[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 31 KB, 500x260, images - 2020-04-28T231406.211.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15218096 No.15218096 [Reply] [Original]

Uhh hello? Based department?

>> No.15218160

Yes this is based department. Stop calling us you fucking retard.

>> No.15219270

ayn rand gets people RILED up. keep seething faggots

>> No.15220138

>>15218096
this is really funny because, like, her whole "philosophy" falls apart in it. OK, Ayn, when I'm nationalizing your little trains because you aren't using them well enough. Go pop some bennies and cry about it for 800 pages. Btw thanks for Alan Greenspan, dumbass.

>> No.15220158

>>15218096
not based. doesn't pertain to the happiness of fish

>> No.15220171
File: 121 KB, 900x900, DKAw9taUEAIzArX.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15220171

>>15218096
>gets invaded by Mexicans
>"NOOOOOOOO NOT MY COUNTRYRINO MY LAND OF THE REEE, HOME OF THE GAY NOOOOOOO"
Karma is a bitch.

>> No.15220179
File: 522 KB, 621x861, 1560996255408.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15220179

>>15218096
>civilization

>> No.15220185

>>15220171
If Americans aren't using their land well and don't want to do "low" work, then they don't get to complain. Ayn Rand agrees

>> No.15220190

>>15218096
why are women so cringe? that same passage could've been said by a man and it wouldn't have been this cringe.

>> No.15220234

>>15220171
>unsourced racial stat infograph
>>/pol/

>> No.15220240

>>15220179
That picture sums up liberal/libertarian philosophy

>> No.15220256

>>15220234
It literally says it's from the Pew Research Center:
>The Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan American think tank (referring to itself as a "fact tank") based in Washington, D.C. It provides information on social issues, public opinion, and demographic trends shaping the United States and the world. It also conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis, and other empirical social science research.
https://www.pewresearch.org/ft_16-01-25_nextamerica_fig2_1_495px/

Learn to read, faggot.

>> No.15220286

>>15218096
Her novels are actually a pretty decent read, but I can't understand how someone can adhere to a "philosophy" as retarded as objectivism.

>> No.15220356

>>15220256
>muh rightwing newspapers that are fake news
not a source

>> No.15220389

>>15218096
>Fucking collectivist government forcing us do to things for the collective, fuck taxes fuck the cops literal tyranny.
>Haha based government imposing property rights through military power to those savages without government.
No wonder libertarians always end up in the arms of fascism.

>> No.15220392

>>15220185
Do you really think the Latin Americans are going to use it well lol. Look at Latin America

>> No.15220403

>>15220392
White upperclasses run Latin america.
Look at bolsonaro

>> No.15220406

>>15218160
The gun is in my hand but I’m afraid.

>> No.15220413

>>15220389
>>Haha based government imposing property rights through military power to those savages without government.
The wild west was ancap though.

>> No.15220418

>>15220171
>Invaded
>Not invited

>> No.15220424

>>15220389
>can't grasp the difference between taxes and contracts between citizens
Are you being serious

>> No.15220431

>>15218096
The Based department hung up

>> No.15220455

>>15220356
absolutely delusional. leftie here, pew is about as center as it gets

>> No.15220460

>>15220356
>Pew Research Center
>right-wing
okay retard

>> No.15220461

>>15220256
Pew rhymes with Jew

>> No.15220474

>>15220455
>leftie here
cool larp kiddo
>>15220460
lol? sorry your hero is a dotard

>> No.15220480

>>15218096
>seething commies ITT
why though? she's basically regurgitating your beloved Stirner, no one has the right to property they cannot defend against potential invasion, Rand was a closeted Nietzschean Stirnerite who didn't want to reveal her power level in amoralism to the puritan public of 1950's US

>> No.15220483

>>15220480
>stirner
>communist
what?

>> No.15220486

>>15220392
You're going to get mexican'd and you're going to love it, sweaty. You need spicy stuff ;)

>> No.15220490

>>15220483
read more, /leftypol/ claimed Stirner as their own long time ago

>> No.15220495

>t. bitch that needed to get SCALPED

>> No.15220499

>>15218160
I would like to file a claim, please

>> No.15220518

I did a DNA test and found out I have Native American in me. How can I parlay this into getting casino money?

