Super Happy Liberal Hypocrite Quiz!

farfromglorified

don't gimme no wrote:

Is this really even true or are you basing it upon this quiz that anyone could have thrown together to achieve their neocon agenda? Anyone have a credible outside source backing up this claim?

Chomsky's DOD contracts were for his linguistic works. For example, his first book, Syntactic Structures, was subsidized by the army. It's fairly innocuous, but still inherently hypocritical.

Eliot Rosewater

Collin wrote:

I also think almost every one is a bit of a hypocrit.

I think this is very true. I also think that public figures who speak a lot and have nearly every word out of their mouth documented would have an extremely hard time never contradicting themselves or being hypocritical in some way. But it's true, we're all hypocrites to some degree. The stronger you believe something or the more attention your belief gets determines how much of a hypocrite you're labled as being.

Eliot Rosewater

farfromglorified wrote:

Chomsky's DOD contracts were for his linguistic works. For example, his first book, Syntactic Structures, was subsidized by the army. It's fairly innocuous, but still inherently hypocritical.

OIC, thanks. Yeah, seems harmless. It's not at all like he's investing in Boeing or something, but I can see why some would see him as a hypocrite because of this.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm quite sure that Rand would call any lesbian, black person, white person, man, woman or gay man who attempted to use the force of government to extract special privileges from others some very ugly names.

"It involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises …. Therefore I regard it as immoral … And more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion. It’s disgusting." - Ayn Rand.

Of course a logical counter argument would be that she didn't believe in the criminalization of homosexuality - but that's a little convenient. See, on a personal level, she didn't like them.

farfromglorified wrote:

You tell me:

http://www.freedomkeys.com/ar-racism.htm

Do you still think Rand is a racist?

Look, Rand is anti-collectivist. Collectivism is at the heart of the feminist and racial rights movements. The statements you're highlighting are taken from her critiques of such movements.

I never called Ayn Rand a racist.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Where, in anything she's ever said, do you see "women just need to know their place"???

"An ideal woman is a man-worshiper, and an ideal man is the highest symbol of mankind."
Man=God
Woman=Worshiper of Man (God).

farfromglorified wrote:

Seems kind of strange since Dagny Taggart, Rand's archetype for the highest form of femininity, described in 1957, sleeps around, is a business executive, has an utter disdain for household chores, has and desires no children, has no interest in marriage, and lives only for her self and no others......

I suppose I'd have to read the book to decide if this Dagny is actually the "highest form of femininity" or if Rand was simply being quirky by giving a masculine character a vagina.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

"It involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises …. Therefore I regard it as immoral … And more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion. It’s disgusting." - Ayn Rand.

Of course a logical counter argument would be that she didn't believe in the criminalization of homosexuality - but that's a little convenient. See, on a personal level, she didn't like them.

On personal level, Rand vacillated (as many do) between whether or not homosexuality was chosen path. Rand's personal judgment would have been based on that issue alone, as is indicated by her statement:

"We do not know enough about the development of homosexuality in a person's psychology to say that it would have to involve immorality."

Rand's philosophy deems that morality is found only in choice. Therefore, if one is "born gay", it cannot be immoral.

Regardless, Rand's ultimate statement on this issue is found here:

"It is the privilege of any individual to use his sex life in whichever way he wants it"

Personal judgments or not, Rand in no way would sanction any power structures based on a rejection of homosexuals.

I never called Ayn Rand a racist.

Fair enough -- that was a different poster. However, the principles outlined in Rand's "Racism" apply equally to sexism and homosexuality (if one assumes a genetic predisposition). Rand strongly believed any judgments of virtue or vice based on genetic factors to be inherently invalid.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

"An ideal woman is a man-worshiper, and an ideal man is the highest symbol of mankind."
Man=God
Woman=Worshiper of Man (God).

This is a vast oversimplification that makes no sense in light of Rand's works. You'll find, for example, that there are more men who "worship" Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged than men she "worships". Worship, to Rand, is based not on subservience, but rather on an equalilty of mutually earned respect. Rand would call a person who worships their better a leech and a person who worships their lesser a fool.

You keep trying to ascribe Judeo-Christian issues of inferiority to such language. Rand's philosophy inherently rejects superiority or inferiority based on birth or in the absence of morality. Rand believes that moral equality between the worshiper and the worshiped is required for worship, and says it in the very same passage.

I suppose I'd have to read the book to decide if this Dagny is actually the "highest form of femininity" or if Rand was simply being quirky by giving a masculine character a vagina.

This is an absurd back-peddle. Dagny Taggart is a fundamentally different character than the male counterparts in the work, as are numerous other women throughout Rand's novels. Furthermore, Dagny and other women are demonstrated to be morally superior to the vast majority of the men in her books.

RainDog

So what you're saying, far, is that a person's overall philosophical outlook is more important than the individual things they've said - particularly if they've been taken out of context.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

So what you're saying, far, is that a person's overall philosophical outlook is more important than the individual things they've said - particularly if they've been taken out of context.

