Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Smear Job Against Rand at GQ.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/books/2009...d?currentPage=1

This is one the poorest excuses for journalism I've ever seen in my life. This guy is obviously out to use his platform to flesh out a personal grudge against Rand and Objectivism. He is intellectually dishonest in the fact that instead of presenting people who are knowledgeable on the subject he chooses people that the audience will obviously despise -- Micheal Malice. Who has heard of this guy in Objectivist circles? I'm willing to bet not a lot. He could of interviewed Peikoff, but I think that would provide some truth and understanding and that's not what this man seems to be after.

Is it wrong that I'm personally insulted by this? It's one thing to say you disagree with Rand and her views, it's another to start labeling everyone who does an "Ayn Rand Asshole" and throwing all sorts of insults at them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Carry on, nothing to see here.

Anyone with half a brain ignores anything in print that uses gratuitous vulgarity and such juvenile content. The only people mistaking this for a real article are also in danger of confusing their posteriors for hats.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it wrong that I'm personally insulted by this?

No, it's OK.

If someone insults a person who has brought great value to your life, someone who is a value to you, then you should be offended and you should feel free to come to that person's defense.

Zip is probably right that if they are obviously just a bomb thrower, then maybe it isn't worth your time. But this is GQ magazine, perhaps leaving a comment on the story is a good idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a positive view on GQ before this article (without having read it ever, serves me right eh). Is the magazine in the habit of printing garbage like this? How is this properly considered an article and not some emo journal entry from a guy with a grudge?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I had a positive view on GQ before this article (without having read it ever, serves me right eh). Is the magazine in the habit of printing garbage like this? How is this properly considered an article and not some emo journal entry from a guy with a grudge?
Unfortunately, "Men's" magazines such as GQ, Details, Maxim, and Askmen.com cater to a base, adolescent kind of man (not really a man at all) instead of a mature adult. I'm not sure if their reader base actually wants the content they deliver or if the readers are also laughing at GQ for such a gross miss estimate of their intelligence. I am, anyway.

However, the internet makes it possible to follow men's fashion without the burden of skimming any crap editorial at all. I maintain a subscription to GQ, but as I wrote to them a couple years ago, it is just for the pictures.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's another smear piece, but a book review called "Ayn Rand's Revenge" in the New york times on one of Ayn's new biographies "Ayn Rand and the World she made".

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/books/re...amp;_r=1&hp

The review should be titled "Adam Kirsch's Revenge"

"Giving up her royalties to preserve her vision is something that no genuine capitalist, and few popular novelists, would have done."

That's truly puzzling.

As usual, someone who challenges Rand resorts to misrepresentation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Giving up her royalties to preserve her vision is something that no genuine capitalist, and few popular novelists, would have done."

That's truly puzzling.

As usual, someone who challenges Rand resorts to misrepresentation.

I've seen this angle of attack before, in a book called LISTENING TO THE FUTURE by Bill Martin, a Marxist professer who writes about progressive rock music. In his book, he attacks the band Rush and Ayn Rand:

"One of the incoherencies of Rand's philosophy is well-captured by Roarke's line, "I do not build in order to have clients, I have clients in order to build." No real capitalist could stand by such a statement; imagine the CEO of General Motors saying, 'We do not build cars in order to have car buyers, we have car buyers in order to build cars.' Of course, this CEO could SAY this, just as corporations constantly flood the airwaves with advertisements about how much they 'care'; the point is, this idealistic outlook, more befitting an artist, could not be the guiding philosophy of a capitalist, who must pursue profit first of all, and only 'build' that which might lead to the generation of profit."

In his other book on Yes, he makes a similar comment as to why Bruce Springsteen COULDN'T be a capitalist:

"...when offered a large sum for the use of his 'Born in the U.S.A.' song in Chrysler advertisements, Springsteen could say no, says something both about a subject and about a structure. That is, this fact says something about art and artists, that there is a space there for resistance to the complete commodification of every aspect of human life. (One way to bring these two points together is to say that Springsteen, while quite wealthy, is not a capitalist; if he were a capitalist, he literally could not choose to not sell his song-unless he had a more lucrative offer or had a way of making more money with it himself-without at the same time deciding not to be a capitalist....Capitalism does not fundamentally have to do with intentions, but rather with the invisible hand of profit."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, see that would be a classic case of strawmanning - create something new, call it "capitalism," beat down that new thing you created and then say you defeated "capitalism" assuming people will figure you have defeated actual capitalism and never address at all the actual original claimed position. This all being done saying just saying "no, no, that's not what that means" when somebody says what something is and then after creating a new definition and beating it down pretending therefore that what was originally stated just doesn't exist regardless of whatever it may be called.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, see that would be a classic case of strawmanning - create something new, call it "capitalism," beat down that new thing you created and then say you defeated "capitalism" assuming people will figure you have defeated actual capitalism and never address at all the actual original claimed position. This all being done saying just saying "no, no, that's not what that means" when somebody says what something is and then after creating a new definition and beating it down pretending therefore that what was originally stated just doesn't exist regardless of whatever it may be called.

Wait, isn't Capitalism the sacrifice of all values for money? :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea a lot of people have of a capitalist is the cartoon version of Ebeneezer Scrooge: a lonely miser incapable of any feelings, concerned only with acumulating wealth for no purpose save the acumulation of wealth.