>> No.15220550

haven't read a thing by her, but man she really riles up resentful fags.

>> No.15220555

>>15220474
/pol/tard cope. you're getting mexican'd, mate. and that's a goot thing.

>> No.15220560

>>15220555
you're talking about mexicans like theyre a bioweapon, you are /pol/ yourself

>> No.15220573

>>15220560
I am a Mexican. I am a weapon of destruction. /pol/ is for faggots.

>> No.15220607

>>15220518
You won't get a dime, because the Native American in you is the product of rape. That's right, folks, you heard it here first. American settlers raped Indian girls.

>> No.15220612

>>15220573
And you clearly hate yourself or you wouldnt see your people as something that ruins a country they immigrate to

>> No.15220614

>>15220607
and niggers rape white girls, isn't america a wonderful place?

>> No.15220624 [DELETED] 

>>15220614
lmao, despite your fantasies, the actresses on Blacked.com are working consensually. Seethe harder tradcuckold

>> No.15220635

>>15220612
I'm just memeing, I don't even live in the US so I hardly even care, but the graph is legit as is the source. Not sure why you would imply such a graph is inherently a bad thing if you dislike the right-wing. It's not meant to be "preventive", just how things are projected to be.

>> No.15220690

>>15220607
you're right I hadn't heard that before

>> No.15220750

>>15218096
This seems fully inconsistent. The basis of American conservatism is the enlightenment-era natural rights. Here she seems to say that the Indians needed to recognise their own rights (whatever she means by that; they fought for their territory, certainly that can be considered a recognition of the basic claim to territory) or be given them externally. But natural rights are neither given nor come into existence by being recognised. So this annoys me.

>> No.15220771

>>15220750
>Here she seems to say that the Indians needed to recognise their own rights (whatever she means by that; they fought for their territory, certainly that can be considered a recognition of the basic claim to territory)
it means that land ownership wasn't recognized in Native American culture so white colonists had a right to claim it as if it hadn't been appropriated in the first place

>> No.15220954

>>15220771
Private ownership perhaps not, but certainly the tribe had a land it held claim over, and in which other tribes were not permitted to trespass or use to fulfill any of their wants. Political property.
I can't say I read much about them, but they did fight over "their" land. Moreover, if we hold it consistently, as it seems to me that it is held, natural rights would exist regardless of one's awareness of them.

>> No.15220982

>>15220424
Where are the contracts with the native Americans?
Also contracts are meaningless without an institution with the monopoly of violence to enforce them.

>> No.15220993

>>15220750
But you are misconstrueing Rands idea of “right” as being a universal maxim, which it is not. Just that it is internally consistent with the system they currently worked in. In terms of the idea of property, what they did was right, not that it was right as a categorical imparitive.

>> No.15220995

>>15220954
>I can't say I read much about them
To be honest, this means "I watched two Western films in my life, forgot both and am driving on pure conjecture".

>> No.15221058

>>15220993
Could you elaborate further? Her statement seems to me not purely descriptive of the colonists' approach (it makes sense that he who does not recognise property also lacks right to it, because indians do not see it as abstract property, but in some way dictated by custom, religion and politics), but also normative (the colonists were right to take what they could because, by indians lacking the recognition of abstract property, it cannot be said that they had ownership over it).
I have no other knowlege or opinion on Rand, and have never read her, I am going on pure interpretation of this statement. Surely if she meant that the colonists' deeds merely had sense within their system, and so they cannot be said to have trespassed on anything, she would have said something like "the colonists acted fully according to their system, recognising the indians as without property, and so it cannot be said that there was any malice or hypocrisy in them taking over the land indians occupied".

>> No.15221167

>>15221058
Thank you for a good ask instead of just calling me a fag or whatever. I’m personally not a Randian, but I can appreciate some of her logic from a certain paradigm. I think a quote which kind of embodies what she believed “happiness” was.

> Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy—a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your own destruction.

So basically happiness, replace with right is what her mo was. It’s contextual rather than universal. So if you believe in property in the European sense and from your mind you gained it through a system you felt was internally consistent it was contextually “right”. Note she doesn’t say what is specifically right, like giving money to the poor, but that it is something that is contained in whatever given system.

