Source material paints altruism and the act of giving to be the worst qualities mankind could have

>source material paints altruism and the act of giving to be the worst qualities mankind could have
>movies are funded through donations garnered from fans

But those donations aren't true altruism, dumbass.
The donations are selfish in nature, because the fans give them because they want the movie to be made.

Objectivism in a nutshell

whatever ron paul faggot
OP is right ayn rand BTFO

Kinda like how Rand attacked and excoriated welfare and medicare until she needed it?

/thread

>conservatives act sad following massacres using automatic assault weapons
>oppose gun control
Conservatism is hypocrisy.

Are you implying that people fund movies as a form of altruistic charity? I'm still adjusting to how retarded everyone on this site is.

The government forces you to give money into these things why not take your due?

SHE WAS ON WELFARE. Period end of sentence.

If you're giving someone money and have no RoI other than a movie coming out that YOU STILL HAVE TO PAY FOR, you're either altruistic or an utter retard.

Except that they had no reason to after the first movie was released, and the world discovered that neither the source material, nor the cast and crew, were worth giving to. There's no way that you can, in enlightened self interest, give money to a shitty film project.

They'd all McVey or unibomber without guns, probably causing more destruction.

>The donations are selfish in nature
all donations are, even giving to homeless puppies with aids is still not altruistic because its done to remove guilt or to gloat to others who haven't

imma vote for the latter, because it is a shit movie

Because you have integrity and principles? Which, I guess, is anathema in objectivism.

ITT: Libertaritards get destroyed

Ayn Rand was the ultrajew. Objectivism is basically just "jew everyone as hard as you can."

When that movie is going to be shit, and you know that it's going to be shit, and you have zero reason to think that it's going to be anything other than shit, then yes. It's an act of altruistic charity along the lines of giving a legless veteran a five dollar bill because he looks like he's starving and he hasn't had a bath in years.

Yes, yes,

Well done libcucks, well done libcucks,

HOWEVER

>mfw it took 17 replies for somebody to point out this
for shame Sup Forums, for shame

Don't call me a libcuck you faggot. Libertarianism is cancer for the far-right.

>integrity and principles
This has to be bait or a redditor.

Yes, yes,

Well done republicucks, well done republicucks,

HOWEVER

It's called taking a principled stand. If you are opposed to something, then you don't ever take part in it, otherwise all of your objections to that thing are rendered null and void, painting you as nothing more than a hypocrite.

Not to mention that, by all accounts, she didn't learn a goddamned thing from the exercise. She didn't gain any insight, or knowledge about the human condition from having to take welfare and medicare. If she at least learned her lesson, I could respect that. Instead, she's just another hypocrite.

Found the redditor.

Ayn Rand collected Social Security. Are you surprised her drones turned out to be complete hypocrites?

The market has spoken, and they don't want Atlas Shrugged.

Well, Objectivists? WELL? Where is your response? DEFEND THESE FILMS! DEFEND YOUR LEADER!

Collecting social security doesn't make her a hypocrite since she was forced to pay for the social security of others during her life. Are you retarded?

Yes, yes

Well done witch hunter, well done witch hunter,

HOWEVER

Once again

>having principles
>having integrity
>learning lessons
>gaining insight

and if it wasn't for the altruistic government system existing in the first place she would be a poor dead bitch

That isn't how principles and integrity work. She was entitled to repayment.

Sure, if she wanted to take advantage of a system that wouldn't even exist if she had her druthers. Actually sticking to your beliefs is difficult. I agree. But if you want your word to actually have any value, then you have to actually do what you say and say what you're going to do.

And, like I said, if she actually learned anything from turning to a system that she opposed when she needed it, I would be able to respect that. But, just as she did with smoking and cancer, it's readily apparent that she wasn't willing to learn anything, or adapt her beliefs to fit the world.

Pretty much.
Libertarianism is a fucking joke
Pic related; the wealthiest libertarians in the world.

Ayn Rand wanted a different society altogether, she said nothing about how you should live within the confines of current society. You don't understand what hypocrisy is. For example, if I campaign against violence but use violence as a practical measure to guard myself from bad people, that doesn't make me a hypocrite.

You sound like a typical 60-70 IQ Sup Forums poster based on your total lack of nuanced thought.

>shitting on rand

low-hanging fruit

Donald Trump is an Ayn Rand fan. This ideology is poised to destroy the United States of America if it isn't exposed.

>objectivist
>A=A
>totally black and white world view BY DESIGN
>the other person has a lack of nuanced thought

Good Christ. This isn't like being anti-violence and needing it when your life is at risk. Rand referred to taxation, social security, etc. as being comparable to slavery. This is more like being an abolitionist who owns slaves.

"I am against X for everyone but me. It's okay that I do X because it's me. But everyone else shouldn't have X. And I'm going to totally ignore the fact that I would be completely screwed if I didn't have X or access to X."

