Ayn Rand

Atlas Fugged: Adventures in Ayn Rand Inspired Dating Services

|

Blogger extraordinaire and serial novelist Alan Vanneman points, via Andrew Sullivan, to this New York mag bit on The Atlasphere, an Ayn Rand-inspired dating service. Random comments at the virtual Regal Beagle of Galt's Gulch:

waitingfordagny, Chicago, Illinois
I want to meet a serious woman who both challenges me intellectually and inspires me to noble things by her beauty.

Michael, Naples, Florida
Long ago a very dear friend, Angie, turned me on to Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged.

Parenthetically, she also turned me on in other ways. Alas, our relationship remained Platonic.

Contact Me If You …?: are Angie.

dpvabc, Edmonton, Canada
My name is Daniel. I consider myself to be a born-again egoist and I have dedicated the rest of my life to self-improvement. People see me as a socially inept loner because I tend to avoid superficial conversation but actually I love talking to people who like to think (the problem being I don't know very many).

mxjohnxm, Greenville, South Carolina
"One can't love man without hating most of the creatures who pretend to bear his name."…

lostpainting, Hagerstown, Maryland
Please note: If you're overweight, I won't date you. If you believe in God, I won't date you. If you vote for Democrats, I won't date you.

Chinoy, Manila, Philippines
My individualism takes precedence at all costs, if not at all times.

More here.

Reason noted the start of the Atlasphere back in 2003.

Reason on the long-lasting impact of Ayn Rand on American popular culture here and here and here.

Advertisement

NEXT: The Case for Gay Adoption

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Interesting that if you adjust where necessary and imagine these comments written by women, they’re not newsworthy.

  2. Replacing “Democrat,” of course.

  3. In search of selfish lovers. Hmmmm

  4. Only a fool would deny that Ayn Rand has inspired great works of art

  5. Looking for a woman who believes that man qua man entails that no one should live at the expense of another – except of course when the subject is government, in which case a fairly intrusive one is required, and it’s always better to align with Republicans than evil Libertarians. A is A, of course. No fatties.

  6. “SWF seeks real man for meaningful philsophical conversations, rape. My husband doesn’t understand my needs because he is an altruist with unsound premises. Plus he always leaves the toilet seat up. Come by *my* premises on Tuesday evening. I’ll be lounging by the open window. Ooh, I hope you’re gentle!”

  7. There is nothing short of absolute success. As such, I will only date a woman who wants to be on top.

  8. Sorry Ayn, but I like to check out good Kant.

  9. Shame on you guys for not including Rob:

    Rob, Stanford, California
    Ayn Rand ignited the fire within me that was searching for the right spark. My every action is guided according to my philosophy, and my philosophy is the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

    I am interested in meeting someone that truly embodies the values and virtues of Objectivism. I have found very few women that have not already been beaten down to a flimsy, irrational, empty pulp. I have changed many girls’ lives, but no one has blown me away yet.

    I never “hook-up” randomly, I never kiss a girl that doesn’t deserve mine. I have yet to find a girl deserving of my falling in love with her. But “other people” are secondary values no matter what, so finding someone is not a priority for me.

  10. I never “hook-up” randomly, I never kiss a girl that doesn’t deserve mine.

    How boring- I’m sure he won’t hook up by plan either with that one.

  11. My individualism takes precedence at all costs, if not at all times.

    Shit, that’s romantic. How is this guy not sweeping girls off their feet?

    I would like to create a reality dating show matching up these guys with Feministing posters. Beyond hilarious. “No fatties” might be an issue, though.

  12. Looters and cooters

  13. hah, I met my wife of 8 years now on Love at AOL. It works.

    jess
    http://www.anonweb.eu.tc

  14. I knew a girl who always included “Objectivist” or “Libertarian” in her personal ads. She said it drew lots of interest because there seems to be more males of these philosophical persuasions who can’t meet anything but “communitarian” minded females.

    Still, considering the sad and twisted spectacle of Rand’s own marriage, I’d view an Ayn Rand dating site with the same skepticism as a Billy Joel driving school.

