• chuckleslord@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’m neurodivergent and fell for this shit hard. It’s actually pretty embarrassing to look back on. Luckily, I got better

    • sebinspace@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      This is good. Many people fall into this trap and never realize they’re trapped; they’re convinced it’s everyone else that’s trapped

  • not_again@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’ve read several books in the Objectivists library, including Atlas shrugged, the fountainhead, and the virtue of selfishness.

    For a certain kind of person, I do think they have value in showing a different ethical/moral framework. To wit, if you have been raised on the principal that you must always sacrifice your own happiness for others, then Onjectivist philosophy is quite novel and can actually be helpful in moving towards a more self-actualized thought mode.

    For most others, however, it can turn you into a raging a-hole.

    In terms of how tenable the overall principles are in practice, just remember that Rand herself went on social security.

    • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I really like this take.

      I think about those who like American Psycho or Breaking Bad, and even see themselves as those characters, unaware that those characters were assholes and emulating them makes you a bad person.

      Where others see how f’d up the system is and these two are pushing the limits of what’s acceptable.

      • Tenthrow@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        I mean, are there people who see themselves as Patrick Bateman? Walter white is a bit of a stretch too, but Bateman.

        • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Not really people who see themselves as those characters (except the terminally delusional) but people who just idolize those characters because they appear cool or witty or have agency, despite being terrible humans.

          • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            I wouldn’t say I respected Walter as a protagonist…he’s quite clearly an anti-hero.

            But I will say that I hated Skyler the first time around. Second time, though, it was like she’s the only rational person in the whole show. Especially towards the end.

        • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yyyyyup. He’s kind of got it all. The outsized toxic masculinity, the focus on self improvement, a self centric sense of superiority, money and the power to commit cathartic violence. There are people who look at that toonish parody of a miserable violent financial bro and instead of seeing horror they see a life goal.

          Some people are held at bay from becoming a Bateman not by empathy but by potential curtailment of freedoms if they get caught.

    • mellowheat@suppo.fi
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      In terms of how tenable the overall principles are in practice, just remember that Rand herself went on social security.

      That’s often raised against her, but there’s really no contradiction. She lived in society™ and worked within its rules. Communists don’t give up their beliefs when they (have to) go to work in privately owned companies either, and in the same way there’s no contradiction there.

      I’m also wondering whether she went on social security because she had to or because of just reclaiming back part of what should have remained hers (by her philosophy)? Her books sold millions while she was alive, and she did paid lectures until 1981 (and died in 1982).

  • teft@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I commend you for posting this meme in the correct order. A lot of times I see this posted with the frames reversed so it looks like taking off the glasses is what lets you see the craziness.

    • littleblue✨@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      “A lot of times” this is posted by children that have never seen They Live and don’t know what it is to be all outta bubblegum.

  • Eldritch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    There’s only one thing American libertarians hate more than poor people. And it’s actual libertarians.

  • lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    4 months ago

    Ugh… Embarrassing memories of having read Atlas Shrugged when I was 17 and thinking it was deep…

    Francisco D’Anconia was kind of inspiring with his, “I can do that,” attitude but the strawman caricature of bad guv’mint was comical.

  • Nougat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I read The Fountainhead instead, and it was interesting enough to keep me reading. “Okay, there’s a lot of setup of characters and circumstances going on, I am curious to know how this plays out,” and then it just … doesn’t. It was all a lead-up to a long, weakly written, and plainly stupid monologue about how completely ruthless all people should be at all times, only ever thinking in the shortest term about themselves.

    I closed that book wondering why Ayn Rand was famous for anything beyond being a shitbag, when I was young enough to be kind of a shitbag myself.

  • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    There’s a tech recruiting company called “John Galt Staffing.” I don’t know if they’re run by Libertarians or it’s just an unfortunate name conflict, but whenever they contact me, I respond with an email saying that I won’t do business with them.

    If I had that name, I’d change it. “I just don’t know why little Adolf is having trouble with his classmates.”

    Edit Fixed the spelling of the company name.

  • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    I feel dumb because I read this book only because of BioShock, and a and was like, “pretty neat.” I didn’t really think too much about it after that. So I love when I read about people’s critiques of it!

  • WiseThat@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    Galt’s Gulch was much more Socialist Commune than libertarian.

    Money had no use as Ragnar was running around distributing gold to everyone on a regular basis, John Galt had built a literal free energy machine and was giving the power away AND giving vanishingly cheap lectures on how to build one. Even the scarce resources (like the only car in the entire society) were being rented out for 50 cents a day.

    Plus all these fiercely competitive supercapitalists would just step aside and just allow competitors to operate with no challenge. The iron mine, and coal mine were all running at industrial scales to serve a town of a few hundred (they had robot labour and free energy) and when the copper miner just showed up they just let him stake a an exclusive claim and start digging with no issue.

    I highly recommend Adam Lee’s critical readthrough on patheos.com https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/series/atlas-shrugged/

    • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      I just like that step one of Rand’s utopia is violating the laws of physics. It can’t work if energy is scarce, so her solution is magic.

        • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Doesn’t matter. It’s an ideological screed meant to persuade people that anarcho-capitalism is a viable economic system. If she wants to be convincing, she needs to illustrate how it would work.