#randian

[everydayanth]

This was one of the most succinct explanations I could find because, apparently, it’s complicated. And no, it’s not ironic that it comes from their foundation, it’s intentional, because it’s problematic at best and we gotta talk about it, so I figured I’d let them explain it in their own words first.

Okay, here goes.

Objectivism romanticises the human experience to such an extreme that it sees the paternalism of others as a right and the formation of reality as a black-and-white Truth. Anthropology tried to grapple with these ideas, but then the western man (and later woman) went out into the world and found that it just so happens, the people generally know what they want/need, and have already successfully adapted to their environment. Capitalism, then, was the thing driving the empires that came and destroyed them in the name of progress, trade, and resource allocation, Objectivism was the excuse used to justify that violence and colonization.

Randian nostalgia is dangerous because it sells the white-savior-complex with a giant sparkling bow around it. You don’t have to be good, but if you choose to, then you are the hero, you know what’s best, you should make the choices for others. It’s like, token-psychology 101 and it’s insane how many scientists, particularly social scientists, I’m seeing begin to talk about this bullshit, how many politicians use it at the core of their ideologies, how many religions and corporations sit firmly inside of it while scorning it at the same time, like we can’t see them justifying tragedy with profit and manipulation.

The thing is, we have to agree on a few foundations of our realities to get anything done, sure, but beyond the physical world, we agree on very little. So, this is just my friendly angst-driven PSA: Objectivism has no place in anthropology. You don’t have to be an activist, but bruh, you CANNOT study other cultures from the pov of someone who knows better, only as someone who admittedly lets go of your own perceived reality.  The world cannot be black-and-white and anthropology has no place for paternalism or moral superiority. Objectivism is an extreme structuralism and it demands the world to fit in your individual compartments of knowledge and thought, which can only extend as far as your own experience and capacity.  

I get the appeal, I do. If you grew up even mildly privileged, then you are probably only now having to face the terror and uncertainty of the chaotic world, and being given permission to just... shrug it off can probably seem liberating because the threat and anxiety of the world ending every damn day feels oppressive. Because it is. And if we don’t look a bit further up the road, it’s going to squash us all.

Please keep your heads up. Please fight for a grey world. Fear is taking people out by the thousands, but with a little more hope and courage, maybe people can start to figure out that systems aren’t so scary once we understand them. We figured out that electricity circuits weren’t witchcraft; it’s like that, but for society, globalization, trade, and policy. Apply that to capitalism, separation of church and state, and the social role of culture and stigma as you will, because those are all great topics of discussion, but at it’s core, Objectivism has no place in anthropology.

[comingupforblair]

This is a fantastic analysis of Man of Steel and proves why the frequent claims of it being “Objectivist” or “Randian” are nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zA2tRl7d-s

[lets-talk-about-politics]

The Atlantic: Paul Ryan’s Sad Legacy

Under Obama, he was hailed as the deficit-warrior of Washington. Under Trump, he oversaw the greatest peacetime growth in deficit spending in modern American history.

Paul Ryan announced his retirement from Congress today.

People may forget that, during Obama, he was looked at as an intellectual, a policy wonk, somebody who cared deeply about the deficit.

Well, he enabled the election and the rise of Donald Trump. 

He pushed through a ridiculously bad health care policy that was so reviled by the public and so ill-crafted that the Senate couldn’t even ram it through on a party-line vote. 

And he, the deficit hawk that he is, pushed through a tax bill that will add over a trillion to the debt over the next 10 years.

Paul Ryan was the hope of the Republican Party, and he has been a colossal failure, even by his own standards.

[elistodragonwings]

After a long, drawn out back and forth with a particular kind of Libertarian, one like my neighbor John, I think I’ve figured out how to distill this brand of it down to a few sentences.

“Liberty” is not the primary value, it’s the only one, and what it means is freedom from obligations to others. You can help others or make agreements with them voluntarily if you want, but obligations are slavery, even if it means the other person dies. Equality is bad because we don’t already have it (implied: because people are inherently unequal), and thus other people would have to give up liberty, the freedom from obligations to others, to make things equal. They want the benefits of living in a society with other people without giving back; they want their economic products to be the only “contribution” required because receiving money for it is “proof” value - money is the only measurement of value, even of the value of someone’s life. And so if you don’t have money, if you run out because of medical bills, if you can’t convince enough people to donate/assist you, then you’re life is no longer valuable and you should accept death (literally, the guy was explicit about this part).

I’d read somewhere that Libertarians tend to be white males because it is a philosophy of privilege, and that seems to be true, at least in this version. To be able to take for granted the non-monetary benefits of a society, to not care that the accumulation of wealth is unequal and unfair and thus to not care about the quality of people’s lives, their happiness, to want a world where you only have to think of yourself...only those who have been socialized to ignore other’s feelings, who are at the top or desire to be can find this appealing and “moral.”

