3 ms·

I think there’s a lot of substance there. Objectivism is a morally bankrupt excuse for a philosophical system, and Atlas Shrugged is a farcical, unrealistic an

by CSSer 7y ago

I think there’s a lot of substance there. Objectivism is a morally bankrupt excuse for a philosophical system, and Atlas Shrugged is a farcical, unrealistic and flimsy narrative awash with paper-thin characters and comical villains that exist only to serve as an excuse for Rand’s selfish world view. His selection suggests to me that he is either emotionally very immature and/or that his primary driver is unabashed hedonism. I find that pretty disturbing. Don’t take my word for it. Walk into any philosophy department at any university and start defending Objectivism. They will tear you down and dismiss you, and for good reason: it’s regressive, egotistical trash. EDIT: My only regret is that I didn’t say the above in my original comment. I neglected to consider that not all people may be familiar with the subject.

dang 7y ago
The horse of Aynrandianism was long ago beaten to death and produces exceedingly mediocre discussion. Therefore this counts as a generic ideological tangent, which breaks the site guidelines, and which we ask users not to go on (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20generic%20ideological%20tangent&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). It's off topic here. Picking the weakest thing in an article to complain about breaks the spirit of this guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." It leads to bad and boring threads. You really had to swoop to cherry-pick that detail, which could hardly be less prominent. The topic here, obviously, was the author's business. Off-topic comments that are whimsical and unpredictable are fine on HN; but going off topic in order to grouch about something, or turn to some generic issue, lowers the curiosity level and is not fine. Also, you're crossing into personal attack, a whole other thing the HN guidelines require users not to do. We definitely don't need users tearing on other users here!
- CSSer 7y ago
  > The horse of Aynrandianism was long ago beaten to death Apparently not. As for the mediocre discussion, fine. > You really had to swoop to cherry-pick that detail, which could hardly be less prominent. Fair enough. I suppose I'm used to being rewarded for reading the entire article. > The topic here, obviously, was the author's business. Off-topic comments that are whimsical and unpredictable are fine on HN; but going off topic in order to grouch about something, or turn to some generic issue, lowers the curiosity level and is not fine. Fair enough. Message received. However, I feel compelled to comment that it seems like a potentially worrisome policy. If all controversial topics are avoided unless they are the primary subject of the submission, it seems like it potentially exposes the community to an insidious legitimization of unsavory beliefs. I suppose that's your concern and not mine. I'll stick to the main topic of the article in the future, and minimize the kinds of objections we've discussed to the subtext of my comments, if they're included at all.
  - dang 7y ago
    Props to you for a much more open-minded response than most people would have in that position.

by CSSer 7y ago

dang 7y ago

The horse of Aynrandianism was long ago beaten to death and produces exceedingly mediocre discussion. Therefore this counts as a generic ideological tangent, which breaks the site guidelines, and which we ask users not to go on (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20generic%20ideological%20tangent&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). It's off topic here. Picking the weakest thing in an article to complain about breaks the spirit of this guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." It leads to bad and boring threads. You really had to swoop to cherry-pick that detail, which could hardly be less prominent. The topic here, obviously, was the author's business. Off-topic comments that are whimsical and unpredictable are fine on HN; but going off topic in order to grouch about something, or turn to some generic issue, lowers the curiosity level and is not fine. Also, you're crossing into personal attack, a whole other thing the HN guidelines require users not to do. We definitely don't need users tearing on other users here!

CSSer 7y ago
> The horse of Aynrandianism was long ago beaten to death Apparently not. As for the mediocre discussion, fine. > You really had to swoop to cherry-pick that detail, which could hardly be less prominent. Fair enough. I suppose I'm used to being rewarded for reading the entire article. > The topic here, obviously, was the author's business. Off-topic comments that are whimsical and unpredictable are fine on HN; but going off topic in order to grouch about something, or turn to some generic issue, lowers the curiosity level and is not fine. Fair enough. Message received. However, I feel compelled to comment that it seems like a potentially worrisome policy. If all controversial topics are avoided unless they are the primary subject of the submission, it seems like it potentially exposes the community to an insidious legitimization of unsavory beliefs. I suppose that's your concern and not mine. I'll stick to the main topic of the article in the future, and minimize the kinds of objections we've discussed to the subtext of my comments, if they're included at all.
- dang 7y ago
  Props to you for a much more open-minded response than most people would have in that position.