Would you believe there is an online dating site, run by Randroids? It’s called the Atlasphere, and it’s the most ghastly horrible collection of self-centered narcissists all trying to make themselves attractive by fluffing up their egos even more. Take a look at the excerpts, and cringe. Here’s one example:
I love intelligent, sassy girls, particularly those working in consulting or investment banking (but other fields are great too). Really, nothing is hotter than an accomplished girl in a suit, as long as she is willing to settle down and have my children. I want a girl who will support my ambitions against the naysayers in society.
And that’s not the worst!
“I am rational, integrated, and efficacious. So far, I’ve never met a person who lives up to the standard I hold for myself (except online).”
lol
Forever alone.
Nothing like an egotistical randian twit to turn a gal on. Oh my!
So he wants a go-getting ball busting career girl in the Alpha female mould who can simultaneusly hold down a high paid job but with low enough self esteem to act like a Stepford wife on demand whilst massaging his ego?
Someone just priced themselves out of the genepool.
Excuse me while I wipe my tears of laughter. Maybe people use that word, but I have never heard it before. Mansome. *snort*
This one is quite funny:
For a moment my ovaries felt like they were jumping out of my body in an attempt to run in any direction considered “away” from these oh-so-special-men…
Many self-described “skeptics”–especially the high-school debate-team champion subtype–suffer from this same character flaw.
Like John Galton ever needed a dating service.
Galt. I meant Galt.
I’m kind of embarrassed, I actually had to look up the word “Randroid.” I think I was better not knowing.
I’m embarrassed. I actually had to look up the word “Randriod.” I think I was better off not knowing.
(If this was posted twice, I apologize, I didn’t see the first one.)
Atlasphere, meet A Bad Case of the Dates
A Bad Case of the Dates, meet Atlasphere.
[retires, sniggering]
What a wunch of bankers (as Dr Spooner might have said).
So Witlas Thugs has it’s own dating site? And here I always thought they just held a mirror in their other hand instead of a magazine.
It’s been a while since I’ve commented on Professor Myers astonishing, lovely and enlightening blog but there is something about the self-righteous attitude and completely mistaken world view of Randists that makes me want to share the following information: hahahahaha.
@Comrade PhysioProf – Hey, just because we’re right doesn’t mean we can’t be dicks! Erm …
Some of these people will be responding to their own ads.
One the other hand, if you’re actually in the market for a SWM Objectivist, this is an excellent resource! But how will you ever decide between user johngalt28901 and user johngalt80112?
A man who supports ambitious women! Cool! Though the fact that he talks about the hotness is a bit of a warning sign – could it be that it’s actually all about him? I guess I should get to the second part of the sentence and find out!
Ouch. Hero to zero in a 13-word conditional phrase.
This is like a special Randroid extension of the Virgin/Whore complex. What should we call it? The Achiever/Trophy complex? The Independent/Stepford complex? Smart/Owned? I’m open to suggestions.
Executive/Barefoot?
I especially loved this one:
Let’s see, if you’re overweight or believe in god, he won’t date you. Except all atheists are fat, according to Conservapedia. Strike one.
If you believe in god or vote for Democrats, he won’t date you. Except believing in god is mandatory for Republicans. Strike two.
He’s a moron. Strike three, you’re out.
Any woman would have to be fucking stupid to date someone who’s idea of great egoistic sex is rape (ala Howard Roark).
Personally, I think “The Fountainhead” would be a much more appropriate name for Rand-style dating. And by “appropriate”, I mean “completely inappropriate”.
Behind every Randian man there’s a woman trying to slip away quietly, before he spots her.
I’m not willing to check out that site myself (I’m afraid I’d bite myself). Are there any women at all on it? (That aren’t obvious shills, of course.)
Sounds like a wonderful trolling ground…
(Cue Henry Rollins’ “mars needs aryans” spoken word rant)
Woah creep alert! Doesn’t the fountainhead have a shitload of rape scenes presented as romance? Why would you ever date a fan of that? Those dudes are scary as fuck.
The guy wants to marry a smart women that wants to have kids and stay home with them instead of taking them to a babysitter. So what?
Not sure how many takers he’ll get, but you never know. I read an article a week or two ago (no link, but quick google search should fine it) that said some women scientists feel they’ve been slighted in life by concentrating so much on their careers and are now approaching ‘too old’ stage of their life to have kids.
Paraphrasing, but that was the gist.
In other words, he wants a kind of trophy wife, with a list of pre-marriage accomplishments he can show off for status. And the ego boost of having a woman with such accomplishments give it all up just for him.
People like that are in every segment of society. A fair amount probably have a mental illness.
Yeah its not like women get oppressed by expectations of domestic labor, right? Oh wait, it is a serious historical source of pain and death that continues today. It isn’t like she could leave him and be better off than before, it is not what statistically happens to women after divorces. The economic disadvantage of motherhood is a big deal, too. Or there is that whole thing where women maybe die or become disabled because of a pregnancy. Do you see the problem now? For how much these dudes hate people being “leeches” off of others it doesn’t seem like any of em are offering to pay women a fair wage for the effort and risk of baring children. It is clear that she is just there to support the important people (the men, with careers, ‘real’ jobs).
