What's so "objective" about objectivism? I feel

>>3307315

Reels>feels is her whole philosophy. She argued that everyone operates from a place of selfishness if they want to admit it or not, so the best thing to do is to just embrace that fully because altruism is cancer. All altruism is is a way for the masters to control plebs and getting them to fulfill his selfish desires. Every horrible totalitarian regime is built upon altruism. The people suffer in those system, but they are told to suffer is a great sacrifice for the benefit of the collective, which is obviously bullshit, since the collective suffers for the selfish desires of a few elites. If everyone trashed altruism and embraced their own selfishness, then regimes like this would be impossible, since no one would put up with the bullshit of some charismatic weirdo shouting about utopia around the corner, just as long as they suffer for him.

>>3307343
> reels > feels
any notion of what is "right" or "wrong" aside from the meaning of "factual" and "non-factual" is "feels"

>how /v/ uses it to describe whether a game is good or not
this pisses me off so much, especially since actual reviewers use it in the same way

>>3307761

that was her entire point though anon. People exploit altruism and tell people to betray their own selfish interest because "its the right thing to do!" Thats why she hated Jesus so much, he was THE symbol of that bullshit. Theres a reason most of the criticism of her ideology boils down to "shes mean :("

>>3307315
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv3VkSwhhkU

>>3307780
>Theres a reason most of the criticism of her ideology boils down to "shes mean :("
Other than how completely fucking retarded you have to be to believe a bunch of rich people with absolutely nothing to check their power won't end up a fucking dystopia.

>>3307791

>they are gonna be mean :(

thanks for proving my point

>>3307315

"OBJECTIVE" IN OBJECTIVISM MEANS "THAT WHICH IS OBSERVED TO OCCUR NATURALLY, AND WHICH OCCURS NATURALLY EVEN WITHOUT OBSERVATION"; THIS ENTAILS THAT THE ETHICOMORAL VALUES OF OBJECTIVISM ARE DERIVED FROM THE NATURAL —FROM WHAT IS, RATHER THAN FROM WHAT SHOULD BE.

OBJECTIVISM IS BASICALLY EGOISTIC NATURALISM.

>>3307808
But that's not what I said whatsoever. Yep lets just let rich powerful people do whatever they want, they definitely won't be abusive whatsoever.

Oh but if it's someone being given the power to do whatever they want just in a government, than all the sudden you retards are able to have basic common sense.

>>3307842

So in other words, rich people are going to be mean

>>3307860
Yes human beings aren't nice and they'll fuck you over given the chance. Lets give all control to the government, what are you afraid they'll just be mean :(

Isn't egoism and individualism kind of contrary to being "objective". Focusing on your own perspective instead of trying to think from more of an universal angle. I know that there are many aspects to egoism, individualism and objectivity but it's just one among many reasons why the name "Objectivism" is so misleading for her philosophy.

>>3307780
Even with the rejection of altruism, "feels" would still be the ultimate source of morality, people would still define "good" and "bad" by what causes pleasure and pain. The rejection of individualism would just mean that people are not encouraged to take other people's suffering or gain into account when deciding an action (though I suspect that there is some innate element of sympathy in humans, so rejection of altruism could never happen 100%). But it still all comes down to feels, because that's what essentially defines one's self-interest.