  15. The Randians are pretty apparent lately, they’re the ones making retching noises everytime they hear the word “bailout.”

  16. But “other people” are secondary values no matter what

    and that’s why i’m posting extensively on a dating site!

  17. Lonely man with no accomplishments to his name, seeks woman to support self-image as strong, superior, urber-man.

  18. “I would like to create a reality dating show matching up these guys with Feministing posters.”

    that sounds fun on paper, but even drowning them with a bunch of tequilla won’t help people grow a personality that’s not a brillo pad of resentment.

  19. I prefer to date non-libertarian minded women. It allows me to spead love and liberty simultaneously. Plus, it severely increases my dating opportunties.

  20. Reading through the ads again, I’m not sure it’s a Randian dating site. It seems more like an Asperger’s Syndrome comment board.

  21. drowning them with a bunch of tequilla won’t help people grow a personality that’s not a brillo pad of resentment

    But that’s the fun of it! They either clash horribly (which is good TV), or possibly end up with a strange “opposites attract” chemistry. Anything goes!

  22. Hahahahaha 🙂 I dated a guy in grad school partly on the grounds that we were both admirers of Rand (I won’t go so far these days as to say we were Objectivists, but we thought we were and called ourselves that). Partly, I say, because the other reason was that we were a couple of horny RPG geeks and our characters bonded. (OK, I just broke through the bottom of the geek barrel and ended up in the nerd barrel, I know. But I got LAID, so there. :P)

    We did end up breaking up when one of us, I forget which, determined that the other one was no longer the higher ideal of the other. It was sad but not unbearably so. We stayed friends. He introduced me to the next girl he dated, and she and I really hit it off. (Beware when your ex and your current girlfriend like each other, heh.)

    All I can say about the dating service in question is that if the people who signed up for it can’t manage to find dates in any other way, they need to ask themselves why anyone they find acceptable might not find them so. (Hint: it probably isn’t because they are too perfect.)

  23. i dunno, epi – more likely they just stare at the floor and act shy and weird. i know that “acting weird” and “objectivist” are redundant terms but perhaps the key would be to get them throwing plates at each other. so…jagerbombs?

  24. the key would be to get them throwing plates at each other. so…jagerbombs?

    Yes, I like the way you think. Throw in some MDMA and I think we have a winning cocktail.

  25. Reading through the ads again, I’m not sure it’s a Randian dating site. It seems more like an Asperger’s Syndrome comment board.

    lmao

  26. hmmm…

    what’s the objectivist stance on pegging?

  27. Abdul | December 1, 2008, 9:55am | #

    Reading through the ads again, I’m not sure it’s a Randian dating site. It seems more like an Asperger’s Syndrome comment board.

    Potato, potato, let’s call the whole thing off.

    http://snltranscripts.jt.org/00/00tmono.phtml

  28. I never kiss a girl that doesn’t deserve mine.

    Unfortunately, you don’t know she doesn’t deserve your kiss until you’ve already kissed her. A lot of times. 🙂

  29. Nick,

    Ten pop culture points for the shout-out to the Regal Beagle, which I always thought was the least convincing set in TV history–worse than Imogene Coca’s and Joe E. Ross’s cave in “It’s About Time.”

    PS Great IAT links here http://www.tvparty.com/recits.html
    and here
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059997/#comment

  30. Hurry, ladies, don’t miss out!

    Shocking that these people have trouble getting dates. Shocking.

  31. what’s the objectivist stance on pegging?

    I’ve got to assume they’d be all for it. But what about coprophagia?

  32. He introduced me to the next girl he dated, and she and I really hit it off.

    But did she dump him to run off with you?

    Inquiring depraved minds want to know….

    “Women sense my power.”

  33. Thanks, Epi. Now I have that in my search history.

  34. This is why I stick to discordian girls. WAY more fun.

  35. If this thing works out, do you eventually utilize an objectivist day care service?

  36. Don’t forget, gents, names like “Cuffy Meigs” will simply not do. If your name is Winky Boobsfart, then you need a new name. I recommend Brody Coltsblood.