If you still don’t get it, imagine how strange the ad would sound with the genders reversed. No woman asks a man to stay home and raise her children, give up his career. Women I know would feel like they aren’t entitled to ask that of someone, that it is a decision that should be made by consensus and for the best interest of everyone involved. The vast majority of men wouldn’t put up with a demand for them to abandon their career goals, because they understand that they have value outside of their role as a parent/domestic worker. If women were afforded such a measure of self worth it is unlikely that they would react in a different fashion than men do. He is taking advantage of a society wide inequality for his personal gain- which isn’t a problem if you are a rand fan, but most people here see how it is a shitty behavior.
Given what Rand was like why would any guy think he’s going to be the one wearing the pants in a relationship with an Objectivist woman?
Ew. On my online dating profile (on a different site obviously!) I state twice very clearly that I want nothing to do with Objectivists or Libertarians. This results in a lot of messages from guys asking me to be more open minded and date them anyway, which serves to conveniently let me know which messages to delete.
Wow, what a catch.
Put me down as someone who would rather die alone. Or maybe with thirteen cats.
Breeding stock! Hear my mating call!
You find my net personal worth as arousing as my portfolio. You find my callous disregard for your well-being stimulating. You enjoy hearing me ramble about the Rights of Man and the Tyranny of Government.
I have the money to buy superb medical insurance, and you may purchase a spouse policy from me with only a modest profit margin. Rent will be paid to me, personally, in gold and/or silver – sexual favors will not be accepted in lieu, they are a separate but mandatory part of this contract. As I am completely self-reliant I shall have no interaction with you except during intercourse, which shall occur at 9pm on weekdays and 11:30pm at weekends. If you become unfit for this role through injury, illness, or by becoming fat, you will be discarded. You will bear me strong sons and daughters, and you will be responsible for paying their rent until they are old enough to work after homeschooling. They shall be cast out, never to be seen or spoken of again, at the age of 18.
If you wish to apply, send a naked picture. Successful applicants will be expected to purchase their own ring.
How charming to see requests for “intelligent, sassy girls”.
Any of them interested in *women*?
Zincy baby.
Take me.
I’m yours.
In other words “I like my women smart and ambitious, but only as long as I can subsequently crush that ambition and have them barefoot and pregnant in my kitchen.”
Hey, I always thought Ayn Rand had a couple of good ideas. One of the first popular atheist novelists, and all that. I’m single, why don’t I go over and
OH WAIT I’M GAY. -_-
The kicker is that that particular ad was posted by Maynerd G. Krebbs.
Ladies, form an orderly line and try not to faint with excitement at the prospect of dating one of these egomani- I mean, gentlemen.
chigau:
Oh, now it’s on. Back off, Zinc is mine.
There are no words.
I think Rand said some good things as far as general principles go, but she was batshit insane. I didn’t realize just how much until I started hearing from her rabid fanbase. Like with Rand, their ideology becomes revolved around self-adulation and not much else.
On a side note, it always amuses me to see right-wing nuts like the Tea Party raise up Rand on a pedestal. I doubt most of them realize that Rand was what now would be considered a “militant” atheist.
I am now going to show this site to two big Rand followers I know. Maybe they can save themselves before they start sounding like this.
tim gueguen:
They’re more focused on getting out of their pants than with wearing them, in a relationship with an Objectivist woman?
(Priorities!)
Wesley,
Chum!
From the link:
Can we say “defense mechanism”, boys and girls?
@ Wesley:
Agreed. Ayn Rand taught me that atheism was okay, that rational ethics was possible and useful, and that both intelligence and pride in intelligence were laudable. At that point in my life (age 13-15) those were things I really needed to know. Then she taught me, by example, that the people you admire in one way can be deeply flawed and completely wrong in other ways. (Not to mention batshit insane, since you already covered that one.)
Audley
Remember, I am Canadian.
Couldn’t we just share?
*happyface**happyface**happyface*
What’s being gay got to do with anything?
My ex-boyfriend is an objectivist.
Yes I went there…..
They seem to have an option to choose what gender you’re interested in, so they must have accounted for it.
@Robert B.
What’s being gay got to do with anything?
My ex-boyfriend is an objectivist.
Yes I went there…..
They seem to have an option to choose what gender you’re interested in, so they must have accounted for it.
chigau:
Pffft, that’s not very Objectivist of you.
Audley
*sigh*
True.
I have not read Rand since I was at University (1970s).
At the time I thought it was an insane load of shite.
Objectively.
I like mxjohnxm’ post, but might think it a little short on detail. ;0
Chigau:
I was supposed to read Atlas Shrugged* in high school in the 90’s. I took one look at it and said “nuh uh. No way.”
*I think? Maybe the other one.
Nice to see you choosing only the profiles that suit your twisted view of an Objectivist. Shame to see such confirmation bias from a so called university professor.
What is it that makes me suspect this dating site will have a lot more men than women?
They would probably be wise to search their hearts for flexibility in their romantic orientation, and, if they find any, to just give up and date one another.
James,
Hang on a sec, I’m calling the WAAAAAAAAAHmbulance just for you!-
@ stantheman:
Then the site, and your boyfriend, are more enlightened on the subject than Ayn Rand herself, who viewed homosexuality as disgusting and wrong (and, incidentally, thought men should be sexually dominant and women should be sexually submissive, or else they were unnatural/unhealthy/wrong.) One of her more prominent students – I forget whether it was Leonard Peikoff or Nathaniel Branden – described homosexuality as a confusion arising from society’s mixed messages about the morality of having sex with women.
