1049: "Bookshelf"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

JonT
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 6:56 am UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby JonT » Tue May 01, 2012 7:28 am UTC

Karilyn wrote:EDIT: I'm not going to lie, I find the Ayn Rand detractors in this thread to be extremely unpleasant, and most of her supporters to be fairly nice individuals. If I was going by nothing other than the personality of the people defending/attacking her, I imagine it would generate an opinion which is very different than what you want to give across. You might want to tone back the level of hostility and insults in your criticism of objectivism if you don't want to make your own argument look bad. Cause in terms of "people being assholes," which seems to be the main criticism of objectivism, every objectivist in this thread has been polite and friendly, while the majority of the detractors have been total assholes. Which makes you look like hypocrites, and makes your claim that objectivists are assholes look like strawmanning at best, and ad hominem at worst.


I couldn't agree more. While not an absolute, it's been my experience that those who rely on name-calling (especially in an online venue where backspace is a viable option) lose credibility by being incapable of cogent discussion, or merely being trolls. I am far more inclined to take a look at Rand (growing up in Cambridge, her label as a double-plus ungood and unmutual was indoctrinated into me early, but while I was curious, the size of her works kept me from picking them up). Perhaps audio-books. Congratulations to those who lack self-control, more money into the enemy's coffers.

Karilyn wrote:Sanjavalen's continued polite and rational explanations in the face of constant attacks and insults alone would make me strongly consider his side (and it's starting to make me favor it the more I review the thread. Holy crap Ayn Rand's detracters are TOTAL ASSHOLES repeatedly in this thread. It's really making the argument against objectivism look REALLY BAD if that's all the anti-objectivism people can come up with. Kaylakaze in particular is showing a rather strong streak of lack of education about the subject, and really should bow out of the conversation, and he is severely incapable of defending his point. Unless he's deliberately reverse-strawmanning in an effort to make objectivism look better by comparison to him.)


sanjavalen has found a belief system that makes him happy. He employs others and pays by performance. Unless they are privy to information I missed, I fail to see the support for a charge of "parasite". Frankly, I'd rather hear from him than from his apoplectic critics.

User avatar
willpellmn
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:05 am UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby willpellmn » Tue May 01, 2012 7:41 am UTC

Karilyn wrote:Cause in terms of "people being assholes," which seems to be the main criticism of objectivism, every objectivist in this thread has been polite and friendly, while the majority of the detractors have been total assholes.


You can afford to be polite and friendly to someone who is tied to a chair and gagged, while you hold a gun ready to blow their brains out if they even try to escape, and you have nothing better to do than sit there forever being polite and friendly while watching them starve. Which is exactly what capitalism does to the world. The plutocrats hold all the power; they have society at gunpoint, and want to watch others suffer so that they can feel important, and they have no need to be angry and hostile and resentful because they aren't the ones who are having the life choked out of them.

I'll take "impolite" over "sadistic" anyday.

pareidolon
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 6:59 am UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby pareidolon » Tue May 01, 2012 7:59 am UTC

Gedankenwelt wrote:
Djehutynakht wrote:I'm confused. In the last panel, is he putting it back and escaping the critical room, or is someone else on the other side locking him in the room in a BHG-esque attempt at getting rid of everyone who doesn't share his literary tastes?

EDIT: Due to the lack of another "rumble", I'm inclined towards the second.

This should be a fun bookstore. I wonder what happens if someone picks up Twilight...

My interpretation is that a second person with a "terrible taste" shows up, and will get trapped while freeing the first person. Not sure if that makes sense, though...


Obviously, what is happening here is that the last panel, which is nothing but a perspective shift of the first, is his past self coming to pick out the book, at which point he will release his future self who is already on the other side, and who will then run off into the library while splitting up into every potential form of himself as altered by different experiences within the room.Angry nerd disclaimer: this is a satirical reference to another work and not my original idea.

JonT
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 6:56 am UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby JonT » Tue May 01, 2012 8:18 am UTC

willpellmn wrote:
Karilyn wrote:Cause in terms of "people being assholes," which seems to be the main criticism of objectivism, every objectivist in this thread has been polite and friendly, while the majority of the detractors have been total assholes.


You can afford to be polite and friendly to someone who is tied to a chair and gagged, while you hold a gun ready to blow their brains out if they even try to escape, and you have nothing better to do than sit there forever being polite and friendly while watching them starve. Which is exactly what capitalism does to the world. The plutocrats hold all the power; they have society at gunpoint, and want to watch others suffer so that they can feel important, and they have no need to be angry and hostile and resentful because they aren't the ones who are having the life choked out of them.

I'll take "impolite" over "sadistic" anyday.


Communism relies on deprivations, prisons, death camps (witness North Korea, the former USSR, etc.)

Socialism relies on strangling its citizens slowly (witness European countries growth rate as the population ages and payees outnumber payers, and do a little basic math).

I think in the whole "sadism" argument, for all its ills, Capitalism finishes a distant third.

Mike250
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 8:36 am UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby Mike250 » Tue May 01, 2012 8:48 am UTC

As far as Native Americans go, notice Rand says: “. . .they had no concept of rights. . ,” “they had not conceived of . . .”.

Just to put this in perspective, modern real property law still retains concepts on estates from Medieval England. That means things like life estates, defeasible estates, future interests in estates (like vested interests), and so forth were conceptualized long ago in Western culture; however flawed compared with later developments, these concepts certainly beyond anything that Native Americans had conceptualized, at least to my knowledge. And consider other developments such as right-of-way, easements, licenses, trespass to chattels/land, etc.