  37. Thanks, Epi. Now I have that in my search history.

    One more victim notched on my belt.

  38. This is why I stick to discordian girls. WAY more fun.

    As a survivor of chaos I can assure you that normal is vastly underrated.

    Although, there was that one crazy blond chick with the pissed off husband that she forgot to mention……

  39. Everyone laughs, but isn’t The Atlasphere kind of a microcosm of libertarian men in general*?

    * Julian Sanchez excepted.

  40. MSW, must never touch my shit.

  41. ‘The Randians are pretty apparent lately, they’re the ones making retching noises everytime they hear the word “bailout.”‘

    That’s a lot of Randians. It’s enough to elect John Galt President. Are you sure your figures aren’t off?

  42. Really, nothing is hotter than an accomplished girl in a suit, as long as she is willing to settle down and have my children.

    Oh, my aching funnybone…

    Do any of these people ever get laid? How is it that Randians haven’t just died off the planet from attrition, like the Shakers?

  43. I’m happy to be with you once even if I think you’re an idiot, but don’t expect me to call.

  44. Semi-serious question from someone who doesn’t know much about Objectivists:

    Is is considered distasteful or admirable for Objectivists to take advantage of non-Objectivists? That is to say, would Randians find it problematic posting to dating sites full of foolish non-Randians (like, um, JDate?)

  45. How does one pronounce her first name? Does it rhyme with “cane” or “fine?” Or is is something else?

    I’m in the process of reading The Fountainhead for the first time. Pretty good read so far.

  46. sage,
    I’m pretty sure it rhymes with “fine”.

  47. I’ve heard that Objectivist girls don’t “give Fountainhead” (as they call it) because it involves personal sacrifice.

  48. Silly Randians, everybody knows that only Rothbardians get all the chicks.

  49. The Atlasphere kind of a microcosm of libertarian men in general?

    Yes. These men exhibit a complete unwillingness to entertain any kind of interperonsal compromise. Sadly, they are destined to be bitter and lonely. At least no one could ever accuse them of being “average” or “normal”. Lordy, I hope I’m not one of them.

    It seems more like an Asperger’s Syndrome comment board.

    Absolutely, these people are looking for relationships by stating how terrible they would be in a relationship. It’s like they have no empathy.

  50. Rhymes with “fine”, sage.

    Do any of these people ever get laid? How is it that Randians haven’t just died off the planet from attrition, like the Shakers?

    Believe it or don’t, but not all of us are socially-inept basement dwellers.

    Although I never knew that the criteria for…well, whatever it is you’re talking about is “scoring” or “getting laid”.

  51. “Is is considered distasteful or admirable for Objectivists to take advantage of non-Objectivists?”
    It’s kind of a matter of necessity. When your ideological type only makes up .1% of the population, you have to seek elsewhere. It’s also a problem if it has a ratio of males to females of 3 to 1.

  52. Abdul is on fire today. Keep it up, dude.

  53. Seriously, look at Galt’s Gulch. There’s three women that you see in the book, and about twenty men. And all the women have impossibly high standards. I would be doomed.

  54. So it’s really more like 6 2/3 to one.

  55. For information on surviving in an anarcho-capitalist society with few females, read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

  56. Believe it or don’t, but not all of us are socially-inept basement dwellers.

    I believe it intellectually. The evidence presented in the article doesn’t support the contention, but I’ve no doubt the writer cherry-picked the funny ones. No way I’m signing up on the Atlasphere to find out.

  57. That is to say, would Randians find it problematic posting to dating sites full of foolish non-Randians (like, um, JDate?)

    Hey, almost all of the “initial” Objectivists are/were Jewish and Objectivists generally take a strong pro-Israel stand, so not only is it OK, but it’s probably ideal.

  58. No way I’m signing up on the Atlasphere to find out.

    Ha. In case this didn’t need to be said, it is a total kielbasa-fest over there.

  59. But what I was going to say before my evil twin hit “Submit Comment” was:

    But the (admittedly few) Randians I’ve met in person were a lot like the people whose ads were quoted in the article. And that’s pretty sad for them.

  60. Cosmotarian male seeking like-minded cosmotarian female. Must love Vespas, falafel, and irony. Chemical dependency and appreciation for the arts optional. NO FATTIES.

  61. Moderate libertarian male seeking hot female.

  62. Bingo – you forgot “must love pinot noir”.

    But the (admittedly few) Randians I’ve met in person were a lot like the people whose ads were quoted in the article.

    It’s an affliction that is widespread, but I think it is more in the nature of certain people to be attracted to Objectivism than problems with Objectivism and Rand themselves.

    That is, people who were predisposed to be highly-intelligent loners and losers find inspiration in Objectivism, but never learn that living life requires…integration with life around you (i.e. human beings are social animals and we live with other people).

    Instead of recognizing that integration of one’s egoism to the social order is necessary, a lot of people just withdraw (which they were inclined to do anyway).

  63. Cosmotarian male seeking like-minded cosmotarian female. Must love Vespas, falafel, and irony. Chemical dependency and appreciation for the arts optional. NO FATTIES.

    Isn’t this how Wilkinson met Howley?

  64. What sort of professions do most Objectivists pursue?

  65. “Objectivist male seeks Cherry 2000

  66. Apparently moderate libertarians are not allowed to post on Objectivist dating sites.

  67. How about a Paleotarian dating site?

  68. Are there any proven methods to cure someone of Objectivism and (hopefully) get them laid?

    I, I mean, a friend of mine, could use some help.

    Seriously, this Randian stuff is better than warcraft or the pill as birth control.

  69. TAO: I’m more of a cheap cab/merlot guy, but certainly wouldn’t mind an up-market female!

  70. “That is, people who were predisposed to be highly-intelligent loners”

    alternately, people who were predisposed to thinking they were highly-intelligent loners rather than pedantically annoying shut-ins.

    maybe it’s like meyers-briggs disease: “oh, this four letter combination explains why people can’t stand to be around me! i’m really special!”

  71. Never mention Myers-Briggs. Ever.

  72. “oh, this four letter combination explains why people can’t stand to be around me! i’m really special!”

    Wasn’t Rand an iNTj?

  73. alternately, people who were predisposed to thinking they were highly-intelligent loners rather than pedantically annoying shut-ins.

    Well, there are more or less charitable ways of putting it, but fitting in the former category does not preclude inclusion into the latter.

    Are there any proven methods to cure someone of Objectivism and (hopefully) get them laid?

    Keep the Objectivism, but get other hobbies. I’ve been so enmeshed and mired in law, econ and politics that I’m tired of it.

  74. Believe it or don’t, but not all of us are socially-inept basement dwellers.

    I believe it intellectually. The evidence presented in the article doesn’t support the contention, but I’ve no doubt the writer cherry-picked the funny ones. No way I’m signing up on the Atlasphere to find out.

    Dating services of any kind are going to attract the bottom echelon, those who are desperate and hopeless. That makes it difficult for others who are seriously looking for companionship and don’t find the bars or the churches to be viable options.

    For that matter, most of the Objectivists I know or have known are pretty normal people except they are obsessed with Rand instead of the Colts.

  75. “Well, there are more or less charitable ways of putting it, but fitting in the former category does not preclude inclusion into the latter.”

    loners choose to be alone. shut-ins have that choice made for them.

  76. a Paleotarian dating site?

    Involving Carbon-14?

  77. Keep the Objectivism, but get other hobbies.

    Good advice.

    Long time friend went through a nasty divorce, swore off women for a while, got lonely, had no luck (didn’t help that he’s terminally shy).

    He likes sailing and biking. Joined some clubs. The bike club didn’t work out for chicks but the sailing clubs (he joined two) paid off in spades.

  78. Dating services of any kind are going to attract the bottom echelon, those who are desperate and hopeless

    And proud of it. Don’t forget proud of it.

