer, year by year.

[LemmingofGlory]

Man, how'd we get onto long winded discussions about Justin Bieber and Ayn Rand in the same thread? For all Rand's talk of Objectivism, her commentary on gay issues was evidently incomplete without emphasizing how disgusted she was by gay people. (I'm disgusted by the thought of anyone having sex with her, but I don't need to say that to comment on her ideas. She was so mature, wasn't she?) I've got not use for her except for the lovely atmosphere of Bioshock.

Getting back to the thread topic, is anyone else here gay and waiting for the marriage laws in your area to catch up with the times? See, I got engaged in February. There is no way the state where I live is going to legalize same-sex marriage without federal intervention. The supreme court in here is 100% Republican, and the chief justice (in addition to writing openly bigoted, anti-LGBT rulings in the past) was removed from office in 2001 for violating his oath of office by enforcing God's law over state law. You'd think getting removed from office would bar you from assuming that office again, but it apparently does not and no one learns from their mistakes here. So, I was really hoping SCROTUS wouldn't be so coy with these recent same-sex marriage cases.

While I can't get married right now I can perform marriages. I've not done it yet, because every couple I know is either already married or can't get married. I feel like a Great Lakes Avenger with these pointless marriage powers. In the mean time, I've already forced an old D1 buddy to get ordained too so he can officiate at my wedding when the time comes. It's weird, though. With his newfound powers, he's mostly been coaching his friends to get divorces.

-Lemming

[eppie]

There are people who are\have, doing it because they actually like to do it? That even if they aren't paid millions, they'd still do it? Kinda like you, when you said just doing it for 'the sake of it'?

I see you a very good in interpreting my posts. Now please, if you would like to, tell me where I wrote that ALL musicians and ALL professional athletes are money driven morons, and that I DISRESPECT all of them.


That way I can apologize and tell you I didn't mean it like that. However, I think I have never written such a thing.

Otherwise I think we better stop hijacking this thread (my mistake).

[FireIceTalon]

For all Rand's talk of Objectivism, her commentary on gay issues was evidently incomplete without emphasizing how disgusted she was by gay people.
-Lemming

Forget her philosophy, that in itself is reason enough to despise her, for me anyway. I've said before and I'll say it again - the woman was rotten to the core.

One other thing I found ironic about her, she hated communists, yet it was the Bolsheviks that ended 500+ years of Czarist oppression, and for the first time ever in Russia, women and Jews were allowed to attend university and get an education. Under Czarist rulership, if you were a woman or you were Jewish and wanted to go to school to better yourself, you were shit out of luck. And before anyone here cries "but it was only to indoctrinate them with communist ideology!!", it is no worse than the schools here in America, which are a complete capitalist indoctrination session from grade school, as early as first grade, onward all the way up through the college level.

[Hammerskjold]

I see you a very good in interpreting my posts. Now please, if you would like to, tell me where I wrote that ALL musicians and ALL professional athletes are money driven morons, and that I DISRESPECT all of them.

Page 6 or so.

and yes I am prejudiced against musicians

But I don't respect the players. Why would I? They have the best job in the world, playing a game and making loads of money

You seem to be stuck on the notion that there's only one column for respect here. And if there's more than one column, they all have to somehow be tallied together. C'est la vie. You're certainly free to espouse that notion. And others are free to challenge that notion.

But hey, put it with an awesome musical intro, and you'll have an iconic (IMO) song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwDDswGsJ60

That way I can apologize and tell you I didn't mean it like that. However, I think I have never written such a thing.

I understand, though I'm not the spokesman for the International Union of Artists&Athletes so I can not officially accept the apology, but I can see why you can develop certain biases. (I do accept it on my own behalf however. Speaking as a pro-am level Bikini Inspector. My training was grueling as well.)

After all, you gave the world Eurovision. But it's ok, I don't hold you personally responsible for that. That would be... quite ignorant

Otherwise I think we better stop hijacking this thread (my mistake).

It was quite a detour wasn't it. But I quite agree, let's get to the original topic. Let' see...was it Rand vs Groucho Marx or Harpo...