[girolamomarri]

An article I wrote in 2015. A lighthearted and funny read

[pseudosavant]

Hi Stephen A few years ago, I did a special called “The Dirty Truth.” In it, I challenged the conventional wisdom of popular platitudes by offering “dirtier,” more individualistic alternatives. For my inspiration, I looked to those hackneyed bromides that hang on the walls of corporate America. The ones that extoll passersby to live up to their potential by “dreaming bigger,” “working smarter,” and being a better “team player.” In that context, I first saw “Follow Your Passion” displayed in the conference room of a telemarketing firm that employed me thirty years ago. The words appeared next to an image of a rainbow, arcing gently over a waterfall and disappearing into a field of butterflies. Thinking of it now still makes me throw up in my mouth. Like all bad advice, “Follow Your Passion” is routinely dispensed as though it’s wisdom were both incontrovertible and equally applicable to all. It’s not. Just because you’re passionate about something doesn’t mean you won’t suck at it. And just because you’re determined to improve doesn’t mean that you will. Does that mean you shouldn’t pursue a thing you’re passionate about?” Of course not. The question is, for how long, and to what end? When it comes to earning a living and being a productive member of society – I don’t think people should limit their options to those vocations they feel passionate towards. I met a lot of people on Dirty Jobs who really loved their work. But very few of them dreamed of having the career they ultimately chose. I remember a very successful septic tank cleaner who told me his secret of success. “I looked around to see where everyone else was headed, and then I went the opposite way,” he said. “Then I got good at my work. Then I found a way to love it. Then I got rich.” Every time I watch The Oscars, I cringe when some famous movie star – trophy in hand – starts to deconstruct the secret to happiness. It’s always the same thing, and I can never hit “mute” fast enough to escape the inevitable cliches. “Don’t give up on your dreams kids, no matter what.” “Don’t let anyone tell you that you don’t have what it takes.” And of course, “Always follow your passion!” Today, we have millions looking for work, and millions of good jobs unfilled because people are simply not passionate about pursuing those particular opportunities. Do we really need Lady GaGa telling our kids that happiness and success can be theirs if only they follow their passion? There are many examples – including those you mention – of passionate people with big dreams who stayed the course, worked hard, overcame adversity, and changed the world though sheer pluck and determination. We love stories that begin with a dream, and culminate when that dream comes true. And to your question, we would surely be worse off without the likes of Bill Gates and Thomas Edison and all the other innovators and Captains of Industry. But from my perspective, I don’t see a shortage of people who are willing to dream big. I see people struggling because their reach has exceeded their grasp. I’m fascinated by the beginning of American Idol. Every year, thousands of aspiring pop-stars show up with great expectations, only to learn that they don’t have anything close to the skills they thought they did. What’s amazing to me, isn’t their lack of talent – it’s their lack of awareness, and the resulting shock of being rejected. How is it that so many people are so blind to their own limitations? How did these peope get the impression they could sing in the first place? Then again, is their incredulity really so different than the surprise of a college graduate who learns on his first interview that his double major in Medieval Studies and French Literature doesn’t guarantee him the job he expected? In a world where everyone gets a trophy, encouragement trumps honesty, and realistic expectations go out the window. When I was 16, I wanted to follow in my grandfathers footsteps. I wanted to be a tradesman. I wanted to build things, and fix things, and make things with my own two hands. This was my passion, and I followed it for years. I took all the shop classes at school, and did all I could to absorb the knowledge and skill that came so easily to my granddad. Unfortunately, the handy gene skipped over me, and I became frustrated. But I remained determined to do whatever it took to become a tradesman. One day, I brought home a sconce from woodshop that looked like a paramecium, and after a heavy sigh, my grandfather told me the truth. He explained that my life would be a lot more satisfying and productive if I got myself a different kind of toolbox. This was almost certainly the best advice I’ve ever received, but at the time, it was crushing. It felt contradictory to everything I knew about persistence, and the importance of “staying the course.” It felt like quitting. But here’s the “dirty truth,” Stephen. “Staying the course” only makes sense if you’re headed in a sensible direction. Because passion and persistence – while most often associated with success – are also essential ingredients of futility. That’s why I would never advise anyone to “follow their passion” until I understand who they are, what they want, and why they want it. Even then, I’d be cautious. Passion is too important to be without, but too fickle to be guided by. Which is why I’m more inclined to say, “Don’t Follow Your Passion, But Always Bring it With You.” Carry On Mike

Mike Rowe on following your passion. I’ve never been disappointed by this man’s incredible objective philosophy.

[chemicalelements]

Something Awful - Who is John Galt?

You've been wondering. Now you can finally get the answers about John Galt.

[nosebacon]

Prince Randian (sometimes misspelled Rardion or Randion; ca. 1871 – December 19, 1934), also known as The Snake Man, The Living Torso, The Human Caterpillar and a variety of other names was an American performer with tetra-amelia syndrome and a famous limbless sideshow performer of the early 1900s, best known for his ability to roll cigarettes with his lips. He was reportedly brought to the United States by P.T. Barnum in 1889 and was a popular carnival and circus attraction for 45 years. Prince Randian can be seen in the 1932 film Freaks.