And this is long before the developments of the 17th and 18th century. Not just in terms of property, but other rights (see New York Charter of Libertyes in 17th century along with Locke's draft of the South Carolina Constitution) and, of course, the US Constitution. Not only did they produce advanced concepts regarding rights, the concepts were being codified into a legal structure. THere were the precursor intellectuals in Britain (Locke, Blackstone, Coke, Smith, etc.) that were further advanced by the thinking of the Founding Fathers. When we speaking of "conceiving" rights, consider the Constitutional debates (particularly Madison) and compare it with Native Americans of the time.

In terms of conceiving or conceptualizing rights, did the Native Americans exist even in the same universe? That's my interpretation of what Rand is saying. Pointing out that they grew corn or had rights in beads or trinkets, does not conceptualization make, especially considering these were already done for countless centuries.

I think if somebody wants to prove the case for Native Americans and their conceptualization, they need to provide their thinking on property rights and how they adjudicated disputes and so forth. Furthermore, because these rights are abrogated to a significant degree in the modern era, does not negate the fact that the rights have been conceptualized to a highly advanced state in Western Culture, unlike Native American culture.

HugoSchmidt
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:30 am UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby HugoSchmidt » Tue May 01, 2012 9:05 am UTC

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs


John E., I suppose you think that's frightfully clever and original?

Look I'll trust if, having returned to find the thread grown, I skip over answering someone (roberII) who claims that it's sheer coincidence that every direct comparison we have between the more and the less capitalistic, decides in favour of the more capitalistic. And then goes on to pimp the ideas that have been responsible for all this:

http://www.lehigh.edu/~ineng/wek/wek-history.htm
http://cidc.library.cornell.edu/dof/sovunion/captioned/gulag.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/sep/05/maos-great-famine-dikotter-review

and so on.

Parenthesis: Notice how Ayn Rand, whose ideas have been responsible for exactly zero tyrannies, is jeered at, while Marx, whose ideas were responsible for the worst tyrannies in human history, get's respectful treatment? Funny how that works (substitute Christ, Muhammad, Buddha for "Marx", according to situation).

molochmachine
You know, objectivism isn't even a real political philosophy, it's just neoconservatism packaged with a new hat.


Answer: No it isn't. There speaks someone who doesn't know squat about either neoconservatism or objectivism.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Neoconservatism-Obituary-C-Bradley-Thompson/dp/1594518319
http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=21509

radtea

Assuming you're holding up America (today) as more capitalistic than Sweden (today) I'd have to say I'd prefer Sweden (or Canada, which is where I actually live, although I have lived in the States off and on over the past 20 years.)


Actually, I wouldn't speak to this, because I don't know nearly enough about Sweden, and with America's fiscal irresponsibility, it seems to be sliding off a cliff.

She was a creature of her time, and needs to be understood in that context. Her ideas are rarely consistent and her whole approach to "the nature of man" at odds with Darwin (humans are not primarily rational, we are primarily reproducing, and any philosophy that puts reproduction at the periphery of its model of humanity is going to be off-kilter, which is just what Rand's is.)


Right, Ayn Rand had no theory of sex. Oh, wait...

Will you please get real? Take a look around you. Look at your computer, your books, your lightbulbs etc. The overwhelming majority of the things in your life, that make it possible, are a result of human thought, not of human fornication.

ANYWAY, just to summarise

This is the sort of stuff one get's used to. Ayn Rand is consistently jeered at for having been on the right side of just about every major moral issue, from the civil rights march to Vietnam (where the conservatives excused Agent Orange and the lefties excused the killing fields) to Kissinger to foreign policy etc. No one has taken me up on any of that stuff. Because they can't.

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Tue May 01, 2012 9:22 am UTC

HugoSchmidt wrote:Notice how Ayn Rand, whose ideas have been responsible for exactly zero tyrannies, is jeered at, while Marx, whose ideas were responsible for the worst tyrannies in human history, get's respectful treatment? Funny how that works (substitute Christ, Muhammad, Buddha for "Marx", according to situation).

That's because an uncorrupted version of Objectivism is inherently worthy of being jeered. It's not like there are many Ferdinand the Catholic apologists out there.
HugoSchmidt wrote:Look I'll trust if, having returned to find the thread grown, I skip over answering someone (roberII) who claims that it's sheer coincidence that every direct comparison we have between the more and the less capitalistic, decides in favour of the more capitalistic.

Your comparison was bullshit. Why should we compare modern Sweden to Industrial America when we can compare it to the modern United States?
This is the sort of stuff one get's used to. Ayn Rand is consistently jeered at for having been on the right side of just about every major moral issue, from the civil rights march to Vietnam (where the conservatives excused Agent Orange and the lefties excused the killing fields) to Kissinger to foreign policy etc. No one has taken me up on any of that stuff. Because they can't.

We don't take you up on it because it's entirely irrelevant
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

HugoSchmidt
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:30 am UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby HugoSchmidt » Tue May 01, 2012 9:32 am UTC

We don't take you up on it because it's entirely irrelevant


Yah, being on the right side of major moral questions is irrelevant. Gotcha.

That's because an uncorrupted version of Objectivism is inherently worthy of being jeered. It's not like there are many Ferdinand the Catholic apologists out there.


Are you serious? That's really the extent of your knowledge of history, politics and principle? You think the crimes and cruelties of the Catholic church stopped in those days?

