you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 26 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Her writing is simplistic, but conservatives and libertarians have pushed her as an “intellectual” because it gives them a well-known writer that supports their trash values. She was strongly against the welfare state and altruism, yet she herself received social security, so she was a bit of a hypocrite as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    She was also an unabashed atheist, which is why she was able to promote the idea of selfishness being good.

    What's funny is it's the mostly Christian right-wing which has embraced her.

    I guess they're okay with atheism as long as its playing for the right "team."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    I mean, they’ve elevated Trump as their God-Emperor and he’s very likely an atheist, had multiple affairs, and paid women to get abortions, but whatever, none of that matters when you’ve been conditioned all your life to believe impossible things. Next to Jesus walking on water and two of every animal fitting on a boat, the rest of it is child’s play.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    She was also an unabashed atheist, which is why she was able to promote the idea of selfishness being good.

    What the hell is this non-sequitur?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Nearly every religion preaches to be giving and kind to those in need. It's absolutely not a non-sequitor to admit that a large number of atheists don't believe there is any guiding morality to the universe and that we have to come to our own conclusions about morals and ethics. Moral relativism is a generally accepted thing among many atheists. This does not mean all atheists are selfish, I would classify most as Humanists. Rand was mostly an outlier.

    She was able to promote the idea that selfishness could be good because she didn't ascribe to any religion that defined that as a sin.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    She was able to promote the idea that selfishness could be good because she didn’t ascribe to any religion that defined that as a sin.

    So basically she profited from existing bullshit to promote her own brand of bullshit. That's even worse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm not an atheist and even to me, that's a really transparent dig at people who believe something you disagree with. You don't need religion to be altruistic as you are implying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm not implying that, the OP was. (Or so I thought. Apparently they are saying that Rand was riding on that idea.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm a fucking atheist and I think Ayn Rand was a loser sack of shit who leaned on every government assistance she preached against existing.

    So yeah, Rand was riding on it. I would like to think most fellow atheists reject her power-worship bullshit wrapped in "Objectivism."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments