Atlas shrugged is bad because muh "selfishness"

Not in America.

Liberal has been tainted as a word here. Republicans are Liberal Humanists and "liberals" are Social Humanists.

>soijak just grew ears and is trying to look at them as he gets excited

Atlas Shrugged is bad because Rand was an ideologue hack who cared more about preaching her beliefs than anything else.

>>Atlas shrugged is bad because muh "selfishness"

Attached: 1561544344777.png (785x1000, 254K)

Based earjakposter

What about the content?

That's fucking nothing. In pre-Civil War days, presidential candidates held debates that lasted all day. Today, we barely have the attention span to watch for a fucking hour.

The first half is an ok book about trains.

Funny that John Galt's speech and the context surrounding, the best part of the book, occurs in the second half.

It isn't among the greats but this is a huge exaggeration, her prose is sufficient to the task.

This

>content

Even worse

Atlas Shrugged is SUCH a great book. People should be selfish, ok? And trains! Trains are so cool. Choo choo

It’s bad because it’s a fucking massive tome ultimately just dedicated to saying “capitalism good”. Not that I have anything against capitalism, but holy shit you should learn the virtue of brevity.

It’s a great work of art written by a gifted writer and intelligent philolmao

It's bad because of a ridiculous narrative and horribly written characters. If you're older than 17 and unironically look up to Rand I have some bad news for you.

Attached: IMG_20190531_110545.jpg (1242x1658, 208K)

>neolibs are humanist in any capacity
misandry, heterophobia, cis-hate, and white guilt are still discriminatory and therefore not humanist

Atlas shrugged is bad because its theoretically vapid and filled with godawful prose. She literally has a character monogue for sixty pages straight.

Atlas Shrugged is bad because it's a longer shittier Fountainhead. Literally no reason to read AS when you can read The Fountainhead

"Sufficient to the task" is perhaps one of the most disgusting sentences I've ever read here. If anyone thinks that this is an appropriate thing to say on a literature board, they should fuck off back to their pamphlets and their journalism.

John Galt's speech is 30.000+ words of the most tortured and autistic amphetamine prose man has ever laid eyes on. It is actually morbidly remarkable for anyone interested in drug-fueled literature, (in the same way that a particularly gruesome high-speed accident may be of interest to a coroner) as its shittiness is derived not merely from the amphetamines but also from barbiturates, Ayn being addicted to dexamyl for some thirty years.

The only literary insight that one can derive with the help of Ayn Rand is that amhpetamine prose can work (Auden, Thompson, Kerouac), but that it absolutely fails miserably when the author is trying to include any amount of semi-formal philosophy (Rand, Sartre).

Partially, yes, but the late Tolstoy was just as much of an ideologue, yet these works aren't bad.

>longer
Aren't they around the same length?

>wants to sell utilitarianism as a new, trendy product
>calls it selfishness to appeal to contrarians

No, it's bad because it's bad philosophy: franzkiekeben.com/rand.html
Although, yeah, you're going to have a hard time convincing people to be egoists when their moral intuitions say otherwise so strongly. This is why other, smarter egoists (like Stirner and Nietzsche if we are to interpret the latter as one) try to argue against objectivity, not for it. And that's even granting egoism at all, which is questionable considering Parfit's argument that it's self-defeating (if we are to go the realist route), or the fact that egoism seems to collapse into emotivism and maybe even utilitarianism (if we are to go the anti-realist route).

I always get this confused
America's liberals are social liberals?
how do you call regular liberals then, like neoliberals?

Rand is popular with libertarians, not liberals.

she's also popular with classical liberals, also that's not what I'm asking

To answer your question, "liberal" in America roughly refers to social liberalism yeah.
>how do you call regular liberals then, like neoliberals?
I'm not sure what you mean by "regular liberals" since "liberal" includes many groups (including social liberals and neoliberals), but neoliberals are probably what you're thinking of, yes.

700 vs 1100