Ayn Rand and George Orwell

literally the two specific authors I consider red flags when someone likes them. pseudointellectuals that got way too much attention.

>>9704540
this

>>9704540
People who consider Orwell a pseudo-intellectual objectively deserve to be gassed because his life work revolved around investigating the ways in which cancerous fuckheads like you poison political and intellectual discourse by any means necessary. Orwell, for all of his faults, never passed an opportunity for reflection or self-criticism, which made him one of the most intellectually honest men of the modern era. And while I have little respect for Ayn Rand, I find that she attracts the most sniveling and obnoxious pseudo-intellectuals desperate to signal to the world their conservative or liberal values by praising or condemning her. The critics are the worst offenders of sophistry, since at least the fans have read the book and gleaned something valuable from it—detractors usually resort to quaternary sources.

If anything, these polarizing figures are great for identifying useless faggots like you.

>>9704567
>t. retarded libcuck

Bet you think white nationalism is 'racist', right, sweety?

>>9704576
I'm a full-blown Trump supporter, retard. You idiots can't think about anything unless it is tied at the waist to an ideology.

>>9704582
But do you support Hitler's vision or are you just a cucked civic nationalist?

>>9704588
Somewhere in-between. Strong on socioeconomic realism (that is the responsibility of the populations afflicted by it); weak on race realism (though it exists to some extent, it gets negated by personal responsibility). The idea that you can import any random minority into the country and expect full integration is retarded, and operating based off of tried and true socioeconomic indicators of success would leave demographics unchanged while being morally defensible.

Anyway thanks for derailing the thread false flag /pol/tard.

>>9704605
>weak on race realism
There we have it, ladies and gentlemen.
Just another brainwashed libtard

>>9704567
your entire argument is one humongous ad hominem and this only reinforces my opinion that liking orwell is a massive red flag.

Because thinking there is an objective reality is just accepting a metaphor and deriving some statements from such an intuition. It's a meme and that's why it's so effective.

>>9704464
Short answer: Rand was a pretender with a nominally good cause. Orwell had integrity in the wrong direction. "Objective reality" doesn't mean anything on its own without breaking it down further into "knowing what is reality" and "operating in such a way that you come to know reality".

>>9704477
>nonwhites are objectively inferior to whites
>white nationalism created civilization as we know it (for the good part, the rest was destroyed by nonwhites and women).
T. """""" white american""""""""" LARPer.

>>9704619
Stop throwing the names of fallacies that you don't understand. I am attacking the character of Orwell and Rand critics because their behaviors are evidence of it. Orwell was the number one enemy of pseudo-intellectuals in his own lifetime because he was intellectually honest and not a political hack. Blame it on the Aspergers, blame it on the Spanish Civil War, but he was no stranger to self-awareness of political ideology, always advocating consistency in principles. Rand is just a lightning bolt for retards, both who support and reject her, though I'd argue that her critics are worse because they didn't even try and are operating off of false pretenses most of the time.

>>9704636
>Stop throwing the names of fallacies that you don't understand. I am attacking the character of Orwell and Rand critics
stopped reading there. literally the definition of ad hominem.

Was Ayn Rand mentally ill ?
This video said yes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcBT5yQD6_g

File: 1497304006872.png (248KB, 450x504px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 450x504px

>>9704636
>I am attacking the character of Orwell and Rand critics because their behaviors are evidence of it.
>Not ad hom
What did he mean by this?

>>9704477
This is true.

It's also important to remember that Orwell's predictions were so prescient because of his involvement with the Fabian Society, a kind of proto-marxist group of young people that were influenced (or more accurately brainwashed) by the jewish ideology that has now destroyed England as we know it. Orwell had it backwards, since he was like his contemporaries fooled into believing "fascism" was the main threat instead of judeo-communism (when fascism was literally a response to judeo-bolshevism/communism), but he was at least somewhat aware of where the root of the problem lied.

Hence Emmanuel Goldstein, hence why whites must, now more than ever, band together to expel the jew once and for all.

>>9704641
>>9704646

1) I never said that I didn't use an "ad hominem", but rather it was never part of my argument. I didn't base my contempt for Orwell/Rand critics on their character, rather I pointed out their failings as intellectuals and why their criticisms fall flat before condemning them. Orwell and Rand aren't perfect authors but they were thoroughly influential. Don't blame the decay of discourse in modern society on them, especially Orwell who saw it coming.