If the site is as you describe then maybe I was unfair. Googling around a bit, recent Objectivist writings seem more rational on the topic. The idea of an Objectivist dating site just brought to mind Rand’s whole strange edifice of sexual orthodoxy.
I was supposed to read Atlas Shrugged* in high school in the 90′s. I took one look at it and said “nuh uh. No way.”
*I think? Maybe the other one.
At various points, Atlas Shrugs and The Fountainhead were on assorted reading lists at various schools I went to. I wrote a paper so caustic and excoriating of the first three chapters of AS and the first chapter of The Fuckeduphead that the respective teachers didn’t berate me for not reading the entire book.
I didn’t need to read them. They were crap, and anybody who didn’t see it within three paragraphs, let alone three chapters is too stupid to breathe.
Nice to see you choosing only the profiles that suit your twisted view of an Objectivist. Shame to see such confirmation bias from a so called university professor.
Hello, stupid–New York magazine posted the various ads. PZ is merely pointing at a favorite from that page. Take it up with the writer if you don’t like it.
By the way, the rest of us would have to engage in the despicable act of signing into that scumbag site to see more ads. I’m not letting that slime anywhere near my computer.
Why should we have to sink to that level to laugh at you libertardians? You’re creepiness is always on display, with or without a subscription firewall.
Ayn Rand idolized a sociopathic child murderer, incorporating his lack of concern for his fellow humans into her characters–as a positive trait.
That libertarians are perceived as callous and unempathetic is not unsupported, nor a product of confirmation bias.
I could never ever date someone who approved of Rand’s attitudes.
@Robert B.
Well he maybe one, but I don’t identify myself as an objectivist even though I agree with some ideas.
I do know Ayn Rand didn’t see homosexuality in a good light at all but it would be highly hypocritical of her to say it was immoral.
From my understanding personally she saw it as wrong but as far as objectivism goes she couldn’t say it was.
It would go against liberty and individualism.
So really she was influenced by emotions, she couldn’t have had any rational argument to say two people cannot associate in whatever way they choose in full consent.
Damn, you colllld, Audley.
I think this is pretty standard of online dating sites.
Why would an educated, intelligent woman get within a 100 miles of such a mysogynistic loser?
They wouldn’t. They can do better than be some crackpot’s baby factory.
About all I can see in this guy’s future is a few restraining orders from “accomplished girls in suits” who think he is crazy and potentially dangerous.
As if we care what an obviously fuckwitted idjit like Ann Rand thought. Just like we don’t give a flying fuck what you think, since you obviously can’t think, if you think abject objectitism has any point, other than to identify the supporter as a demented fuckwitted fool.
Ugggh, this is why I never talk about Objectivism any more. Even in person, let alone on the internet.
@ Aquaria: Objectivism is supposed to be about reason, and a system of ethics based on the way humans actually are. It does not always succeed at living up to those principles. But there are Objectivists and admirers of Objectivism who think that the bible-thumping, science-denying, patriarchy-enforcing morons should go back and read the other 95% of Atlas before they wave it around in public, because Ayn Rand was crazy but she wasn’t stupid. Some of us are in the thread, and we were happily cracking jokes right beside you until you started the indiscriminate flaming. Feel free to harshly criticize that which deserves harsh criticism, but cut it out with the personal insults to those present here.
@ James: I’m not entirely thrilled with terms like “Randroid,” but I find it entirely probable that a dating site aimed at a particular philosophy is full of extremist idiots. The example PZ gave demonstrates “Objectivist” mysogyny. They’re doing it wrong. Unless you have evidence that the people using the site in question are in fact no more narcissistic and ghastly than the general population, you should probably back off a little.
@ PZ: With all respect to you as the host, why do you use terms like “Randroid”? Words like “narcissist” are insulting, but they can be true insults because they’re more or less matters of fact: it refers to specific behaviors that a person either is or is not doing that we can agree are bad. I’m totally cool with an “insult” that merely states the truth harshly. “Randroid” doesn’t actually mean anything different than “Objectivist” or “Randian,” though. It doesn’t seem to serve any purpose in your writing except as an applause light. It strikes me as sloppy thinking, too – if you name the group with an insult, it implies that the wrongness with the people in question is a result of their identity rather than the specific things they do.
Self centered. Devoid of empathy. Crazy. At least as crazy as you are.
Good luck. I think you just invented hell on earth.
@ Anthony: I agree that she couldn’t have had a rational argument for her homophobia. She sure did have some arguments, though, (hypocritical ones, as you say,) and she never made any effort to tag them as “just her opinion” – she presented them as firmly as she did all her other political and philosophical ideas.
With all respect to you as the host, why do you use terms like “Randroid”?
You must be new here. You haven’t encountered the very loud internet Rand followers who all seem to have been cloned from the same master cell? They’re practically interchangeable, and ubiquitous, and obnoxious, hence the term “Randroid.” Don’t like our in-group parlance? There are lots of other blogs to hang out on.