There are stacks of apologists for catholicism, as there are for marxism, as there are for Islam. All of those movements have been responsible for incalculable cruelty, and they get fawning treatment. Objectivists get jeered; part of the price we pay for being in the right so often.

happosai
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 5:37 pm UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby happosai » Tue May 01, 2012 9:35 am UTC

I had never heard about Ayn Rand or Atlas Shrugged, probably because I am a Finn. I read the wikipedia pages and then went of to see if it was available in library. The online database says there is two copies from 1999 in the libraries of the city, with a total of 23 reservations. I'm pretty sure the reservations have appeared since this xkcd came out.

Xkcd - promoting american Literature knowledge globally?

To the epic thread here, I love to be live in this ultra-leftwing "big goverment" country. But I'm also aware the only reason we can afford this lifestyle is slave-like wages in china that produce everything consumed here. Our export jobs are vanishing and goverment debt is racking up - we are living on borrowed time.

HugoSchmidt
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:30 am UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby HugoSchmidt » Tue May 01, 2012 9:39 am UTC

happosai wrote:To the epic thread here, I love to be live in this ultra-leftwing "big goverment" country. But I'm also aware the only reason we can afford this lifestyle is slave-like wages in china that produce everything consumed here. Our export jobs are vanishing and goverment debt is racking up - we are living on borrowed time.


That's a very Objectivist point right there. May I simply suggest you read Atlas Shrugged and see for yourself? Incidentally, Ayn Rand was not, contra to common misunderstanding, primarily an advocate of capitalism.

mvdwege
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:06 am UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby mvdwege » Tue May 01, 2012 10:22 am UTC

HugoSchmidt wrote: That's a very Objectivist point right there. May I simply suggest you read Atlas Shrugged and see for yourself? Incidentally, Ayn Rand was not, contra to common misunderstanding, primarily an advocate of capitalism.

I have a book of essays by her and some of her compatriots ("Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal") on my shelves that argues otherwise.

Then again, we've already seen a Rand supporter try to deny Rand's own words that the genocide on the Native Americans was justified, so I'm not holding my breath to see you take your own fallacious point back.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue May 01, 2012 10:24 am UTC

60. FUCKING. PAGE. LONG. MONOLOGUE.

HugoSchmidt
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:30 am UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby HugoSchmidt » Tue May 01, 2012 10:33 am UTC

mvdwege wrote:
HugoSchmidt wrote: That's a very Objectivist point right there. May I simply suggest you read Atlas Shrugged and see for yourself? Incidentally, Ayn Rand was not, contra to common misunderstanding, primarily an advocate of capitalism.

I have a book of essays by her and some of her compatriots ("Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal") on my shelves that argues otherwise.
.


Someday you might actually open them and bother to read a little. And then you might come across this:

I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.

This—the supremacy of reason—was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Objectivism.


So, who is being fallacious here? Word of advice: argue with an Objectivist and prepare to be proven wrong.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue May 01, 2012 10:42 am UTC

HugoSchmidt wrote:I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.
'I am not an advocate of X, but I am an advocate of Y. ACTUALLY, I was just lying then. I am not an advocate of Y, but an advocate of Z.'

Man, you're right, it's totally clear what she's actually advocating and what she's not advocating.
HugoSchmidt wrote: So, who is being fallacious here? Word of advice: argue with an Objectivist and prepare to be proven wrong.
60. FUCKING. PAGE. LONG. MONOLOGUE.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby Steroid » Tue May 01, 2012 10:44 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:
Steroid wrote:The problem with that aphorism is that one wrong doesn't make a right either. Do you agree that the comic, and some in this thread, are critiquing my liking of Atlas Shrugged unfairly? If so, how do you suggest that I do right that wrong? If not, then how is it wrong for me to critique others for their taste in exactly the same way?

That doesn't expose any problem with that phrase at all. I haven't read everyone here, but I'm sure that yeah, some people are critiquing the book unfairly. I do think the comic is being fair -- it's a relatively soft joke, and the alt-text succinctly summarizes why he feels that way without being a jackass about it. You aren't supposed to be able to "right" their wrongs -- you just have to make your own case as best you can. If you sink their level, you don't help your argument at all. Think of the posters who you most respect on these forums, would you say they're often unnecessarily condescending? Or just notice the fact that you're willing to respond to me -- I think we're having a fairly civil discussion on this, and if I had gone ahead and attacked you aggressively, I don't think we'd be having a discussion worth having at all right now. And it's wrong for you to critique them in that matter for the same reason it's wrong for them to critique in that manner themselves.

The goal in not being wrong isn't to right someone else's wrong -- it's to not be wrong yourself.


Now here's where a Randian argument is relevant. Putting this in prisoner's-dilemma terms, other people can make a choice that gives me a choice. They can act with me, which gives me the choice to be either a builder or a destroyer; or they can act against me, which gives me the choice to be either a destroyer or a victim.

What Rand would say, and with which I agree, is that when your choice is known, the ethical choices are builder in the first case and destroyer in the second. What most other ethical systems would say is to never choose to be a destroyer. In other words, I say it's better for everyone to be an asshole than a chump. You say it's better for me to be a chump than an asshole. I think that taking that position is itself an act against me. Case in point:

Steroid wrote:Again, there are perfectly legitimate ways to enjoy the works I don't. But doing so precisely and solely because it makes you feel superior to people like me is not one of them. Yes, I believe there are people like that. And yes, I want to be condescending to them.

Except you're being condescending to everyone who likes those works in order to be condescending to those specific people you want to be condescending to. You're casting far to wide of a net, and I'm not sure you really have much grounds to be condescending to them. Call them out for wanting to be smugly superior, sure, but in this case it'd be the pot calling the kettle black.

You would have me take an insult onto myself without responding in order to avoid condescending to innocent parties. I decline to do that because no one's being that nice to me. No one is saying that it's a moral imperative to shut up about my taste because it happens to run to the selfish.