It’s lack of hypothetical universiality is not my cup of tea, but I can understand it conceptually.

>> No.15221191
File: 70 KB, 420x590, where white man went wrong.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15221191

>>15218096

>> No.15221244

>>15221167
So, to put it in different words, she considers virtue in terms of internal consistence. But not only formally, between internal determinations, beliefs, but also with the lived life, actions, and in such a way that they correspond not only to that which is merely correct by the system of thought, but also that which is beautiful and desirable by it. So that internal consistence for the American system would not only be not to infringe on rights of others, the negative sense which even a beggar can complete, but also to be successful in the market; to complete what is desirable, the positive sense.
Is that what you mean? So in that way she is only elaborating on the American system?

>> No.15221270

>>15220179
How does a rock indicate a hatred for the homeless?

>> No.15221288

>>15221191
Based

>> No.15221297

>>15221270
America and Britain seem to have empty spaces with concrete spikes and benches specifically designed to be impossible to sleep on, in an effort to remove the homeless from the streets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture
Although, this space being quite small, I believe that this is only a decoration, and not a part of that initiative.

>> No.15221314

>>15218096
Randism as a philosophy might not always be a bad guide for personal behavior, even for those who wish to be improductive by the standards of modern capitalism, but it's always funny to see the level of corporate cock-sucking Rand as a person constantly engaged in.

>> No.15221347

>>15221244
Basically. Actually you put it rather well. She’s rather audacious in her claims, so I would not say she had a highly academic system. In some ways it’s really just rehashing practical stoicism.

Consistency in lived life. If one believes in a paradigm fulfilling it. Since living in a paradigm of liberalism, (which probably reinforced it in a way) this manifested in material as well “spiritual” liberalism. Personally I think Hegel is more compelling in that a liberal society will create a air where material (lower) freedom will stifle “spiritual” freedom, since a free market will manipulate wants, but I can understand the counterclaim that explicit regulation has dangers as compared to the implicit.

>> No.15221363

>>15220179
What if it was a gay hobo who would like to get a shelter?

>> No.15221365

>>15218096
Only moralists disagree with her there.

>> No.15221384

>>15218096
lolbert grandma is a retard wow what's new

>> No.15221391

>>15218096
God I fucking hate techno-civphile capitalist pigs. Glad this bitch is burning in hell.

>> No.15221410

>>15221191
The guy sounds like an asshole. Maybe if he wasn't so much of one, he wouldn't have been skullfucked to death and let his descendants rendered into gambling alcoholics.

>> No.15221439

>>15218096
cringe department.
1. Jewish female
2. A lolbertarian.
3. An immigrant, to America, of all place.

>> No.15221516

>>15221191
>Medicine man free

Kek

>> No.15221541

>>15221347
Thank you for the answer. I must admit that I am quite far from the liberal system.
It is a nice coincidence that you mentioned Hegel; I am currently reading (or trying to, at least) the Groundlines for the Philosophy of Right.

>> No.15221585

>>15221191
cumtown

>> No.15221586

>>15221410
This salty for being proven an idiot and follower of idiocy.
Thanks for the laugh.

>> No.15221600

>>15218160
Based based department

>> No.15221628

>>15221586
*dronekills u*
lol, what's that about idiocy again?

>> No.15221653

>>15221314
I am thinking of reading The Fountainhead for this reason.

>> No.15221683

>>15221541
Nice. I usually like to Talk to people who know a little about Hegelianism proper. I fell people get stuck in paradigms to quickly and have a hard time trying to engage with another. There is a great quote by Hegel about truth being like a fruit. To u wouldn’t call a flower any less true than the fruits that it produces. Likewise truth isn’t something that is right or wrong, but a process in becoming.

People tend to seeth when they disagree with a position instead of seeing it as an unfertilized flower. I appreciate rand without believing it. I know people meme it here, but I think the great Gatsby imbodies her system rather well, and I’d be lying if it didn’t say it invoked a great sense of freedom.

For some reason I actually found phenomenology of spirit easier to get than critique of pure reason. Lol.