Just like how she never came out against cigarettes after she developed cancer, despite having a decades long love affair with them, she was totally incapable of admitting when she was wrong. But, that's not too much of a surprise, since she named her philosophy Objectivism.

>You sound like a typical 60-70 IQ Sup Forums poster based on your total lack of nuanced thought.
Prove you're from this board right now

Show me your authenticity

Give me a meme from the years before 2007 that was huge on this board

>She was entitled
you can say that again

>Why yes I am a libertarian and I vape. Is there a problem?

Literally the worst philosophy ever created. And it was created by a woman. I don't mean that as disrespect towards women I mean it's actually surprising that such a shitty philosophy didn't come from a man.

Actually I'm not the least bit surprised it came from a woman.

You have to understand that the reason most of the retards here hate Rand is because of demographics. Look at Sup Forums in general, almost everyone here come from a bourgeoisie upbringing and quite frankly are, or either are close to being NEETS; utter losers who have very limited life experience and responsibilities. They are so absorbed with politically extreme leftist ideals that one cannot have a rational discussion with them (I harbor various left wing leanings myself, but there is a difference between talking to a moderate and an extremist).

The young men I know who like Ayn Rand are admittedly arrogant and self-absorbed, but they are determined, intelligent and motivated individuals (Businessmen and Doctors). I do not mind Rand myself nor do I love her, I will not discuss too much of myself but I'll just say that I am rather far off being a NEET. Think the liberal feminist meme you see going around. Yeah, those are the people that disagree with Rand (The majority of people who hate her have never read her books, they just accept and repeat the culture of memes).

I remember when Sup Forums shat on Ayn Rand and her works. Now they're basically fanboys for that cunt.

Pretty much. The people who dislike objectivism are Sup Forums/tumblr-tier hamplanets with low IQs.

Nailed it.

This surprises you? Extremist righties have loved her every since a group of people in Wall Street crashed the economy (with no survivors) for their rational self interest.

I know you're not you left brain kissless virgin.

Assault weapon is a meaningless buzzword and I guarantee you you can't name a single mass shooting that took place in the past 10 years that was conducted with a fully automatic weapon.

*in the past 10 years in the United States, I meant to say

>almost everyone here come from a bourgeoisie upbringing
you are retarded

You must be a shit skin that "joined" Sup Forums after it was "cool" to do so in the 10s

are you saying that the only reason automatic weapons are banned is to prevent mass shootings?

>almost everyone here come from a bourgeoisie upbringing

average 12 years old middle class white kid pov

No, I'm saying that you (if you were the one who originally posted that) are a retard if you think mass shootings in the US are being commited with 'automatic assault weapons'.

Besides, anyone who thinks Gun Violence is an epidemic, or comprised mainly of mass shootings, in the US is an idiot. Mass shootings are statistically irrelevant, homicides have been on a 10 year decline, and the majority of homicides being committed are gang crime and not random spree killings.

It would work better if it wasn't pasted in both threads that are right next to each other at the moment.

Yeah, all those literary critics who've dismissed her almost universally was due to their bourgeoisie upbringing. Probably sheltered, grew up in a white suburban neighborhood, mommy and daddy maybe divorced, that was the biggest shake of their lives, the hardest thing they probably faced. Other than that, their lives must have been a piece of cake, probably bulled a little bit.

no been here on and off since 2006.

No no no, dude. You don't get it. Literally the only reason why you could think that the author spelling out her personal beliefs through strawman/mouthpiece characters is bad writing is because you're bourgeois or from a bourgeois upbringing. And being an anti-Marxist using Marxist terms is not at all incredibly wonky.

Wanting a work of fiction to actually serve its purpose, first and foremost, is the pinnacle of being bourgeois.

Lol

>literary critics
Are these the same type of critics that you denounce when they blast your favorite books and films?

True altruism doesn't even exist, everything is selfish in nature even if you can't conceive of a reason due to limited critical thinking or subconscious need, so how can it quality as "the worst qualities mankind could have" when the idea of it is just a thought experiment?

Fuck the only thing that comes close is organ donation upon death if you're atheist, because you get no money out of it, you can't benefit from credit if you're dead, and you don't believe in an afterlife so post benefits don't matter either.

Yeah keep telling yourself that bullshit is true.

Years ago, if anybody ever asked me about my intellectual views, I had a ready answer. I was an Objectivist. In fact, I had a ready answer for just about any intellectual, metaphysical, political, ethical, or aesthetic question that might come up. I believed it, I advocated it, and I tried to live by it.

And now, two decades later, I find that Ayn Rand plays almost no role in my thinking, that I never look at her books, and that her ideas strike me as irrelevant and, in certain respects, downright disagreeable.Reason, egoism, individualism, capitalism - Objectivism in a nutshell.

Ayn Rand was the ultimate spokesman for the left hemisphere of the brain. Please, delude yourselves all you want, but do not induct any more people into your cult. If Friedrich Nietzsche could return from the dead, sound in mind and body, I would gladly allow him to "Blast" my favorite novels.