Rand and I in our ethics also look more long-term than you do, I think. If you act only as the helper or the chump all the time, eventually people will make you the chump. If you can be the asshole some of the time, people will let you be the helper.

Steroid wrote:Except that people have said, in this very thread, that complex characters with arcs are objectively superior to flat characters, or at least that I lack understanding for having the opposite premise. So my answer to your question is yes, if they're being honest.

No, that is a very different statement. Liking complex characters over flat characters is not at all the same as liking "complex, accessible, and non-optimistic" stories -- it's liking a different kind of character. Character's are often a significant part of a work of literature, but they aren't all of it. Your original argument is still putting yourself up as some specially enlightened reader compared to them, using overly condescending deconstructions of those books, and applying it to everyone who likes those books.

But again, people are putting forth arguments that liking AS is bad taste. They're setting themselves up as enlightened readers. Either that's out of bounds, or I'm free to do the same, or there's some objective argument for why their literary position is superior to mine. For the third option, all I'm doing is saying that their objective arguments are bugs, not features. You're taking that as the second argument, playing tit for tat. If I have to, I will do that. But I'm just trying to explain my own standards of what's not enjoyable in literature.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue May 01, 2012 10:51 am UTC

Steroid wrote:But again, people are putting forth arguments that liking AS is bad taste. They're setting themselves up as enlightened readers. Either that's out of bounds, or I'm free to do the same, or there's some objective argument for why their literary position is superior to mine.
For what it's worth, I think Atlas Shrugged is shit, and I completely agree--taste is taste, what works is what works, if it did it for you then no one can argue that away. The fact that people think they can argue it away--that taste is this qualitative property that we can measure with a ruler and make determinations about ("You... have good taste. You? Terrible taste.") is bullshit nonsense.

I think in terms of the comic it works anyway though because 'you have terrible taste' is a funny thing we say sometimes as a joke (I'm constantly told my taste in music is absolutely atrocious, but I understand it's more fun teasing than an actual, objective statement that I need to go listen to 'better' music).

Kaylakaze
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:16 pm UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby Kaylakaze » Tue May 01, 2012 10:52 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Kaylakaze wrote:[vitriol]


1) Labor prices are not a race to the bottom. Anything that takes more than a day to learn has semi-decent value in the market place. It's only things that require little to no skills, especially people skills, e.g. line cook, warehouse worker, that are shit jobs with shit pay. Because any ex-con could do those jobs. But even a shit job doing data entry requires some minimal technical skills, which is why it pays $10/hr vs minimum wage. Also, fuck data entry.
2) If all labor prices drop, so does the sales price. You need people to buy the goods that are being made. Cutting everyone's wages 50% does jack shit because then prices have to fall 50%, and doubling everyone's pay does jack shit when prices double.
3) The middlemen do have a huge amount of value in society. You think 50 workers just arrive someplace and start making furniture?
4) All costs of business are labor costs, somewhere down the line.
5) It's not too hard to start a business, but expanding is where government regulations, and more importantly the legal system, start to become a choke. I think around 15 employees, EEOC kicks in, and more regulations kick in at 100 employees. If a business is beyond that hurdle, it's already beyond that hurdle. Almost all regulations favor the big businesses by limiting competition.


1) Anyone who works full time deserves to be paid a living wage, regardless of what they're doing.
2) That's not how economics works in the current "global marketplace" we now have. Wages have been completely stagnant over the last 30 years in the US yet prices have continued to increase, more than double in many areas, yet the businesses that have been at the forefront of these price increases are the ones who are now doing better than ever.
3) Middlemen do have a place. The problem is our current system values them much more highly than the people actually doing the foundational work. Without middlemen, the society we currently have would crumble and we'd be in living in a much more primitive civilization. Without labor, we wouldn't be living at all.
4) Sure, if giving millions of dollars to a CEO that stole pensions, destroyed jobs, and bankrupted companies is a labor cost.
5) nothing really there to argue against

User avatar
RoberII
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 9:27 pm UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby RoberII » Tue May 01, 2012 10:55 am UTC

HugoSchmidt wrote:Look I'll trust if, having returned to find the thread grown, I skip over answering someone (roberII) who claims that it's sheer coincidence that every direct comparison we have between the more and the less capitalistic, decides in favour of the more capitalistic.


Somalia vs. the US,
Denmark vs. Great Britain,
Sweden vs. the US
All are pretty much in favour of government intervention over laissez-faire 'the market'll fix it, duh'-capitalism.

Also, I am not sure how socialism, beginning with Marx' entirely correct analysis of capitalism, is supposedly responsible for various dictatorships, since socialism is not inherently in favour of dictatorships. I'll freely admit that it was a part of the very, very broad 19th and 20th movement called socialism, but ALL socialists I've met are staunchly democratic. Even the communists. And, you know, socialism did bring you the modern welfare state, unions, social democracy. All of those are Good Things. The fact that you can't tell the difference between the people that would pervert socialism as a tool to gain power themselves and the people that see socialism as a means toward emancipation for people probably explains why you like Ayn Rand in the first place.

PS
The Mighty Thesaurus,
But lots of people to read it non-symbolically, and lots of people do it every day - and it's entirely possible to read Twilight the same way - all you have to do is find a reason (any reason) to invest textual feature X with meaning. This is a relatively trivial exercise.
IcedT wrote:Also, this raises the important question of whether or not dinosaurs were delicious.


I write poetry!