>> No.15221810

>>15221683
Well, it is a good approach. I can't fault it.
I have had the misfortune of being obliged to read the Philosophy of Right without having been able to read the Phaenomenology of Spirit, the Science of Logic or the Encyclopaedia of Philosophic Sciences. I hope to be able to read the Phaenomenology soon, as well.

>> No.15222990

>>15221628
/v/ is a different board. go back to cowadoody

>> No.15223110

>>15218096
>rights
It would of course be a little odd that there should be such rights attaching to human beings simply qua human beings in light of the fact, which I alluded to in my discussion of Gewirth's argument, that there is no expression in any ancient or medieval language correctly translated by our expression 'a right' until near the close of the middle ages: the concept lacks any means of expression in Hebrew, Greek, Latin or Arabic, classical or medieval, before about 1400, let alone in Old English, or in Japanese even as late as the mid-nineteenth century. From this it does not of course follow that there are no natural or human rights; it only follows that no one could have known that there were. And this at least raises certain questions. But we do not need to be distracted into answering them, for the truth is plain: there are no such rights, and belief in them is one with belief in witches and in unicorns.

The best reason for asserting so bluntly that there are no such rights is indeed of precisely the same type as the best reason which we possess for asserting that there are no witches and the best reason which we possess for asserting that there are no unicorns: every attempt to give good reasons for believing that there are such rights has failed. The eighteenth-century philosophical defenders of natural rights sometimes suggest that the assertions which state that men possess them are self-evident truths; but we know that there are no self-evident truths. Twentieth-century moral philosophers have sometimes appealed to their and our intuitions; but one of the things that we ought to have learned from the history of moral philosophy is that the introduction of the word 'intuition' by a moral philosopher is always a signal that something has gone badly wrong with an argument. In the United Nations declaration on human rights of 1949 what has since become the normal UN practice of not giving good reasons for any assertions whatsoever is followed with great rigor. And the latest defender of such rights, Ronald Dworkin (Taking Rights Seriously, 1976) concedes that the existence of such rights cannot be demonstrated, but remarks on this point simply that it does not follow from the fact that a statement cannot be demonstrated that it is not true (p. 81). Which is true, but could equally be used to defend claims about unicorns and witches.

>> No.15223166

>>15221314
especially since the cock-sucking is almost never requited

>> No.15223246

>>15221810
Thanks, I’m not the best at writing, and I’m phone posting too, so sorry for the lack of good articulation. Imo I found history and spirit the easier of Hegels writings. They are slightly more remedial, and the former was a little (but not much) less abstract.

>> No.15223310

>>15218160
this made me chuckle quite a bit. Now I'm gonna get out of bad and go to the bathroom.

>> No.15223495

>>15222990
Drones aren't just in video games, pal. They're real and they're the product of a civilization not run by old world hunter-gatherer alcoholics.

>> No.15223552
File: 101 KB, 1000x666, 407635.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15223552

>>15221628
>>15221410
>mur'ca

>> No.15224460

>>15220171
I like how this graph claims to be able to predict forty years of demographic changes. Honestly, forty years from now there will be more white people than ever before in the world, and honestly I don't really see their being that many hispanics in the United States, and the Asian population also has birth rates below replacement rate so they should actually decline and the black population will decline proportionally somewhat as well. Hispanics aren't growing as fast as what people thought they would. The US will be browner but not 50% brown in the future. Technology is the answer, as more manual labor and agriculture jobs (where 90% of Hispanics work) get automated their will be less need for unskilled labor in the US, when jobs dry up a lot of them are going home because they're here just to send money back home.

>> No.15224476

>>15224460
This, how can people still be fooled by that trick of assuming every demographic trend must be linear through time? We know it is false, Mark Twain already made fun of similar methods back in his days. The fertility rate of Hispanics in the US is already decreasing compared to that of previous generations of Hispanic immigrant. Why assume it will be the same 40 years down the line?

>> No.15224495

>>15224476
Because they have to scare people that they are being replaced.

>> No.15224609

>>15221191
Ah, the internet. A "government official" with no name and a guy who still speaks broken English after 90 years. Good point tho.

>> No.15224768

>>15218096
damn, shes ugly, therefore her opinion gets discarded.