Someone's "overall philosophical outlook" is simply a collection of the individual things they've said, thought and done. You can't have an "overall philosophical outlook" that is more important than the indvidual pieces that it's comprised of.

Each component of a philosophy should be taken in its totallity, including its context and any contradictions of other components.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Someone's "overall philosophical outlook" is simply a collection of the individual things they've said, thought and done. You can't have an "overall philosophical outlook" that is more important than the indvidual pieces that it's comprised of.

Each component of a philosophy should be taken in its totallity, including its context and any contradictions of other components.

But you've already established that a person's opinions on a matter can change over time - or even with circumstance.

A person's overall philosophical outlook is more important than the individual pieces that it's "comprised" of - i.e. greater than the sum of it's parts. Plus, people engage in and say things that have absolutely nothing to do with their overall philosophical outlook all the time. Ayn Rand did not like homosexuals - in fact, she considered them immoral and discusting - at least if we are to believe what she actually said and if we hold that statement to her for the entirety of her life. However, her philosophy prohibited her from "acting" on it, as it were - and therefore her statements were apart from her philosophy.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

But you've already established that a person's opinions on a matter can change over time - or even with circumstance.

Sure! I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

A person's overall philosophical outlook is more important than the individual pieces that it's "comprised" of - i.e. greater than the sum of it's parts.

How?

Plus, people engage in and say things that have absolutely nothing to do with their overall philosophical outlook all the time. Ayn Rand did not like homosexuals - in fact, she considered them immoral and discusting - at least if we are to believe what she actually said and if we hold that statement to her for the entirety of her life. However, her philosophy prohibited her from "acting" on it, as it were - and therefore her statements were apart from her philosophy.

Not really, no. Personally, I think abortions are "immoral and disgusting", but I don't support laws banning it, and those two positions are completely consistent with my philosophy. Any animosity Rand had for gays was based on what she would identify as a choice to be gay which, in her mind, would revolve around some incorrect premises.

Furthermore, Rand's statements are still largely aimed at movements demanding privileges for homosexuals and other collectives. Rand did and would fiercely defend the right of homosexual individuals to make their own choices. Because of that, there are many homosexuals who find much inspiration in Rand's works, particularly The Fountainhead that features very loving (though non-sexual) relationships between certain men. She's even enshrined in Russia's Gay Hall of Fame.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Furthermore, Rand's statements are still largely aimed at movements demanding privileges for homosexuals and other collectives. Rand did and would fiercely defend the right of homosexual individuals to make their own choices. Because of that, there are many homosexuals who find much inspiration in Rand's works, particularly The Fountainhead that features very loving (though non-sexual) relationships between certain men. She's even enshrined in Russia's Gay Hall of Fame.

She was also an inspiration to the Chicken Fucker in South Park - though, I believe it was Officer Barbrady who had the right idea.

But, then, I am spending a lot of time arguing over an author I've never actually read - at least nothing in its entirety. My purpose here is to show you that things can be spun to whatever end you're trying to reach. You're encyclopedic knowledge of Ayn Rand allows you to cast many things she's said in a certain, more positive light (though I'd call it strategic discarding - but there you go). The same goes for most of the "liberal hypocrites" from the opening post.

A person's overall philosophical outlook is more important than the individual pieces that it's "comprised" of - i.e. greater than the sum of it's parts.

How?

By being that way.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

She was also an inspiration to the Chicken Fucker in South Park - though, I believe it was Officer Barbrady who had the right idea.

But, then, I am spending a lot of time arguing over an author I've never actually read - at least nothing in its entirety. My purpose here is to show you that things can be spun to whatever end you're trying to reach. You're encyclopedic knowledge of Ayn Rand allows you to cast many things she's said in a certain, more positive light (though I'd call it strategic discarding - but there you go). The same goes for most of the "liberal hypocrites" from the opening post.

I'm not sure what you're disproving here. I've never really indicated that the originally posted list has any credence whatsoever. I will go on record to say that Michael Moore is especially guilty as charged, but the vast majority of the rest are portrayed to be massive hypocrites when in fact there is only a slight hypocrisy or a misinterpreted situation.

I'd encourage you to read Rand's writings, if only to expose yourself to a philosophy that you don't see much of elsewhere. Whether or not you connect with it, I'm quite sure that you'll find racism, sexism, and homophobia to be antithetical to Rand's philosophies.

By being that way.

If I said "2+2=5" and then told you it's true "by being that way", would you accept that answer?

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

If I said "2+2=5" and then told you it's true "by being that way", would you accept that answer?

No. Not anymore than the "2+2=3" that you're currently trying to sell me.

I'm not trying to "disprove" anything - hell, if anything, I'm trying to "prove" something: there are no shining examples of human decency once every detail of that human - everything they've said, everything they've done - is "revealed." Therefore, single statements or actions to not measure up to an overall philosophy.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

No. Not anymore than the "2+2=3" that you're currently trying to sell me.