HugoSchmidt
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:30 am UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby HugoSchmidt » Tue May 01, 2012 11:08 am UTC

So the chap who won't learn is doing things like this:

Somalia vs. the US,
Denmark vs. Great Britain,
Sweden vs. the US


Okay, so two different sides of the same country (and in once instance, same city) is not a valid comparison. Completely different nations are, apparently. If anyone has any insight into what the devil this is supposed to mean, please let me know.

s. I'll freely admit that it was a part of the very, very broad 19th and 20th movement called socialism, but ALL socialists I've met are staunchly democratic


Democracy, hey?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_fed ... March_1933

Sure, sure, sure: "We're completely unbothered by hundreds of millions killed by our movement, but we are really moved by best of intentions. We know what's right. Promise."

Also, I am not sure how socialism, beginning with Marx' entirely correct analysis of capitalism, is supposedly responsible for various dictatorships, since socialism is not inherently in favour of dictatorships


Well, a) Marx's analysis complete bunk, and b) sure it isn't. It only always and invariably produces it.

User avatar
snowyowl
Posts: 464
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:36 pm UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby snowyowl » Tue May 01, 2012 11:13 am UTC

pareidolon wrote:
Gedankenwelt wrote:
Djehutynakht wrote:I'm confused. In the last panel, is he putting it back and escaping the critical room, or is someone else on the other side locking him in the room in a BHG-esque attempt at getting rid of everyone who doesn't share his literary tastes?

EDIT: Due to the lack of another "rumble", I'm inclined towards the second.

This should be a fun bookstore. I wonder what happens if someone picks up Twilight...

My interpretation is that a second person with a "terrible taste" shows up, and will get trapped while freeing the first person. Not sure if that makes sense, though...


Obviously, what is happening here is that the last panel, which is nothing but a perspective shift of the first, is his past self coming to pick out the book, at which point he will release his future self who is already on the other side, and who will then run off into the library while splitting up into every potential form of himself as altered by different experiences within the room.Angry nerd disclaimer: this is a satirical reference to another work and not my original idea.

What is the other work? It sounds badass.
The preceding comment is an automated response.

Kaylakaze
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:16 pm UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby Kaylakaze » Tue May 01, 2012 11:16 am UTC

JonT wrote:Communism relies on deprivations, prisons, death camps (witness North Korea, the former USSR, etc.)

Socialism relies on strangling its citizens slowly (witness European countries growth rate as the population ages and payees outnumber payers, and do a little basic math).

I think in the whole "sadism" argument, for all its ills, Capitalism finishes a distant third.


Capitalism relies on deprivations, prisons, and death camps. Do you not know the US has the highest imprisonment rate per capita in the entire "civilized" world? Can you turn on your TV and NOT see capitalist based depravity? Have you heard of Guantanamo Bay and the phrase "black site"? Or "death row"?

Also, none of the locations you mentioned exist in a vacuum. They have all been the victims of capitalist imperialism.

And if you think Capitalism finishes a distant third, you need to study the history of the industrial revolution in the US and England. The story of the little match girl wasn't made up out of whole cloth.

User avatar
RoberII
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 9:27 pm UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby RoberII » Tue May 01, 2012 11:17 am UTC

Yeah, look out for the dangerous dictatorships of... Err, Scandinavia?

And my entire point was that it's mostly complete bunk to compare countries unless we take various historical matters into account. If you get a free pass on that, why shouldn't I?

I'm not sure what you're implying with the wiki link? That I've not met Ernst Thälmann? That seems... A little bit completely irrelevant. That democratically elected leaders can be anti-democratic? I don't think that particularly relevant either.
IcedT wrote:Also, this raises the important question of whether or not dinosaurs were delicious.


I write poetry!

HugoSchmidt
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:30 am UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby HugoSchmidt » Tue May 01, 2012 11:28 am UTC

The fact that you can't tell the difference between the people that would pervert socialism as a tool to gain power themselves and the people that see socialism as a means toward emancipation for people probably explains why you like Ayn Rand in the first place.


The fact that people like you claim to be moved by goodwill to humanity and don't blink at the sight of mountains of corpses, says absolutely everything about why you go for socialism in the first place.

See how easy that dumb game is?

And my entire point was that it's mostly complete bunk to compare countries unless we take various historical matters into account. If


Sorry, this still doesn't pass the basic test of articulacy.

I'm not sure what you're implying with the wiki link?


Please stop trying to appear more dense than you are.

Yeah, look out for the dangerous dictatorships of... Err, Scandinavia?


You know, socialism has an exact definition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism?s=t

Bother to find me one single society where the economy is controlled entirely by the government that is not a disaster. Good luck with that.

The Scandanavian countries have heavily mixed economies, not situations where the entire economy is state-run.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby Zamfir » Tue May 01, 2012 11:34 am UTC

HugoSchmidt wrote:
Democracy, hey?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_fed ... March_1933

Sure, sure, sure: "We're completely unbothered by hundreds of millions killed by our movement, but we are really moved by best of intentions. We know what's right. Promise."

You mean, when all parties except the socialists* voted to support Hitler, and the socialists were consequently put in camps? And that shows how undemocratic socialists are?

* The communists had already been put in camps

HugoSchmidt
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:30 am UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby HugoSchmidt » Tue May 01, 2012 11:37 am UTC

Zamfir wrote:
HugoSchmidt wrote:
Democracy, hey?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_fed ... March_1933


You mean, when all parties except the socialists* voted to support Hitler, and the socialists were consequently put in camps? And that shows how undemocratic socialists are?

* The communists had already been put in camps


Stalin had Trotsky killed. You think I give a damn? Of course, all the wannabe-tyrants fight with each other. Serves them right. You reap what you sow.