21) Ad hominems aren't a formal fallacy you faggot. It highly depends on the context and whether it constitutes an abuse of rhetoric, especially if no other logic/evidence is provided. If you behave like a degenerate, and it is shown how you behaved like a degenerate, you deserve to be labeled as a degenerate and rightfully rebuked for it.

If you think intellectual degeneracy is a good thing, where the stakes are twisted and the logic no longer matters, then my words will fall on deaf ears. Then again, I imagine that people who abuse fallacies through mislabeling are the types of people who are terrified by people like Orwell, because they've found people who even from the grave can unmask them for who they are without falling for a thought-terminating cliche.

>>9704692
"you are wrong about orwell because you are a degenerate" is textbook ad hominem and is not a logically valid argument. this further reinforces my opinion that liking orwell is a red flag. you literally do not understand logical reasoning and pretend to in a condescending manner. at least read some iep pages or something before talking.

>If you think intellectual degeneracy is a good thing
an entirely subjective concept. ironic, given the context. grow up.

>>9704692
god I'm >>9704703, barely reading your posts and the more I read the more problems I see.

>Don't blame the decay of discourse in modern society
subjective concept presented as objective embedded within a straw man argument as I never did any such thing. holy shit dude.

>>9704680
Only intelligent post in this shit thread.

>>9704709
>Only intelligent post
>Literally /pol/ Jewish conspiracies

>>9704709
psued

>>9704713
Go back to cripplechan, /leftypol/ degenerate.

>>9704703
>"you are wrong about orwell because you are a degenerate" is textbook ad hominem and is not a logically valid argument.
Correct. But that was never my argument, and you are only digging yourself a deeper hole.

>this further reinforces my opinion that liking orwell is a red flag.
Engaging in mental gymnastics and confirmation bias is a common behavior. Tell me more about your superiority complex.

>subjective concept presented as objective
le everything is subjective meme, now let me throw the name of another fallacy that I don't understand xD

>embedded within a straw man argument as I never did any such thing. holy shit dude.
I never said that you supported the decay of discourse or anything. Holy shit dude.

>>9704730
>you are only digging yourself a deeper hole.
not an argument. you're just throwing poop at this point.
>Tell me more about your superiority complex.
not an argument. more poop throwing.
>le everything is subjective meme, now let me throw the name of another fallacy that I don't understand xD
not an argument. even more poop throwing. yawn. orwell confirmed for red flag.
>I never said that you supported the decay of discourse or anything.
I never claimed you did. you did claim that I blamed the decay of discourse of modern society on them, shoving words into my mouth. you literally have to make stuff up to have something that resembles an argument.

>>9704726
I don't give a flying fuck about worker ant-level politics.

>>9704747
>responding to "not an argument: the post" with "not an argument"
And we have exposed the pseudo-intellectual to the public, ladies and gentleman.

>>9704758
can you prove the objectivity of the decay of discourse or intellectual degeneration in modern society? because my pointing out the opinionated nature of these claims was absolutely an argument.

Constructivist approaches to knowledge trigger me, but deep down I know they're right.

Any epistemology fags here? I believe in an objective truth where physical reality is concerned but I concede that knowing it is restricted by our perception. I feel like I'm missing something.

>>9704777
I prefer phenomenological reasoning. the affirmation of consistency via your first-person perspective. you can't tell me the apple isn't on the table because there it is, sitting on the table.

>>9704772
Not him, but just wanted to chime in and call you an idiot. You're the kind of person who argues the sky isn't *really* blue because there's no way to prove we all have the same interpretation of what "blue" is.

The last 50+ years have been defined by a skyrocketing of degeneracy. Unfortunately, there are retards like yourself who believe what the people (mainly jews) who try to normalize that degeneracy by pretending it's a good thing and representative of freedom. But anyone who says that is either a young brainwashed retard, a beta male, or both.

>>9704777
I'm the same way, but I still get irritated by people who try to hamper our limited abilities to know instead of making the best of what we've got.

>>9704787
But that's not necessarily an approach to constructing knowledge, or at least a system of knowledge, is it?

>>9704777

Doesnt the very fact that we know our color perception is limited, very clearly mean we do NOT perceive objective reality, and thus all reality we perceive is in our head? THere are shrimps in the ocean who see more color than us

>>9704680
>Orwell had it backwards, since he was like his contemporaries fooled into believing "fascism" was the main threat instead of judeo-communism
Orwell was opposed to Judeo-communism as it was authoritarian. He was a libertarian after all. He was also no fool in believing fascism was a threat

>Orwell a socialist
Read 1984, libtard.