Liberalism =/= libertarianism

>Free market judged the movie to be a failure
>Makers keep making movies at a loss anyway despite gaining absolutely nothing out of it
Ayn Rand would be ashamed

>Liberalism =/= libertarianism
Libertarians are just conservatives too cowardly to call themselves republican.

>Makers keep making movies at a loss anyway despite gaining absolutely nothing out of it
>Nothing out of it

Marketing will always find a way.

Yep. They had nothing to gain from it, knew that they wouldn't make a profit off of it, funded the entire thing on the basis of gifts from its supporters and they did it anyway.

Sounds like...ALTRUISM?!

They're further right than conservatism, fampai

you aren't wrong, but rand was famously anti-compromise (at least when it suited her.) the notion of possibly compromising your ideals for any reason would have been anathema to her

I still can't believe that they couldn't get a single actor to return. Don't most movies that intend to have sequels contractually obligate their actors to return? Was nobody desperate enough for another paycheck?

Explain, how does "marketing" get them money if nobody watches it?

It's the same way that it's not even remotely hypocritical to sleep around on your partner, and to totally freak out when you find out that one of your extra paramours are sleeping around on /you/.

Because her sleeping with that guy was "rational", because they were Ubermensch objectivists, whereas the guy having an affair with a "normal" woman is not rational, therefore it's wrong.
Ayn Rand could justify anything just by saying it was rational.

>abolish government
>random mercenaries and criminal take whatever they want

Was Rand just autistic or something?

...

It makes perfect sense now!

Clearly rational men of the mind would be able to hire better mercenaries to deal with these criminals. And of course, these rational men of the mind wouldn't abuse their power in any way.
Besides, non-objectivist soldiers cower before the might of super-capitalists, just look at Ragnar and how he terrorized the whole world with just one ship. Or how a government stooge was incapable of surrendering when having a gun pointed at him because he wasn't capable of making any decisions of his own, he needed orders, so he had to be killed.

Altruism is a flawed concept in the first place because there is no true Altruism, it all serves or served a purpose and the fact that humans are still alive amongst other mammals who show altruistic behaviour means it was good because otherwise we wouldn't be here.

Ayn Rand is a meme philosopher anyway

>A completely free of government intervention
>Completely run by a bunch of people whose sworn principals are equivalent to 'Every Man for Himself'

Oh yeah. No. Not a recipe for horrific disaster at all.

It's almost like we had this system before

I had to laugh when a libertarian friend of mine actually said that if there were no governments there would be no wars.

Why wouldn't the mercs just kill the rich people and take their money?

Oh yeah, cause three oil companies, when there's absolutely no government in the way whatsoever, would act calmly, coolly and rationally when a new source of oil is found. I mean, obviously.

Objectivism is a philosophy born from a woman that could never get over the emotional trauma of seeing her father weakened, beaten, having his livelihood stole, and his family pushed out. Her childlike mind blamed her father for not being "strong enough" to stand up to the commies and thus she spent her life justifying her childlike anger instead of growing up.

Objectivism is literally, Daddy Issues, the philosophy.

>yeah bro you cant be altruistic, everyone alive is a jaded narcissistic asshole just like me, this isn't my solipsistic fantasy that i'm just projecting on everyone else XD

normies are hilarious

well done, ayn rand, well done

HOWEVER

The weirdest thing to me is that Ayn Rand was strongly in favor of patents, which all the libertarians I know loathe.

Feeling empathy for others and desiring to help them isn't guilt. guilt is what comes if you don't help them when you could have

But large companies would never hire any PMC to 'defend' their interests! Only governments would do such a crazy thing

they do it because it makes them feel better about themselves or they feel guilty because they have it better

Selfless acts do exist though. There are people who have sacrificed their lives to save complete strangers.

>Grow up in a statist hellhole
>Move
>Get triggered so hard by your upbringing that you have a total revulsion to the government and write a book about it

Software Engineer here (the real kind, I do signal processing and embedded development, not shitty little webdev), I got plenty of responsibility and I still think Rand is trash.

Most people who like Ayn Rand are arrogant and self-absorbed, but I've never met a doctor who read Ayn Rand. I've met several who read Nietzche during their edgy phase, but none of them have read Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand is one of those authors edgy little 16 year old boys read when they're in their pseudo-intellectual phase. Most of them grow up to be software engineers (I know a few, they're shit to work with since they're so far up their own ass that they don't understand that team-work is actually more important that "talent" on real projects). Most lawyers and businessmen are smart enough to recognize shit writing.

Was really disappointed in this series of movies, it could have been something truly awesome if it had been done right but, that's how shit goes sometimes.

Their biggest mistake was setting it in the present day.
It should have been a retro piece set in a 1950s-like world, but never saying the exact year. It makes no fucking sense for people in 2016 still using fucking trains, with airplanes and trucks being a non-entity.

i dont even think libertarians believe in no government. that is some anarcho retardation.