I never said that someone's overall philosophy is less than the sum of its parts. I said it was equal to it. So I'm "selling you" 2+2=4.

I'm not trying to "disprove" anything - hell, if anything, I'm trying to "prove" something: there are no shining examples of human decency once every detail of that human - everything they've said, everything they've done - is "revealed." Therefore, single statements or actions to not measure up to an overall philosophy.

No, selected "single statements or actions" do not measure up. All actions and statements do.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

I never said that someone's overall philosophy is less than the sum of its parts. I said it was equal to it. So I'm "selling you" 2+2=4.

That's what your tellin' me, but I'm still seeing a "3".

farfromglorified wrote:

No, selected "single statements or actions" do not measure up. All actions and statements do.

So, what you're saying is a person's overall philosophical outlook is more important than the individual or selected things they've said.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

That's what your tellin' me, but I'm still seeing a "3".

Then you obviously believe something's missing from my account. What is missing?

So, what you're saying is a person's overall philosophical outlook is more important than the individual or selected things they've said.

Not "more important" -- more accurate. For example, you say that Ayn Rand hates gays by cherry-picking one or two statements in the face of many others that paint a much more complete picture. Similarly, others say that Noam Chomsky is a DOD lackey by cherry-picking one or two actions in the face of others that paint a much more complete picture.

Hypocrisy, to any extent, is surely a universal human quality. However, there are many degrees to which a person can be a hypocrite. Furthermore, it is not an unavoidable or excusable quality in any amount.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Then you obviously believe something's missing from my account. What is missing?

I never said something is missing from your account. I'm saying that, in many respects, I disagree with you in the same way I disagree that 2+2=3.
As an example, let's take the statement

farfromglorified wrote:

Not "more important" -- more accurate.

which really doesn't mean anymore than what I said - 'cept for a different word choice. Perhaps you're trying to take it in a different direction, but I'm not following.

farfromglorified wrote:

For example, you say that Ayn Rand hates gays by cherry-picking one or two statements in the face of many others that paint a much more complete picture. Similarly, others say that Noam Chomsky is a DOD lackey by cherry-picking one or two actions in the face of others that paint a much more complete picture.

I.e. those statements or actions - singularly - are less important than the overall picture. Less accurate, too, sure. But also less important. I could say you subtracted the word "important" (an important word in it's own right) and left me holding a "3".

farfromglorified wrote:

Hypocrisy, to any extent, is surely a universal human quality. However, there are many degrees to which a person can be a hypocrite. Furthermore, it is not an unavoidable or excusable quality in any amount.

This would probably represent the 2s. I don't have any problem with the 2s.

ryan198

I was the original poster who said that Rand was racist/sexist/homophobic/classist and I stand by those claims (more on this in a second). However, I think Rand has a positive direction for where we'd like to be as a society, but unfortunately her theory of objectivity falls short on a number of counts:

1. It is ahistorical
Sure it would be nice to live in a society where everyone could live free for themselves, and their histories, but it objectivity does not address what people actually must go through to be a human in this world.


2. It is theoretically abstract without actually addressing lived realities.
Mentioned above, it would be cool to live where we don't view people as superior or inferior based on race (a social construct not genetic), class (again a social construct), gender (social again since we tend to view people as male and female despite the fact that their is transsexuality, 7 different sexes, and gender bending), sexuality (aren't we all a bit multisexual?). However historically this hasn't been the case, as such, how can we just go "let's all be objective now" and forget the past which as Marx says -himself a noted sexist- "weighs like an alp on the present".

3. It is therefore not radically contextual
You'd like to think that it could change overnight, but by claiming individuality without addressing the contemporary moment's themes of domination you're really paving the way for the dominant class to maintain their dominance while simulataneously giving them the basis to claim that they are not racist/classist/sexist/sexualist because giving subordinated peoples the same privileges that many dominant peoples were born with would be some sort of attack on the dominant class - which is the essence of neoliberalism. For example it's not all that worth it to claim objectivity when we live in a world where kids are sewing our soccer balls, tshirts, sneakers etc. for 12 cents a day. It's not going to change anything, it just clouds people's judgement of those in power.

In conclusion then I feel that Rand has her heart in the right place, but she is not interventionist enough to exact the change necessary to get to the point where objectivity could actually work. In other words, the playing field for all humans is nowhere near even enough to all of a sudden say "lets all be objective now", not when we still have 30% of our minority population living in poverty, not when our jails are being filled with minorities to benefit the rich, and not when the rich can continue to maintain their power without being checked. For example we can all bag on W, or Clinton or whomever, but their terms end and their power diminishes, whereas when was the last time we went after and removed the Phil Knights, and Bill Gates of the world from their perch of unvoted dominance? Until this change happens I will see your Ayn Rand and raise you Stuart Hall and Paulo Freire - we gotta fuck shit up before we can be objective.

sapperskunk

Xxxxx