Even though Rand herself was a woman, I have never understood why any woman would be an Objectivist. Apparently they exist, but they sure seem to exist in a state of supreme cognitive dissonance, since every male Objectivist I’ve ever run into is a misogynist freak who thinks his bodily autonomy is sacrosanct, but that women asking for bodily autonomy is a little bit like a toaster asking for a day off. Randroid Ladies: Your friends are not your friends.
Well, thank goodness they didn’t call it “Atlas Hugged”.
@ Interrobang:
I like this blog, thanks. Trust me, I’m an adult – if the terminology issue were so dire as to eclipse the basic informative and philosophical value of what I read here, I’d already be gone.
And I’ve certainly encountered the people you describe. They’re the reason I don’t call myself an Objectivist any more – most people using the label were not like me and not like anything I wanted to be mistaken for. Before encountering the community, just from reading Rand’s novels and essays, I assumed that the subliminal sexism, overt heterosexism, anti-environmentalism, and so on would be dismissed as outdated by modern thinkers, just like her glorification of smoking. Turns out that’s not the case. And nowadays you get people who say they like Ayn Rand denying evolution (Ron Paul) and holding prayer rallies (Rick Perry) which completely makes my head asplode.
So I know the people you speak of. I’m just a little troubled by the term “Randroid” becuase, if you interpret it somewhat broadly, it might describe me. Plus I’m very leery about derogatory labels for groups of people in general – it reminds me of the kind of “tribal” us vs. them thinking that gives rise to racism and so on. It’s the kind of thinking that tends to get decoupled from reality over time even if it starts out being true.
Robert B.:
Sloppy thinking, eh?
(Well, at least yours ain’t implied)
SallyStrange:
Yep. William Edward Hickman.
Some really fucked-up shit.
————–
(Slightly) more light-hearted:
How To Succeed As An Ayn Rand Character.
Wow, I hadn’t heard about the Hickman thing before. It’s surprising, but not too surprising. It’s more extreme than things I already knew about her but not different in kind. And maybe it explains that weird lack of affect that Howard Roark and John Galt had that her other heroic characters didn’t.
Well look on the bright side. It’s nice that all the gibbertarian kooks wear signs to go with their tinfoil hats to warn normal people away.
It’s almost…altruistic.
Yes I agree, it’s saddening to see they haven’t moved on from that.
What bugs me is constantly referring to what Ayn Rand has said rather than focusing on the reasons.
You should be able to replace the author of any quote and the quote should stand on its own no matter who said it.
Sadly even objectivists that see the faults still fall for certain things, my ex-bf would deny climate change something I always thought was caused by him being an objectivist.
[meta]
I guess Robert B. almost has a point: gibbertarian and glibertarian are wonderfully evocative words no less than Randroid. :)
I think that ad has to be a poe.
I think my dad is on this site… *shudder*
My dad is one of those extra interesting Randroids who is also a fundamentalist Church of Christ christian. His profile would probably read something like: “I have never met a woman who could match me in intellectual conversation but for such a woman I might even be willing to change my religion. If you are a liberal I will not date you.”
At least he doesn’t care about the weight of his dates (from what I’ve seen) and doesn’t expect or want them to have his kids because he already has 3. He definitely thinks women are naturally dumber then men though, and thinks atheists are particularly stupid (again, he freaking loves Ayn Rand somehow).
amavra,
<blink>
(I suspect you’re an atheist woman)
But amavra, Ayn Rand was an atheist and a woman.
That doesn’t make any sense……
“Ayn Rand ignited a fire within me”? Yeah, and Golda Mier gets me chot and cheavy. I wish you had reprinted the one from the guy who was bragging about kissing only one girl PZ!
Oh honey, that’s a feature, not a bug. I’m a former Randroid myself, and the outright scorn for anyone who willingly associates with that sort of intellectual scum is warranted. My guess is you’re young – maybe the language of reason, personal strength, and individualism in Rand’s work appeals to you. You read Atlas Shrugged and thought everyone else was reading it wrong, and you cherry-picked, and told yourself (and maybe others) that her more reprehensible views were products of her cultural environment and they didn’t touch the heart of what she said. Do I have it right so far?
And yet Ayn Rand won’t go away. It looks now as if she created an alternative humanism which has lately become competitive with the mainstream variety.
Yes I heard that from my ex, exactly that her reprehensible parts where the product of her time/culture.
@ Classical Cipher:
Pretty much. I mean, I didn’t blame her cultural environment, except for the thing about smoking. I blamed her for her own mistakes, as a good Objectivist ought, but there were other things that struck me as both very true and very important, like the idea of rational ethics, and individualism, and also the outspoken atheism actually. I suppose I cherry-picked in a sense: I figured it was okay if she got ethical conclusions wrong, because her metaethics were so powerful. (Not that I knew the word “metaethics” yet.)
If you could figure out ethics based on three axioms, then suddenly it had a way to become right. It basically turned ethics into a science. If Rand was wrong about something, I (or someone else) could figure out where she went wrong and fix it and it would still be Objectivism because we were all working from the same basic principles. Of course, I ended up having to do that kind of a lot, which was discouraging.
