Sure, I think I’d agree with the sentiment of that idea

[removed]

The article doesn't unpack this, but I would almost have to ASSUME that the context is about your own ideas, not when examining the ideas of others. Even though the instruction is to "take it literally," my HOPE would be that taking it literally wouldn't be broadly applicable to your actual understanding of someone else's idea, but rather as a process whereby you visualize what the literal expression of that might look like in order to critically think about it.

​

But honestly, its hilarious and ironic to me that the most coherent interpretation of this piece interpreting Rand's intent requires that you do NOT take it literally. LMAO.

So maybe just like in matrix, only less misanthropic, with a simulation that does whatever one of the player wishes, wo each of those being able to harm each other? Or does it need to be “real”?

Maybe your guys’ beliefs are, but not mine

how are we even discussing rand on this sub and how are people arguing with you about this

Humans aren’t purely rational unfortunately. Thats why rational rules and the punishment for breaking them often do not work. Selfishness can take up self destructive dimensions. If people would be rationally selfish, for the most part selfish altruism would be the logical answer.

How is your scenario different from laws we have rn? (Except the punishment)

Exactly. I’m in customer service and have gotten things so wrong by just doing what the customer asked for without clarification. AND assuming they know and understand the words / jargon they are using.

I think that what I see as the closes thing we will be in Utopia

[removed]

Despite ones political beliefs or ones love languages, fundamentally there are only two kinds of people:

The first is one who believes its "every man for himself."

The second is one who believes we all have an obligation to "help each other make it to the end."

There is no philosophy beyond recognizing those two types of people.

Thank you for witnessing she's wrong by doing the opposite of what she said to do with others words to hers: "Take it literally. Don’t translate it, don’t glamorize it, don’t make the mistake of thinking, as many people do: “Oh, nobody could possibly mean this!” and then proceed to endow it with some whitewashed meaning of your own. Take it straight, for what it does say and mean."

I would not know by tribe even if I wanted to.

So you are saying people cannot follow any set of rules ever because ”human nature”? But that is what makes humanity: the ability to think.

What if we make a system that is maximally rational (because another thing about human nature, ”shelfishness”) that any departure from its rules is actually altruistic (anything short of violence against bodies) or self-harm?

In trivial terms: for example a scenario where you cannot steal other people’s parcels that are equally distributed and one can only depart from its rules by a) not taking own share and causing self-harm or b) gifting it to others making it an altruistic deed. They are actually the same thing: altruism does not exist among sane people.

Thanks for the gentle reply. Of course I am aware of such mechanisms; I made the reply half way jokingly, but I really wanted a challenge. I don't believe in party politics nor left/right dynamics so we already eliminated historical imperatives, tribalism and virtue signaling :D

You made a very incisive question. It is difficult to describe my political leanings and this was very conflicting to me a couple of years back. The only hard beliefs that I have are local organization (comunal overseeing of basic needs and its solutions) and mutual aid (in-group and out-group). Nothing else.

Today I don't even believe in human rights. Just in basic decency and denying people their want to step on everybody else's life (unless actually asked to). And of course, I believe in violence as last resort in case the other two don't work. Maybe I am just over-saturated with systemic issues, but I truly believe people in our time became extremely backwards (prude, passive-aggressive and manipulable).

Am I a conservative? I truly believe conservative is but the first instinct of an ignorant mind; not a political or intellectual theory but a simple practice. I have been years searching for a true conservative intellectual to only find prudes, dum-dums and sold out pseudo-academics. Liberals and Leftists on the other hand seem more respectable to me, but don't seem able to give their life for others. So, more smoke.

Are you the kind of person who when reads an opinion article that makes the following statement

"There is water vapor in our atmosphere, it makes the sky blue, I like the way the sky looks when it's blue but also sometimes with a change"

And then they come to the conclusion that because it's an opinion article that the whole article is invalid so clearly water vapor is not in our atmosphere making the sky blue.

You dismiss it outright because of the form it takes.

I know it's hard to understand but you have to refute the message not the form that it comes in.

speak for yourself... holding coherent political views is more difficult than following the crowd or towing the party line, but it's far from impossible.

and since when has any "belief" system ever been held to such a lofty standard?

certainly that is not the case with religious beliefs, which are constantly in contradiction.

🤣

Political journalism at it's finest haha. Pick a small part of a whole statement and put focus on that to change the context. Lmao JK.

this is what I was looking for, thank you

The Simpsons is a cartoon. The reason why you shouldn't give much weight to the political philosophy of the Simpsons should not need to be further explicated.

> I suppose I could form strong beliefs like Republicans do, based on what Fox News says.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz2WfBFdOAU

> I mean why trust my eyes when I could just trust talking heads.

Trusting either may not be wise.

> Remember, critical thinking is a tool of the left, you should skip it unless you want to be woke.

Is this to say that all people on the left are good at critical thinking, or even a majority of them are?

> There is no room for thought on the right.

What does this even mean?

> Facts slide off Republicans like Teflon.

Perhaps you should give the rules on the sidebar a read.

> "Omg that's a cartoon, there is no possible way that cartoons can contain truth, I should just reject it outright, especially because it doesn't conform to my twisted perspective of the world". - you presumably

Well, you are incorrect once again.

I'm genuinely curious: why do you do this? Granted, it's surely plenty of fun, but still. It seems to me to be contrary both to your implied desires as well as your literal words.

>I'd be careful forming a strong belief based purely on what one "sees".

I suppose I could form strong beliefs like Republicans do, based on what Fox News says. I mean why trust my eyes when I could just trust talking heads. Remember, critical thinking is a tool of the left, you should skip it unless you want to be woke. There is no room for thought on the right.

Facts slide off Republicans like Teflon.

"Omg that's a cartoon, there is no possible way that cartoons can contain truth, I should just reject it outright, especially because it doesn't conform to my twisted perspective of the world". - you presumably

> I don't have conflicting political beliefs, AMA!

Cracks knuckles

Would you prefer a mass die-off of humanity or would you rather we continue to kill the planet with massive CO2 pollution?

Do you want higher wages for workers? And how should we deal with illegal foreign workers?

What do you think of the military aid to Ukraine and how do you feel about military spending?

When did you stop beating your wife?

[removed]