Smear Job Against Rand at GQ.

[Howard Roark]

They may be seeking any of the above.

Assuming they are Objectivists or budding Objectivists, any number of the above may be true.

Remember that it is only natural for us to seek the acceptance and approval of those who's values we share and respect. Someone reading these articles may even be seeking some sense of comfort from those with whom they share philosophies. Comfort is a form of acceptance and approval. Reading an article like this, one who is still coming to terms with understanding Objectivism may feel their sense of reality being upset, and are looking for validation that they are right, that the article is wrong, etc.

I see no reason why we, as Objectivists, cannot offer such comfort to our like minded comrades, when its appropriate - and we feel so inclined to give it of course.

Well, this may be true, but you are just speculating about their own motives. If they are looking for a validation, there is a proper way to obtain it, and that is asking for it, instead of simply dumping an article, without stating any particular purpose, and waiting for something to happen. Let them ask specific questions about specific issues, and try to comfort them when you have confirmed that this is what they had in mind in the first place. In any case, I know that Sabre at least asked some questions.

I posted that article for the benefit of the the thread. I felt that the more anti-Rand articles are brought to attention, the more we understand what we're up against.

Were there any questions I had about the article? No, none in particular. I have noticed that the writer of this article says "Instead of bailing the companies out, break them up" as if the two are somehow mutually exclusive, or as if the former is somehow something Ayn Rand was in favor of.

Okay, that is fine, but if you want to benefit his thread, you should start by staying on his topic, and analyze his article, or at least answer his questions. We could throw out offensive articles about Ayn Rand all day long. What is the point? Nobody likes to read them. If you think that your article stands out from the rest, because you noticed something unusual that deserves consideration, or something, then say it. A link is not an argument. Also, you should preferably do this in a separate thread, so that we can focus on your specific observation, since this thread is about his article. Just bear in mind that people need motivation to follow a link, and that reading an article requires time and effort. You have to specify what makes yours any different from the others, and why anyone should invest his time reading something filled with offensive comments. Otherwise, you are wasting your time, and probably also the time of someone else. No one needs to read a pile of insults to know what he is up against. If anyone is interested, he can simply grab a book and figure it out himself. There is no reason to go through an unnecessary bad experience, which can only result in frustration, anger and indignation for you. Let alone if you knew this beforehand. Anyway, we are making a big fuss about this.

How long have you been reading Rand? How long ago was it when you decided you were going to be a student of Objectivism?

A year and a half ago, approximately.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Howard Roark