  79. I think calling Objectivists highly intelligent is pretty presumptuous. The Objectivists I know are no smarter or dumber, on average, than other people. Though, they do have a higher opinion of themselves, on average, than others and are more likely to have an inflated sense of self-worth.

  80. “How about a Paleotarian dating site?”

    Male white anglo speaking protestant individualist seeking female white anglo speaking protestant individualist. No Darkies!

  81. I think calling Objectivists highly intelligent is pretty presumptuous.

    It was more an exploration of why movements and subsects thereof are predisposed to certain traits.

  82. I knew a guy in college who seems like he’d fit in with these folks; except, weirdly, he’s a self-professed communist. Last i heard he was using Craigslist to meet women.

  83. I’ve got friends in low places,
    starting out on Obejectivist dating pages,
    is no way to go about having some fun,
    don’t get wrapped up in ideals that never will fit any bill,
    just take some coke down to yo’ local honky tonk, and learn to chill,
    with a purty little skank and end the night
    with your dick saddled between a pair of Daisy Dukes and a set of tight buns.

  84. “Xeones | December 1, 2008, 12:11pm | #
    I knew a guy in college who seems like he’d fit in with these folks; except, weirdly, he’s a self-professed communist.”

    What both those groups (true believer Marxists and the Objectivists on this site) is a lack of a sense of humor and taking themselves waaaaay too seriously.

  85. My favorite personal ad of the “unlikely to be overwhelmed with responses” sort was one I saw about 10 years ago, a Woman Seeking Man who had a long list of requirements, including “No body hair. No exceptions.”

  86. Er. How much time have you spent on online dating site recently.

    Frankly, these ones would be cream of the crop on some places.

  87. dhex,

    what’s the objectivist stance on pegging?

    As long as the dildo is privately owned, I doubt they’d have a problem with it. Of course, based on the sampling of Randians I’ve encountered: good luck getting anything up there, the stick already in their ass will get in the way.

  88. I think calling Objectivists highly intelligent is pretty presumptuous. The Objectivists I know are no smarter or dumber, on average, than other people.

    I think the issue may be the set of people you know. Your social set just may be more intelligent than average, so even if Objectivists were more intelligent than average they’d just look normal to you.

    Remember, to even be an Objectivist you have to have read a handful of books in your life. That puts them above the average American right there. And most Objectivists end up reading a lot of additional books, because they are psyched up to hate a bunch of other authors, and can’t wait to read them so they can hate them. Frankly reading The Critique of Pure Reason was an absolute bore and chore before reading Rand [and Nietzsche] and a delight thereafter, because it was more fun to read Kant to hate him than it was to read Kant because my freshman philosophy professor wanted me to.

    Dating services of any kind are going to attract the bottom echelon, those who are desperate and hopeless.

    Right, so there’s some selection bias here. Add to that the fact that Objectivists are such a small group, and you’re pretty much guaranteed that their “website for people hopeless at dating” is going to be a disaster.

    In a way, I’m still surprised though, because I would have expected Objectivists to be in a better position to apply the ethics of the marketplace to personal relationships than other people. Dating websites are basically advertisements for customers, and if you treated them like advertisements you wouldn’t lead with a list of reasons why you don’t want particular people to be customers. Mercedes doesn’t run ads saying, “Poor people suck! We don’t want you riff-raff to buy our cars! Rednecks need not apply!” They run ads designed to appeal to their target market and if people who can’t afford a Mercedes inquire, they just ignore them. So it really makes no sense to run a relationship ad that is largely a statement about who you don’t want to hear from.

  89. SWM, must love Obama.

  90. SWM, must worship Ron Paul.

  91. Dating websites are basically advertisements for customers, and if you treated them like advertisements you wouldn’t lead with a list of reasons why you don’t want particular people to be customers … it really makes no sense to run a relationship ad that is largely a statement about who you don’t want to hear from.

    Clearly a non-user of dating websites.