And the people whom I was talking about where the uncounted millions of ordinary people who were slaughtered by the socialists and communists.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby Zamfir » Tue May 01, 2012 11:43 am UTC

HugoSchmidt wrote: And the people whom I was talking about where the uncounted millions of ordinary people who were slaughtered by the socialists and communists.

Then why did you link to the German election of 1933? If anything, that was a celebrated victory of the anti-communists.

HugoSchmidt
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:30 am UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby HugoSchmidt » Tue May 01, 2012 11:48 am UTC

Zamfir wrote:
HugoSchmidt wrote: And the people whom I was talking about where the uncounted millions of ordinary people who were slaughtered by the socialists and communists.

Then why did you link to the German election of 1933? If anything, that was a celebrated victory of the anti-communists.


Because roberII seems to be under the impression that, because someone wants to get power democratically, he's A-OK. The link was in response to that.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue May 01, 2012 11:50 am UTC

HugoSchmidt wrote: Because roberII seems to be under the impression that, because someone wants to get power democratically, he's A-OK. The link was in response to that.
Wait... did you just... did you just Godwin this thread?

You bastard.

EDIT: Also, pretty sure the Nazis weren't very keen on democracy. They were happy to use it as a means to their end, but they did whatever they could to disrupt the process and manipulate the situation. Socialists tend to view democracy less as a means, more as a parallel goal--socialism and democracy go hand-in-hand, whereas Nazism just sees it as one of many routes to power.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Tue May 01, 2012 11:53 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

HugoSchmidt
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:30 am UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby HugoSchmidt » Tue May 01, 2012 11:52 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
HugoSchmidt wrote: Because roberII seems to be under the impression that, because someone wants to get power democratically, he's A-OK. The link was in response to that.
Wait... did you just... did you just Godwin this thread?

You bastard.


Hippo, please quit trolling. Hitler is far from the only elected tyrant.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby Ghostbear » Tue May 01, 2012 11:54 am UTC

Steroid wrote:Now here's where a Randian argument is relevant. Putting this in prisoner's-dilemma terms, other people can make a choice that gives me a choice. They can act with me, which gives me the choice to be either a builder or a destroyer; or they can act against me, which gives me the choice to be either a destroyer or a victim.

What Rand would say, and with which I agree, is that when your choice is known, the ethical choices are builder in the first case and destroyer in the second. What most other ethical systems would say is to never choose to be a destroyer. In other words, I say it's better for everyone to be an asshole than a chump. You say it's better for me to be a chump than an asshole. I think that taking that position is itself an act against me. Case in point:

This has nothing to do with your argument compared to other people. If the most you're willing to achieve is "Sure, I might be wrong, but so are the people I'm disagreeing with!" then you (not you specifically, but generic "you") are a lost cause and not someone worth attempting to have an intelligent discussion with. You don't even have to put any special effort into finding people who are wrong in life, especially with the internet available to you. Or, hey, let's look at this from another direction: if you're trying to solve a problem, and you do so incorrectly, it doesn't make your answer any less wrong if you point out that other people trying to solve the problem were also incorrect. You might not be any worse than them, but you're still wrong. Are you content with being wrong? Ignore your opinion on if you think you are being wrong -- I mean that question honestly and generally: are you OK with knowingly and intentionally being wrong? I don't think you are, but your responses are stating otherwise.

I didn't even want to wade into the objectivism debate (merely to point out just how crudely and intellectually lazily condescending you were being), but if you're telling me that objectivism is a philosophy that is A-OK with being wrong, than you're doing a wonderful job making the case against it.

Steroid wrote:You would have me take an insult onto myself without responding in order to avoid condescending to innocent parties. I decline to do that because no one's being that nice to me. No one is saying that it's a moral imperative to shut up about my taste because it happens to run to the selfish.

Rand and I in our ethics also look more long-term than you do, I think. If you act only as the helper or the chump all the time, eventually people will make you the chump. If you can be the asshole some of the time, people will let you be the helper.

No, I would have you not be condescending to a wide swath of people just to feel better about yourself. So people insulted your taste in books -- what does insulting their taste in books back at them accomplish? It doesn't make anyone want to side with you, it doesn't make anyone more likely to like the books you like, it doesn't make those people hold their opinion any less, it doesn't make you enjoy your books any more, and it doesn't make them enjoy their books any less. It does, however, make you an asshole (joined by them, also being their own brand of asshole). So we have no net gain, with the net loss of becoming an asshole. If your only interest in joining a discussion is to be an asshole, then, well, congratulations, you've just wasted everybody's time, including your own. If you want to enter a discussion to show the other party is wrong, or to support an argument that you think is right, or something similar, then you should do that, instead of insulting other, uninvolved people. You don't even need to ignore the insult to not be a jackass to other people -- you just need to actually think through what you're saying and articulating it properly. The satellite view of what you were trying to say "I like these kinds and books, and dislike these kinds of books" could have been made without being condescending or disingenuous.

I honestly have no idea where your second part came from here. Nobody is anymore likely to make you a helper because you're being an asshole. You can avoid being an asshole without being a chump. You can even be an asshole and a chump at the same time. You can be somewhere in the middle, you can be both, you can be neither. Is your interpretation of Randism so lacking in shades of grey that you can't see that? Do you seriously need to resort to your philosophy derived from a single person to defend being being intellectually lazy and overly condescending?

Steroid wrote:But again, people are putting forth arguments that liking AS is bad taste. They're setting themselves up as enlightened readers. Either that's out of bounds, or I'm free to do the same, or there's some objective argument for why their literary position is superior to mine. For the third option, all I'm doing is saying that their objective arguments are bugs, not features. You're taking that as the second argument, playing tit for tat. If I have to, I will do that. But I'm just trying to explain my own standards of what's not enjoyable in literature.