Seen that way, no "true capitalist" would give up a penny to save his life, much less to rpeserve his vision or his artistic integrity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah man, no true Scotsman - er, I mean capitalist would do that! *shakes fist angrily*

Those kinds of arguments are such red herrings too furthermore. "A rose by any other name", right? Regardless of what you do or do not call those ideas we advocate in the way of economics and general social interactions, they still are what they are and need to be addressed for what they are. Anything else is beside the point. Their idea of what capitalism is anyway leaves such a huge question blatantly unanswered - FOR WHAT do these people want all this money? Why do YOU only want money FOR particular reasons, to USE it and put it TOWARD other ends, yet you think these people just have a desperate desire for the dollars themselves to no other further end? Is there something in money you think that addicts some people, but which you are immune to? :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
This is possibly one of the least logical, and most insulting, criticism's of objectivism I have ever heard.

I love how it conveniently leaves out any mention of Rand's strident opposition to any business, big or small, getting one dime of government money for any reason. Bailouts are not capitalist, they are corporatist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I love how it conveniently leaves out any mention of Rand's strident opposition to any business, big or small, getting one dime of government money for any reason. Bailouts are not capitalist, they are corporatist.

I find that almost every criticism of objectivism contains some form of misrepresentation or context dropping or just outright lies. I have only heard one possibly acceptable criticism of objectivism, and it was really more of a pseudo-scientific argument against the existence of free will. still, it was interesting to hear

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you, but what is your point? What are you all expecting to achieve with this? I could come up with thousands of defamatory articles against Ayn Rand. What makes this one in particular any different from the others? Why do you even care about them?

Because it cuts deep. Some people don't know how to deal with that. You don't wake up one day, stare at the ceiling and become a calm & impartial man. Emotions have a tendency to influence you. Especially when someone or something insults you deeply. Any "Objectivist" takes Objectivism very seriously, down to the fiber of their being. Insulting that rattles those fibers. Which turns to anger. Which needs an outlet. Which means you take your anger and spill it out amongst people who would also feel that anger. Which, hopefully, alleviates one of the anger.

Not everyone can say "I don't think of you."

It takes time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you, but what is your point? What are you all expecting to achieve with this? I could come up with thousands of defamatory articles against Ayn Rand. What makes this one in particular any different from the others? Why do you even care about them?

I think some people just alleviate their emotions in different ways than you do. some people can just ignore them or rationalize them, some people (myself included) do physical activities or violent sports to alleviate pent up frustration, and some people post on forums with like minded people in order to alleviate their anger.. there's nothing wrong with any way of alleviating anger and long as it is not self destructive or immoral. I say let people do what makes them feel better, and if you disapprove, simply dont participate

Link to post
Share on other sites
Because it cuts deep. Some people don't know how to deal with that. You don't wake up one day, stare at the ceiling and become a calm & impartial man. Emotions have a tendency to influence you. Especially when someone or something insults you deeply. Any "Objectivist" takes Objectivism very seriously, down to the fiber of their being. Insulting that rattles those fibers. Which turns to anger. Which needs an outlet. Which means you take your anger and spill it out amongst people who would also feel that anger. Which, hopefully, alleviates one of the anger.

Not everyone can say "I don't think of you."

It takes time.

I think some people just alleviate their emotions in different ways than you do. some people can just ignore them or rationalize them, some people (myself included) do physical activities or violent sports to alleviate pent up frustration, and some people post on forums with like minded people in order to alleviate their anger.. there's nothing wrong with any way of alleviating anger and long as it is not self destructive or immoral. I say let people do what makes them feel better, and if you disapprove, simply dont participate

Yes, I understand that, but I am asking about their specific reason for bringing the articles to the forum in the first place. What are they expecting to achieve? What makes these two articles in particular stand out from the rest? Are they accurate criticisms? Do they need clarification on some of the issues that were raised by them? Is there a particular question that they want to ask? Are they trying to point out something that deserves consideration? Otherwise, why should anyone care? Throwing out articles filled with insults, without stating any particular purpose, is most certainly against the forum rules. Moreover, if you feel irritated by defamatory articles, coming up with another one, just to indulge in your joint resentment, is completely inappropriate and irrational, Black Wolf.

Edited by Howard Roark
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I understand that, but I am asking about their specific reason for bringing the articles to the forum in the first place. What are they expecting to achieve? What makes these two articles in particular stand out from the rest? Are they accurate criticisms? Do they need clarification on some of the issues that were raised by them? Is there a particular question that they want to ask? Are they trying to point out something that deserves consideration? Otherwise, why should anyone care? Throwing out articles filled with insults, without stating any particular purpose, is most certainly against the forum rules. Moreover, if you feel irritated by defamatory articles, coming up with another one, just to indulge in your joint resentment, is completely inappropriate and irrational, Black Wolf.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I understand that, but I am asking about their specific reason for bringing the articles to the forum in the first place. What are they expecting to achieve? What makes these two articles in particular stand out from the rest? Are they accurate criticisms? Do they need clarification on some of the issues that were raised by them? Is there a particular question that they want to ask? Are they trying to point out something that deserves consideration? Otherwise, why should anyone care? Throwing out articles filled with insults, without stating any particular purpose, is most certainly against the forum rules. Moreover, if you feel irritated by defamatory articles, coming up with another one, just to indulge in your joint resentment, is completely inappropriate and irrational, Black Wolf.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...