    It’s not like a car market. You’re not trying to sell as much “product” as you can, you’re trying to filter out the optimal choice. The easiest thing to do is start by filtering out anyone that’s going to be an automatic disqualification.

  92. SWM seeks same. Emetophiles only, please

  93. It’s not like a car market. You’re not trying to sell as much “product” as you can, you’re trying to filter out the optimal choice. The easiest thing to do is start by filtering out anyone that’s going to be an automatic disqualification.

    That’s not true.

    If you’re using a dating website in the first place, it’s because you don’t have enough “customers”.

    Most dating websites offer the possibility of posting your own “ad”, and of browsing and querying the ads of others. You should certainly apply the best filter you can to the ads you yourself respond to [just as you would with any other shopping process] but the point of your ad should be to generate as many replies as possible among your target market. If you’re looking for a petite Ivy League graduate who gives great head, you should try to imagine what your ad should say to get that person to respond. Actually using the words “Only petite Ivy League graduates who give great head need reply” will probably not have the result you are looking for.

  94. If you’re using a dating website in the first place, it’s because you don’t have enough “customers”.

    Not necessarily. It could be that you’re looking for specific things that aren’t frequently found in the general dating pool.

  95. you should try to imagine what your ad should say to get that person to respond.

    Fluffy – that’s under the presumption that you’re seeking a particular kind of customer. Really, on dating websites, you’re just setting the “floor” (minimum requirements) for the entirely unacceptable customers and then playing the averages.

    I agree with you about the way that the ads should be written (positive rather than “DO NOT WANT”), but there is a balancing act between acceptance and filtering.

  96. respectable SWM seeks peggerphile who enjoys an occasional Hershey squirt.

  97. The Wine Commonsewer | December 1, 2008, 10:16am | #

    Unfortunately, you don’t know she doesn’t deserve your kiss until you’ve already kissed her. A lot of times. 🙂

    I thought the primary criterion was whether she drinks white wine, TWC. Are you beginning to relax your standards?

  98. What? Pretentious loners looking for dates? And they’re trying to be choosy while begging? Fucking laugh riot!

  99. But did she dump him to run off with you?

    You’re so immature.

    No. But we satisfyingly caused quite a few double takes by sitting on either side of the dude at their wedding reception. 😀

  100. ha ha, people’s lack of social skills and loneliness is funny. glad we’re all such big pimps around here.

  101. AO,

    When I can’t pick up bar skanks with a wink and a cry of “Hey cunt! Get me a beer!” I’ll take your sarcasm as something more prophetic than jealousy.

    Disclaimer: I only say the above to a former girlfriend of mine who likes to hang out at a redneck dive. She loves it.

  102. I think the issue may be the set of people you know. Your social set just may be more intelligent than average, so even if Objectivists were more intelligent than average they’d just look normal to you.

    This is probably the case since the vast majority of my friends have college degrees and a significant proportion have advanced degrees. That said, it’s still a leap to go from above average to highly intelligent.

  103. Remember, to even be an Objectivist you have to have read a handful of books in your life.

    Not really. Like all other religions, all you really need to do to be an Objectivist is read enough short essays to pick up the shibboleths and then keep your mouth shut until you figure out what you’re supposed to hate. In fact, it’s easier not to do the reading, because then you don’t have to worry about getting the interpretation “wrong.” Even among Objectivists. A fun game; at least 80% of the people who claim to have read Atlas Shrugged (as opposed to skimming it for the major points/sex scenes) are lying. Try to figure out who they are. I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised.

  104. Not really. Like all other religions, all you really need to do to be an Objectivist is read enough short essays to pick up the shibboleths and then keep your mouth shut until you figure out what you’re supposed to hate. In fact, it’s easier not to do the reading, because then you don’t have to worry about getting the interpretation “wrong.”

    I don’t know about that. This might be true if people were becoming Objectivists because of social connections – e.g. they meet a bunch of Objectivists and want to “be one”, so they fake their way through the “requirements”. Does anyone actually become an Objectivist that way?