Then those people are also wrong. Being wrong yourself doesn't do anything to make them more wrong -- if anything, your actions are legitimizing their approach. As you see them doing it as justification to do it yourself, they'll see you doing it as sufficient grounds to decide that it's a fair tactic. You don't need to respond to every person in an argument.

Arguing for or against the merits of various tastes can be a valid discussion, while it'll certainly always have the fact that, in the end, individual taste differs and you can't prove an individual's taste right or wrong, you can go over things that give a greater tenancy towards quality. You can discuss things that make it more enjoyable, combinations work well, or don't work well, together. You can even go over what makes something good within those individual tastes, or why that is. You haven't done that though, all you've done is made an incredibly intellectually lazy deconstructionism of what they like and used it to handwave the opinion of anyone who likes them away. It's the literary equivalent of the people who call those who want to raise (or lower) taxes as "freedom haters", or calling people that don't vote for a security measure (PATRIOT Act, CISPA, whatever) as "not real patriots" or someone that doesn't support a video game sale regulation as "not caring about the safety of our children", or calling out whoever is in the 'opposite' party as "not believing in the constitution". In all those cases, it's painting an extremist, intellectually lazy view of them, and all it helps to do is cause everyone to be jackasses to each other without discussing things. It is factually wrong and does not help induce intelligent discussion; in fact, it actively discourages it. And that is exactly what you did with your "difficult, dull, depressing" analysis. There could have been an intelligent discussion on the merits of specific literary methods and styles, but you helped make sure it wouldn't happen.

HugoSchmidt wrote:And the people whom I was talking about where the uncounted millions of ordinary people who were slaughtered by the socialists and communists.

This argument against non-pure capitalism is based wholly on wrong logic. Yes, the Soviets and the Nazis killed millions of people. Yes, they were terrible groups of people. And yes, they were officially called the National Socialist German Workers' Party and the All-Union Communist Party (later renamed to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union). So? The crusades were started by christians -- they don't make christianity any more or less wrong than it otherwise is or isn't -- they just make the people that supported the crusades terrible people.

You know who else is a terrible group from WW2? Imperial Japan. Guess what their economic policy was based on and closest too? Capitalism. I guess by your argument here ("The Nazi's and Soviets were socialists and communists, and look how many people they killed! -- Socialism and communism are therefor bad.") we can also safely conclude that capitalism is bad too -- look at how many people the Japanese killed during WW2.

But that'd be silly. If socialism or communism or mixed economies are bad compared to pure capitalism, make your argument based on the merits (or lack thereof) for those various positions. Don't make your argument on whether or not terrible people have also supported that system, or you're going to be stuck as the person throwing bricks in a glass house.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue May 01, 2012 11:55 am UTC

HugoSchmidt wrote:Hippo, please quit trolling. Hitler is far from the only elected tyrant.
Just sayin'. "Socialists are fans of democracy!" - "Oh? You know who else was a fan of democracy? ...HITLER."

That's pretty much what you just did there. It's a Godwin, and on top of that, it's not even a very accurate one.

EDIT:
Ghostbear wrote:Yes, the Soviets and the Nazis killed millions of people. Yes, they were terrible groups of people. And yes, they were officially called the National Socialist German Workers' Party and the All-Union Communist Party (later renamed to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union).
One pick. I'm pretty sure Hugo isn't claiming that the Nazis were socialists ("B-B-BUT THEY HAVE SOCIALIST IN THEIR NAME!"). I mean, I am 95% sure of that. If they are, we can just stop right here with the realization that Hugo doesn't have one clue what the hell they're talking about and move on.

But again, 95% sure Hugo didn't think Nazis were the socialist party.

...wait, that isn't actually why you brought up the 1933 elections, is it?

Please say it isn't.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Tue May 01, 2012 12:00 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby J Thomas » Tue May 01, 2012 12:00 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
HugoSchmidt wrote:I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.
'I am not an advocate of X, but I am an advocate of Y. ACTUALLY, I was just lying then. I am not an advocate of Y, but an advocate of Z.'

Man, you're right, it's totally clear what she's actually advocating and what she's not advocating.


Actually, with a little bit of context it is clear. She says that if you believe in Reason then you will inevitably be an egotist. And if you believe in egotism then you will advocate capitalism because that also necessarily follows.

I don't understand why HugoSchmidt would say that she did not fervently advocate capitalism when she did.

HugoSchmidt wrote: So, who is being fallacious here? Word of advice: argue with an Objectivist and prepare to be proven wrong.
60. FUCKING. PAGE. LONG. MONOLOGUE.


In general, when you argue with somebody who is so certain they are right that they refuse to follow your reasoning because they know if you disagree with them you must be wrong, you can expect 60 page monologues. We've been lucky this time around. So far.

Code: Select all

You can keep doing that forever, the dog is NEVER going to move.
Captain Jack Sparrow

But then, the Randians here mostly say that you guys have misunderstood Rand and that she did not say what you claim she said. Notice that they mostly do not themselves disagree with what you said she said, except that some but not all of them say she was wrong about ethnic-cleansing the native americans.

Here are examples of what I'm talking about. Somebody says that socialism inevitably leads to dictatorship. The various socialists immediately say "Marx didn't want dictatorship. Socialists all want democracy, they don't want dictatorship". And then the response is "Whatever you want, still the truth is that every socialist government has become a dictatorship."