The part that really made me give up on Ayn Rand as a decent human being was when I read how she finally said that anyone who disagreed with her wasn’t an Objectivist, which was equivalent to saying that she preferred that Objectivism be hers than that it be true. That was a pretty profound betrayal of everything she claimed to stand for.
There’s good reason for her to say this. The idea of rational ethics wasn’t invented by Rand. Nor was the concept of individualism. (I know you know these things.) The parts of her work that belong to Objectivism are precisely the conclusions and the specific axioms, which are unsound. She uses language that should appeal to you – talking about the importance of reason and, essentially, one’s own power to determine one’s fate. That kind of language is ubiquitous – while religious people often, being pushed, fall back on wishy-washy nonsense, religious thinkers of many stripes also talk about the importance of reason. The problem is, they all think reason leads inevitably to their conclusions, and for the most part that’s because they’re comfortable using simplistic axioms that can be folded around to fit whatever conclusions they were going to reach anyway. That’s also why you’re running into so many “bad Objectivists” who seem to be reading the same books as you are and reaching different conclusions (namely, the same ones as Ms. Rand). She is a font of the deceptively general and trivially true, and that makes it easy to think there’s a kernel of good in what she says. But it’s not there. She was not an ethical person, and her ethics are defunct.
Rey Fox,
Hey, I calls ’em like I sees ’em.
@skeptifem
Most women probably wouldn’t expect men to stay at home with the kids (the horror), but they do expect him to make bank.
Generalizing: Men want their women to have kids, women want their men to support them. Simple biology.
There is a reason 20 year old women marry 70 year old men… Hint: it ain’t for his stamina.
ss123,
Generalizing is right. You’re generalizing a great many of us right out of existence with that little bit of stereotyping. You can go ahead and fuck right off now.
If I recall correctly, Ayn Rand’s explicit axioms were 1) I exist, 2) Reality is real (implying empiricism) and 3) A is A (implying logic). Still strikes me as sound, if unadventurous (and shouldn’t an axiom be obvious and unquestionable?) The trouble comes from the unexamined assumptions after that, like “self-interest is the only fundamental good.” And while Ayn Rand had a lot of terrible conclusions (Gold? Really?) she wasn’t wrong about everything and I can’t say that every stupid Objectivist is agreeing with her.
For one, the idea that a woman should have to give up her career to be with a man and have kids (as implied in the example PZ quoted in the post) would have made her go loudly apeshit. She spent so much time in Atlas arguing against (yelling at?) the “women are intended to be housewives” trope that I, being raised by my happily working feminist hippie mom in the nineties, got tired of her belaboring the obvious. I also liked Rand’s cases against racism and faith, and the idea that you should love people for their general awesomeness, and not, say, because they did something nice for you personally. So I think “defunct” might be a little too strong, and would go instead with “frequently contemptible.”
There are much better rationalist voices than Rand’s.
And yet Rev. Sun Myung Moon won’t go away. It looks now as if he has created an alternative christianity which has lately become competitive with the mainstream variety.
And yet Chief Outerspaceman L.R. Hubbard won’t go away. It looks now as if he created an alternative Alienism which has lately become competitive with the mainstream variety.
And yet Paganism won’t go away. Despite 2,000 years of persecution and horrific, relentless homical violence from xians. It looks now as if they created an alternative religion which has lately become competitive with the mainstream variety.
And yet the Rev. Jim Jones People’s Temple won’t go away. Hmmm, oops, I guess they all committed mass suicide.
Well, Mark, you are at least good for laughing at, the prime purpose of gibbertarians.
1. Cults arise constantly in human society. There are several jesuses, back from wherever, in Russia right now. There is one influential in the USA, who is a divorced Korean excon.
,
2. The truth value of claims has zero to do with whether a cult believes them or not. In fact, if they have a cult following, they are probably what they apppear to be, lunatic fringe beliefs.
3. How “competitive” is Randroidism? In the last election, Libertarians, who ran a compaign in my state in the senate got a few percentage of the vote. Not all gibbertarians are Randroids. Most of them are in fact, christofascists, who think libertarian sounds better than “murderous religious kook whose god hates everyone and so do they.”
The few Randroids I’ve seen are immature creeps who seem to live in Mom’s basement. I was a libertarian myself once. For a few weeks as a teenager after reading “The Fountainhead”. It took that long to realize it was just cuckoo, simplistic, and dumb.
*Amusement*
Ahahahaha! That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all…
*Gut wrenching realization*
Wait, you weren’t joking?
They’re serious.
And it says right there on the front page that they have over 14.000 dating profiles.
*Despair*
Well, these people are most likely selected against …
Darwin awards for everyone!
Laxatives are “efficacious.” Fractions are “rational.” Circuitry is “integrated.” And objectivists are in “denial.”
Robert B. #86
Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness has the following statement:
So Rand starts off with a faulty idea of altruism and then demolishes this strawman. While her logic may be faultless, if she uses an erroneous premise then her conclusion is likely to be defective.
I think this could be easily translated to read as, “Looking for sexy, smart female in suit: but once you marry me, you get to be my meek supportive brood mare and can only pass your intelligence to my progeny.”
I used to be an Objectivist, even back before I was a Libertarian. I haven’t been either one in three or four years. I am a woman. Even worse, according to my grandmother, who knows something about the family relationships in Russia, my grandmother and I are related to Ayn Rand.
