5 ms·

Rand herself was famous for being insulting and dismissive, which I think is the main reason people react so strongly against her. In the introduction to anthe

Rand herself was famous for being insulting and dismissive, which I think is the main reason people react so strongly against her. In the introduction to anthem, she basically states that if you don't agree with her views on capitalism, then you are in favor of gulags and concentration camps. She, herself, leaves no room for middle ground, nuance, or civilized discussion. That isn't an excuse to resort to insults when talking about her, but if you are honestly wondering why people react so emotionally against her, it might have something to do with her assaulting other people's beliefs on such an emotional level.

tptacek 17y ago
He didn't say anything about her beliefs. He said the book sucked. For all you know, he's a libertarian.
- xenophanes 17y ago
  I have performed a side-channels attack on the original comment, and have determined it is unintentionally leaking information about the author's political views. It turns out he's not a libertarian.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    We're now talking about the author of the comment and not the comment itself. Can we stop?
    - xenophanes 17y ago
      Maybe you were. I was talking about how comments contain inexplicit information, and drawing an analogy to the computer security field (which I figured is more on topic). It's also a field which, IIRC, you know a lot more about than I do. Perhaps you can improve the analogy.
- adriand 17y ago
  I'm not a libertarian, but your point stands - it wasn't her philosophy that bothered me, it's the book and how poorly it is written. To use an example from the book I mentioned, The Name of the Rose has long sections where people argue over obscure religious matters (such as whether or not God has a sense of humour). As an atheist, if I reacted to books simply on the basis of my beliefs, I'd hate it, since what's more pointless than reading dialogue about a non-existent entity? But I found it fascinating, because it's well done, well-written, and intellectually rigorous. That said, the quality of her writing did impact my opinion of her philosophy. I was open-minded about Rand and her ideas until I started reading Atlas Shrugged, at which point I decided that if her writing was that poor, I really didn't see how I could embrace her ideas, especially since so many of her supporters seem to think it's a really fine novel.

tptacek 17y ago

He didn't say anything about her beliefs. He said the book sucked. For all you know, he's a libertarian.

xenophanes 17y ago
I have performed a side-channels attack on the original comment, and have determined it is unintentionally leaking information about the author's political views. It turns out he's not a libertarian.
- tptacek 17y ago
  We're now talking about the author of the comment and not the comment itself. Can we stop?
  - xenophanes 17y ago
    Maybe you were. I was talking about how comments contain inexplicit information, and drawing an analogy to the computer security field (which I figured is more on topic). It's also a field which, IIRC, you know a lot more about than I do. Perhaps you can improve the analogy.
adriand 17y ago
I'm not a libertarian, but your point stands - it wasn't her philosophy that bothered me, it's the book and how poorly it is written. To use an example from the book I mentioned, The Name of the Rose has long sections where people argue over obscure religious matters (such as whether or not God has a sense of humour). As an atheist, if I reacted to books simply on the basis of my beliefs, I'd hate it, since what's more pointless than reading dialogue about a non-existent entity? But I found it fascinating, because it's well done, well-written, and intellectually rigorous. That said, the quality of her writing did impact my opinion of her philosophy. I was open-minded about Rand and her ideas until I started reading Atlas Shrugged, at which point I decided that if her writing was that poor, I really didn't see how I could embrace her ideas, especially since so many of her supporters seem to think it's a really fine novel.