Now take the other side of it. Somebody says, say, "Rand said nobody should ever be altruistic". The various Randites immediately say "Rand didn't say that, you don't understand Rand." They do not say "I think altruism is OK and I do it sometimes". Except the one Christian Randite who worked out a rationale that lets him do Christian charity and be a Randite at the same time. (Incidentally, my understanding is that Rand thought it was OK to do things that people would think were altruistic, if you wanted to. It was not OK to force somebody to do something you considered altruistic, and it was not OK to try to guilt-trip somebody into doing something you considered altruistic.)

And you can't point to a place in the world where the Randites have eliminated altruism. The Objectivist social movement has accomplished nothing whatsoever anywhere, yet. Anything that might be considered an accomplishment, they deny is theirs.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

HugoSchmidt
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:30 am UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby HugoSchmidt » Tue May 01, 2012 12:01 pm UTC

You know who else is a terrible group from WW2? Imperial Japan. Guess what their economic policy was based on and closest too? Capitalism.


Please, please, please quit making things up. Imperial Japan was a fascist theocracy. It relied on forcible redistribution of wealth, slave labour etc.

User avatar
Oflick
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:27 am UTC
Location: Sydney, California, France

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby Oflick » Tue May 01, 2012 12:04 pm UTC

God Damn it! Will people stop posting in this thread! I just want to post one or two sentences, and I'm expected to read all of this! I don't want to read, I just want to do this:

McFoo wrote:Long time fan of XKCD/lurker of these forums but felt compelled to register and post my disappointment.

I mean, I'm not going to get all worked up because a webcomic decided to poke fun at Rand, and it won't even keep me from coming here, but it is the second most influential book in the world next to the bible. Of course someone will get angry. You should have seen it coming.

Oh well.


Image

HugoSchmidt
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:30 am UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby HugoSchmidt » Tue May 01, 2012 12:05 pm UTC

I don't understand why HugoSchmidt would say that she did not fervently advocate capitalism when she did.


Oh great, now people cannot even cite me correctly, let alone Miss Rand. I said she was not primarily an advocate of capitalism. I never said she didn't advocate it.

Now take the other side of it. Somebody says, say, "Rand said nobody should ever be altruistic". The various Randites immediately say "Rand didn't say that, you don't understand Rand."


Actually, no objectivist would say anything of the sort. Rand's genius was to show that every major horror in history has relied on the altruist morality.

And you can't point to a place in the world where the Randites have eliminated altruism. The Objectivist social movement has accomplished nothing whatsoever anywhere, yet. Anything that might be considered an accomplishment, they deny is theirs.


Well, the Ayn Rand Centre stuck up for freedom of expression when few others were willing to do so. Just sayin'.

HugoSchmidt
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:30 am UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby HugoSchmidt » Tue May 01, 2012 12:07 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
HugoSchmidt wrote:Hippo, please quit trolling. Hitler is far from the only elected tyrant.
Just sayin'. "Socialists are fans of democracy!" - "Oh? You know who else was a fan of democracy? ...HITLER."


But again, 95% sure Hugo didn't think Nazis were the socialist party.

...wait, that isn't actually why you brought up the 1933 elections, is it?

Please say it isn't.



Please quit trolling. I cited the 1933 elections to show that a desire to win power by democratic means is no guarantee whatsoever of good character.

And, no, neither I nor any Objectivist claims that fascism and socialism are the same. The distinction is gone into at length in Rand's work. So please stop being annoying.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue May 01, 2012 12:12 pm UTC

HugoSchmidt wrote:And, no, neither I nor any Objectivist claims that fascism and socialism are the same.
Eat your words.
J Thomas wrote:Actually, with a little bit of context it is clear. She says that if you believe in Reason then you will inevitably be an egotist. And if you believe in egotism then you will advocate capitalism because that also necessarily follows.

I don't understand why HugoSchmidt would say that she did not fervently advocate capitalism when she did.
I was being a little facetious but yeah, in context, it's clear she's advocating capitalism because she advocates egoism, and she's advocating egoism because she advocates reason (which is kind of silly, since a lot of her ideals are based on irrational conclusions! Like the notion of ownership--how do you derive 'ownership' from the concept of reason? The whole concept of ownership is something magical we made up because it's nice to own things). I was just poking fun at Hugo taking her slightly out of context and using it to make their point in a similarly facetious way--"Look! She says she doesn't advocate capitalism, but rather, egoism!" - And then in the next sentence, she says she doesn't advocate egoism, but reason. So clearly she's just being stylistic, and she actually advocates all three.

HugoSchmidt
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:30 am UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby HugoSchmidt » Tue May 01, 2012 12:14 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
HugoSchmidt wrote:And, no, neither I nor any Objectivist claims that fascism and socialism are the same.
Eat your words.


Eat yours. "The Left" and "Socialism" are not the same thing.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue May 01, 2012 12:15 pm UTC

HugoSchmidt wrote:Eat yours. "The Left" and "Socialism" are not the same thing.
Guess you didn't watch the video.

User avatar
RoberII
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 9:27 pm UTC

Re: 1049: "Bookshelf"

Postby RoberII » Tue May 01, 2012 12:16 pm UTC

Of course, the fact that I (and most other socialists I've heard of - there are always fringe lunatics) both want to keep democracy going and are for free speech, universal suffrage and all the other nice things we tend to like in the world is apparently irrelevant. We're secretly tiny little Hitlers, just like Obama is secretly just waiting for his second term to bring on the Glorious Bolshevik Revolution.

Hey Schmidt, when are you going to start apologising for the anarchist objectivists out there? You know, the ones opposed to democracy?
IcedT wrote:Also, this raises the important question of whether or not dinosaurs were delicious.


I write poetry!


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 113 guests