Let’s just say that I’m not one bit surprised to hear that she crushed on brutal sociopaths. Every woman I know of in my extended family deals with this issue, with mixed success. Not all of the men were murderers, thank the nonexistent God, but they were all sneering, callous, entitled, victimized-by-society, violent egomaniacs with an initially convincing pose of intellectual achievement. Perfect Rand characters, without the accomplishments.
The one boyfriend I had who was actually an Objectivist himself was decent by comparison and dropped out of the movement himself shortly after he broke up with me in proper Randian fashion (“she’s much more like my ideal”). The girl was a friend of mine, a good and interesting woman, and was shocked to hear that my boyfriend fancied her. Nutcase wound up marrying a girl so much like me that his family and my friends all had a good laugh about it.
So over it. The trick to breaking the cycle, for me, was to get a good no-nonsense therapist who made me write down fifty characteristics of a “good man”, and then closely inquired into what I meant by such words as “self-sufficient”, “forceful”, and “superior”.
Yeah… I’m not a fan of Rand, and never really was, even when I was a libertarian. Her political arguments are not terribly convincing. She simply constructed a set of a priori moral axioms, and then sought to apply these to all political issues; she didn’t bother engaging with the actual consequences of her ideas in the real world, or with empirical evidence from economics or sociology. She claimed, wrongly, that her moral axioms flowed naturally from a worldview based on objective reason and empiricism. (This is nonsense: an “is” does not imply an “ought”, and her reasoning in this regard was very weak.)
And Atlas Shrugged, which I read a few months ago, is… ok, but not exactly an outstanding novel. It’s very preachy, and Rand never misses an opportunity to ram her philosophy down the reader’s throat; the heroes are idealized archetypes rather than real people, and the villains are shallow caricatures. (Rand was fond of strawmen. For one thing, she seemed to conflate left-wing politics with post-modern epistemology; many of her caricature-leftist characters claim that there is no such thing as objective reality, something I haven’t exactly encountered many leftists claiming in real life.)
I will say, though, that although she was personally homophobic (as were most people of her generation), she advocated the repeal of all laws against homosexuality, which was a relatively progressive position for the time. And she was right on a number of other specific issues (abortion rights, atheism, open-borders immigration, opposition to the draft, and so on). I wouldn’t say her influence on American politics has been uniformly bad. However, I very much wouldn’t want her rigidly-ideological economic views to be implemented in the real world; and I find it very odd that some modern-day conservative Christian Republicans seem to have adopted her (weak) economic arguments, given that she herself was deeply hostile to religion, and saw her ethical philosophy as diametrically opposed to Christian ethics.
Lolbertarian Loser Rob: “I never “hook-up” randomly, I never kiss a girl that doesn’t deserve mine”
Lolbertarian Loser Zak: “I do not “hook-up” with girls. I only kiss those who deserve”
Hmmmm… maybe they’re ALL the same guy?
I was fascinated by Rand’s definition of altruism as quoted above,
She gets both parts of it wrong. A hitman is taking actions for the benefit of others, yet no altruist would approve of what a hitman does — unless, of course, he or she wanted someone killed.
Also, an altruist would say that most actions taken for his or her benefit are actually good, or, at worst, morally neutral.
No, actual altruists consider more than just the identity of the beneficiary of the action.
One view of morality which does consider the identity of the beneficiary is Nietzsche’s ethical system. According to Nietzsche, an action is good if it benefits me, and bad if it harms me. Thus, if the hitman is working for me, then he is good.
The Leaning Tower of Pisa is a fantastic architectural achievement from the second floor up. And one day it will fall down.
Ya’all crack me up. This thread is a goldmine. Thanks for the entertainment.
*Is it just me, or does mention of Rand particularly inspire the comedy?
Randroids are looking more and more like the mythological Nietzschean faction from the TV series Andromeda. Except less sympathetic. “Mate with me! We will produce genetically superior offspring!”
So when Randroids date, who pays for dinner?
@ ‘Tis Himself:
Yes, quite. That’s what I was getting at when I mentioned “unexamined assumptions” after the axioms.
No, it doesn’t look like that at all. There is no sign whatever of a Resurgence of the Randroids: the new film of Atlas Shrugged was a flop. Ayyn Ryynd looks like just another outdated crank with a one-track mind, whose deeply stupid and unpleasant creed appeals only to the immature. Everyone else laughs at its adherents, with excellent reason.
“So when Randroids date, who pays for dinner?”
Anyone they can persuade to pay. I went out a couple of times with a Libertarian (didn’t know he was libertarian when friends introduced us). It was eye-opening. When we went out, he went to a buffet, and paid for one dinner, which he then expected us to share. He couldn’t understand why I refused to eat. I’m not in love with big business, but these small companies that operate locally certainly deserve to have two buffets paid for when two people eat.
Most libertarians seem to assume people will operate honestly if there are no regulations (at least, that’s what they say they assume), but I’ve known a number of them, and find they are mostly operating in a way that takes advantage of everyone else without pulling their own weight. Most of the ones I’ve known worked in a business that could get paid in cash so they could avoid taxes, then complained about how much they were taxed! I was, at the same time, barely surviving, but paying my taxes to support their lifestyle.
