Defend Ayn Rand if you will, but attaching a disdainful term to people who hold a view you oppose and insisting that anyone who defends that view should be ashamed is not a good way to hold an argument.
Edit: This is such a poisonous viewpoint you’re advocating that I am amazed Less Wrong has not downvoted it into oblivion. “Anyone who says something bad about my favourite author should be ashamed of themselves and then shamed by others”. Really? And then my post explaining why I wrote that sentence gets downvoted to −6 instead? Really, Less Wrong? Really?
Obviously I did not handle the issue in depth in my post, given that it was an off-handed example, but I thought it would be pretty uncontroversial that Ayn Rand’s work has been used to justify crony capitalism. I seem to recall many of the republican candidates (including Paul Ryan) use it to justify their positions. And I remember reading a post by Yudkowsky who downright called objectivism a cult.
Btw, I see that someone just went and downvoted every one of my posts in this thread; was that you?
Just have some people like Ayn Rand spread ideas like unmitigated greed being
good, and presto! You get a whole bunch of people who now feel justified in
spending all of their combined human ingenuity to hurting each other in an
attempt to get ahead in society.
When you say stuff like this, to a person who has read Rand you sound like a
creationist blaming Darwin for racism and ethnic cleansing. Rand was a
proponent of peaceful, honest, mutually beneficial human interactions, not of a
“might-makes-right” philosophy. Among other things, Atlas Shrugged features
a critique of crony
capitalism.
(Disclosure: I have not downvoted you. I am not an
Objectivist), but I
have read just about everything Rand wrote and am probably more sympathetic to
her ideas than the average Less Wronger.)
And I remember reading a post by Yudkowsky who downright called objectivism a cult.
That post also contained an explanation why. It listed specific things Ayn Rand did wrong. (She admired a philosopher from two millenia ago, but ignored recent research related to her central topics. She wanted to be rational, but didn’t know how exactly, and thus couldn’t teach her followers. So she made “rationality” an applause light, and her followers admired her, but didn’t know how—or even aspire—to surpass her.) And there are also a few nice things in the article, when deserved.
EDIT: Connotations disclaimer: I listed a summary of criticism by Eliezer to show that Eliezer provided specific criticism in his article. It does not mean that I agree with all of it. It means that I support that style of debate, as opposed to the drive-by shooting in this article.
There were circles of dysfunction about Rand, the worst in the center where she was the Queen bee of her coterie of intimates. I wouldn’t confuse the problems of her philosophy with the social problems of a group of hangers on to a wealthy and famous woman with an ideology to spread.
Even in the philosophy itself, there are Peikoff and the “closed system” Objectivists who believe that Objectivism was a completed truth, to “open system” Objectivists like David Kelley who do intend to revise, extend, and surpass Rand.
And for the rank and file Objectivists, I’ve known a few and none of them thought Rand was always right and not to be surpassed.
Do you see how you went from character assassination of Rand, to character assassination of those who downvoted you, to character assassination of me. Is that what you consider “terribly mature”?
And no, I didn’t downvote all your posts, just the original and your first reply to me, which one should expect given my disapproving responses.
I now have lost a significant amount of karma for having posted an article that I did my best on.
Very disappointed in Less Wrong as a rationalist community right now.
Maybe your best just wasn’t good enough, and that is not a moral failing of the LW community.
But I did gain more sympathy for the point of view that many problems in the world really look like they are the result of malevolent intent
You already have way too much sympathy for this view.
Defend Ayn Rand if you will, but attaching a disdainful term to people who hold a view you oppose and insisting that anyone who defends that view should be ashamed is not a good way to hold an argument.
Edit: This is such a poisonous viewpoint you’re advocating that I am amazed Less Wrong has not downvoted it into oblivion. “Anyone who says something bad about my favourite author should be ashamed of themselves and then shamed by others”. Really? And then my post explaining why I wrote that sentence gets downvoted to −6 instead? Really, Less Wrong? Really?
How terribly rude of me to criticize your tremendous civility in insisting that Rand and those who agree with her are
Obviously I did not handle the issue in depth in my post, given that it was an off-handed example, but I thought it would be pretty uncontroversial that Ayn Rand’s work has been used to justify crony capitalism. I seem to recall many of the republican candidates (including Paul Ryan) use it to justify their positions. And I remember reading a post by Yudkowsky who downright called objectivism a cult.
Btw, I see that someone just went and downvoted every one of my posts in this thread; was that you?
When you say stuff like this, to a person who has read Rand you sound like a creationist blaming Darwin for racism and ethnic cleansing. Rand was a proponent of peaceful, honest, mutually beneficial human interactions, not of a “might-makes-right” philosophy. Among other things, Atlas Shrugged features a critique of crony capitalism.
(Disclosure: I have not downvoted you. I am not an Objectivist), but I have read just about everything Rand wrote and am probably more sympathetic to her ideas than the average Less Wronger.)
That post also contained an explanation why. It listed specific things Ayn Rand did wrong. (She admired a philosopher from two millenia ago, but ignored recent research related to her central topics. She wanted to be rational, but didn’t know how exactly, and thus couldn’t teach her followers. So she made “rationality” an applause light, and her followers admired her, but didn’t know how—or even aspire—to surpass her.) And there are also a few nice things in the article, when deserved.
Compared with that, you merely did a drive-by shooting. (Which does not contribute to a reasonable discussion.)
EDIT: Connotations disclaimer: I listed a summary of criticism by Eliezer to show that Eliezer provided specific criticism in his article. It does not mean that I agree with all of it. It means that I support that style of debate, as opposed to the drive-by shooting in this article.
There were circles of dysfunction about Rand, the worst in the center where she was the Queen bee of her coterie of intimates. I wouldn’t confuse the problems of her philosophy with the social problems of a group of hangers on to a wealthy and famous woman with an ideology to spread.
Even in the philosophy itself, there are Peikoff and the “closed system” Objectivists who believe that Objectivism was a completed truth, to “open system” Objectivists like David Kelley who do intend to revise, extend, and surpass Rand.
And for the rank and file Objectivists, I’ve known a few and none of them thought Rand was always right and not to be surpassed.
Do you see how you went from character assassination of Rand, to character assassination of those who downvoted you, to character assassination of me. Is that what you consider “terribly mature”?
And no, I didn’t downvote all your posts, just the original and your first reply to me, which one should expect given my disapproving responses.
Maybe your best just wasn’t good enough, and that is not a moral failing of the LW community.
You already have way too much sympathy for this view.