And yes, this particular libertarian was ‘screening’ me to see if I’d be a good mother for his kids. That was his sole interest in a relationship, and he was very upfront about it. The problem is, he insisted on an intelligent, college-educated woman, preferably with a graduate degree. Then he seemed surprised that such a woman would think more of herself than being a breeding machine for his ego, that thought the world needed the continuance of his DNA.
iknklast says:
They might tell they are justified using all necessary defensive force to oppose the aggressive force of expecting them to pull their own weight. Amirite?
Hey PZ, if you’re reading, #78 Gabriel Anderson is a spambot.
iknklast says:
and to continue… why shouldn’t they take advantage of everyone else? Everyone else doesn’t have a prior individual agreement or contract not to be taken advantage of. And besides if there was a law preventing the taking-of-advantage it would be a bad law (decree) because it would be enforced by men with guns. Get it?
The waiter.
blockquote>I assumed that the subliminal sexism, overt heterosexism, anti-environmentalism, and so on would be dismissed as outdated by modern thinkers
In that case, what the fuck would remain?
BAH
In that case, what the fuck would remain?
Are you nuts? “Humanism” doesn’t mean “worship of one specific human, namely myself,” it means concern for humanity as a whole.
Which is the exact opposite of Objectivism, a fuck-yall-I-got-mine philosophy if ever there was one.
kristinc@115,
The idea that the it is justifiable to blow up a building in the service of your ego?
Those selfish bitches, expecting not to starve to death while working constantly! Where do they get off!
If women had equal economic opportunity do you think this would be such a big deal? Of course not. They wouldn’t need men to support them because they could support themselves without a greater level of difficulty. Women aren’t afforded that because of this bullshit right here:
When bosses think this shit they pay women less. Simple sexism. It makes woman the “natural” choice to stay home, or take a less well paying or less serious job, when the time comes to choose. It isn’t like women set up a system so that one parent had to sacrifice their career anyway, is it? There is no rule saying that the world has to work that way.
Did you also not notice you are on a biology professor’s blog? PZ has written a lot about why what you just said is total fucking bullshit, and he isn’t alone in thinking that your analysis is ridiculous from a biological point of view. Maybe you should listen up instead of assuming that women would be self-oppressing upon being given freedom. That is what hordes of dudes say every time women ask to be treated like people, and when women are afforded a REAL chance women prove those men wrong every fucking time. When we were deemed too delicate to work outside the home women did both jobs (wage worker and domestic worker), when we were too stupid to go to college we became the majority of college students. Women aren’t aliens, we aren’t so different from men that we want completely different things out of life. Most of us, however, are forced by circumstance into situations that men never have to deal with. There is never a shortage of dudes willing to explain how it is fair and right that we have to navigate so many extra obstacles in our lives, but there is always a shortage of dudes willing to consider the uncomfortable conclusion that things are not fair at all.
I mean jesus, I said that most women would not even consider making that request, not even suggest it, because of how unfair it sounds to ask someone to take on all the risk and self sacrifice of quitting their career to raise children. Then you tried to say it was fair because in turn they request to not live in poverty, as if the two requests were equivalent. Fuck you.
This being a Randroid site, this quote makes me suspect that he is literally looking for a surrogate mother to have clones of himself. He already says that they won’t be her kids, and this is the site to find someone egotistical enough to strive to create more copies of himself. What a creeper.
True story. When I went on Pharyngula last week, the Ad Choices spam meisters imbedded a “Christian Mingles” ad right after PZ’s intro. WTF? Is anyone (in the U.S. anyway, not familiar with this idiotic group? It advertises incessantly on cable). Their pitch is let god find the right match for you. Apparently the big guy doesn’t have anything better to do than set up lonely brainwashed nubile females with horny oversexed xian cant-find-a-date-anyother-way guys.
I am thinking of starting a dating service called KringleMingles. It will let old Kris Kringle aka Santa find the right match. Bottom line: lots of gifts in December, if you’re nice; and lots more if you’re naughty. Need financial backing. Any takers??
KG @ 117: Truly, an ideology to bring people together.
Are we sure that this site is run by Randroids, rather than just for Randroids? Hell, I don’t even have to be a capitalist to get a very primal kick out of the idea of taking the money of Randroids for a service that is unlikely to give them what they’re looking for.
M Groesbeck @ 122:
There would be a certain elegance to it.
However, remember: “If it seems too good to be true, it probably is”.
Not to mention, “Do not be quick to attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity”.
That summary made me thing of this song:
by Spose
There was one huge plot hole I particularly noticed in The Fountainhead. Roark gets off on the criminal charges somehow, even though he admits at the trial he blew up the building solely because his widdle feewings was hurted. In real life he’d spend years being sued for every penny he’d ever hope to see. The civil suits would never end.
What a pity. I suppose he expected them to pay for their own time on the target range?
You know, we’ve been looking at that particular tub of bathwater for a while. If there were a baby in there somewhere, it probably would have come up for air by now.
@ ‘Tis Himself
I’ve called you out on your plagiarism both here and scienceblogs on the ‘Laugh at Libertarians’ post. Are you going to answer or keep scurrying away?
It’s quite scary. So, he has a narrow taste – but, instead of simply taking this as a fact of nature, he blames it on other people, and then adds plenty of sour grapes.
If I did that, I’d be one of the world’s greatest misanthropists.
Easy to explain: Rand was a sociopath herself, felt uneasy because nobody else was like her, and was exalted at finally finding a kindred soul.
*burp* Her cult, unlike those of Moon and Hubbard, hasn’t even made it out of the USA!
“Most”? “Probably”? Survey result, or it didn’t happen.
And if you want to talk about biology, take the patriarchal culture out of everyone’s heads, then repeat the survey, and then you can start to talk about biology.
There is no “Paganism”. There has never been a single “pagan” religion; every tribe had its own religion, and many were very different indeed. Today’s newage neopagans have no direct connection to anyone’s past.
Ohhhh, please pass the popcorn!
+++++++++++++++++++
“Most libertarians seem to assume people will operate honestly if there are no regulations”
So they can take advantage of such foolish people.
+++++++++++++++++++
‘Randian’ is perfectly appropriate, regardless of what a tone troll objects to. Apparently the current political discourse in this country has passed this person by.
+++++++++++++++++++
Ayn Rand was a total hypocrite, as soon as she needed ‘entitlements’ and the ‘welfare state’ she jumped on them like fruit flies on a banana. And time flew like an arrow.
+++++++++++++++++++
This can’t be quoted too often in the randroid threads:
David Marjanović, you know what amazes me about Hubbard, he seems to have put a book out every year since his death.
Is skeptivus still going on about ‘Tis quoting from a Wiki article that ‘Tis wrote, which is absolutely permissible? He does realize that ‘Tis is his nym here, and not his name in real life, and that ‘Tis worked for the Treasury Department as an economist, so it wouldn’t be surprising that he wrote an article like that.
Gold Medal for Unintentional Ironic Truth
john@skeptivus, ‘Tis Himself is a well established, well respected, long time contributor to this blog. You are going to have to do more than just accuse him of plagiarism to dislodge him. Besides, even if he does plagiarize, he chooses well.
What is more important:
1) I’m an economist.
2) I’m a long time contributor.
3) I’m right and can cite the reasons why.
Fortunately ‘Tis is all 3. The 1st two don’t really matter.
Well, not to nitpick you too much, but the fact that Tis is a career economist is relevant to the accusation of plagiarism because it indicates that the stuff wossface is accusing Tis of plagiarizing could well have been originally written by Tis himself.
(See what I did there?)
This is ‘Tis’s post that generated the ire of the morally bankrupt liberturd, and caused him to complain about plagarism.
Link to ‘Tis’s response, which was:
Open and shut case of a liberturd being wrong. But he is too stupid, arrogant, and morally bankrupt to just back off the claim. Typical specimen. Proves our point, so we can just point to him as a case example.
David M:
Not “he”. Them.
According to the linked article, the three quotes I used came from three different users. It’s scary how similar they sound, huh?
@Nerd
I have called him out for more than the Wikipedia article. I keep trying to past the links here but it will not submit my comment for some reason. You can look at the “Laugh at the Libertarian” posts here and scienceblogs to see them.
Classical Cipher, I did see what you did there;-)
Nerd of Redhead, thanks for the details. I have to admit I just skimmed the thread, the stupid, it burns.
john@skeptivus, comments with more than 6 links trigger moderation. (On ScienceBlogs, it’s even just 4.) And PZ almost never has time to do anything about the moderation queue.
Yes :-)
Maybe they’re sockpuppets. Do their names sound like someone’s trying to test which names are attractive…?
Or they’re plagiarizing each other for lack of imagination.
Sorry Skeptivus, being a liberturd means you are a liar and bullshitter, as they all are. When truth gets in the way of the theology of liberturdism, truth goes by the wayside. Thate goes with the arrogance and ignorance. So, at the moment I don’t believe you. You are looking for something to trash the giver of the message, not the message. Which is your theology doesn’t work. It doesn’t. Deal with that elsewhere.
john@skeptivus, you have made a serious allegation, it is up to you to provide proof.
David M:
Oh, no doubt they could be sockpuppets. But on the other hand, none of them seems very keen on actually finding a date, so who knows?
I think it’sit’s pretty clear that most Randoids lack any amount of imagination, so I’m in the “parroting each other” camp.
@The Sailor
As I said earlier go to PZ’s “Laugh at the Libertarians” post here and on scienceblogs. I have links to the articles and ‘Tis’ comments where he plagiarized.
I guess where i posted it here will be locked in moderation.
@Nerd
Incidentally I did counter ‘his’ arguments but he never responded. I would counter yours too but outside of childish name calling I haven’t seen any.
“I guess where i posted it here will be locked in moderation.”
Oh you poor deluded thing, it’s a conspiracy not to let your brilliance shine thru. It must be that porcupine.
@The Sailor
Ummm no, according to David at comment #141 posts with too many links are held up in moderation.
Thanks for being a condescending ass and contributing nothing useful though.
gr8 resrch bro…
Soooo, he wants an ambitious, career-driven woman who will instantly give all of it up to be a SAHM? Or, does he mean he wants her to do literally everything to support him so he can . . . .do whatever he wants?
Either way, take me now!
*snort*
tim gueguen says:
Not to mention that she would probably think it was perfectly rational to cheat on him with his friends.