    I thought the usual process flow was:

    1. Mr. X reads either Atlas or Fountainhead.

    2. Mr. X reads the rest of the books in a crazed three week period of obsession.

    3. Mr. X makes mistake of sending in that postcard from the middle of the book.

    So the part where you’d want to fake knowing the shibboleths and keep your mouth shut to fit in never comes into play unless you go through the solitary reading obsession first. Am I wrong about this?

  105. …at least 80% of the people who claim to have read Atlas Shrugged (as opposed to skimming it for the major points/sex scenes) are lying.

    Are you serious? I read the blasted tome OUT LOUD to my partner once (he likes to be read to) over a period of several days. It was almost enough to make me swear off reading out loud once and for all. If there is a Hell, they make people memorize John Galt’s speech there.

  106. Fluffy-In my experience, a nontrivial number of people become Objectivists because they’ve read something of Rand, like the idea of her philosophy, specifically, the idea that they’re not universally well-liked because everyone hates their genius, and set out to learn more about this new group of people whom they can be like. Since it’s assumed that everyone would read the book, and since there’s an orthodox point of view that everyone is expected to hew to, they don’t actually have to *read* the book so much as become familiar with what’s in it, like what most Christians do with the Bible. From there, groupthink and cognitive dissonance takes care of the rest.

  107. I read the blasted tome OUT LOUD to my partner once (he likes to be read to) over a period of several days

    You have a strange sense of foreplay.

  108. Are you serious? I read the blasted tome OUT LOUD to my partner once (he likes to be read to) over a period of several days. It was almost enough to make me swear off reading out loud once and for all. If there is a Hell, they make people memorize John Galt’s speech there.

    And undertaking such a task clearly marks you as mentally unsound, which makes your experience not generally applicable. :p

    But seriously though, it may be hyperbole, but not by much. As you learned yourself, getting through that 1000 page sleeping pill without skimming is damn near impossible, I don’t care what people say.

  109. there’s an orthodox point of view that everyone is expected to hew to

    I do not know where you’re getting all this, but given that Objectivists (especially on their own sites/fora) are the most argumentative people ever, I think it’s mistaken stereotyping.

  110. Fluffy, Hazel Meade, get a room.

  111. Shem,

    Its not that bad (says the man only on page 300).

    Now Moby Dick, that’s a book ripped out about 300 pages from the middle of to be able to finish.

    As for Randians and their dating, I can’t imagine a worse possible time, dealing with an overinflated ego that’s whole existance is based on looking down on everyone as a philosophy. Real relationship builder mentality they got going on there.

  112. TAO-Christians are also spectacularly argumentative. That doesn’t mean that most of them (or even a significant minority) have actually sat down and read the entire Bible.

    LIT- Just wait.

  113. Shem,

    The only problematic part of Atlas Shrugged is Galt’s speech. Read the first 5 pages of it and skip to the end of the chapter solves that.

    Now the bible – well lets just say that if I off myself in the next 3 weeks, its because Im slogging thru Jeremiah.

  114. Shem,

    I will persevere!!! No book has defeated me (aside from Moby Dick). However, I do appreciate the warning.

  115. robc- I guess it takes all kinds of literary tastes. For instance, I heard John Rawls read Hegel for fun, which I always rather thought served him right.

  116. Why don’t they just hang out in Bioshock message boards?

    I once bought a forest. The Parasites claimed that the land belonged to God, and that I establish a public park there. Why? So that the rabble could stand slack-jawed under the canopy, and pretend that it was Paradise earned. When Congress moved to nationalize my forest, I burnt it to the ground. God did not plant the seeds of this Arcadia. I did.

  117. That doesn’t mean that most of them (or even a significant minority) have actually sat down and read the entire Bible.

    Most Objectivists have not read Atlas (yours truly included…it’s booooring). OTOH, Rand’s non-fiction works and Peikoff’s Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand are much more intellectually stimulating (disclaimer: they’re only “exciting” if philosophy excites you in the first place.

  118. that was my favorite speech in bioshock. i think i actually cheered.

    then again, i actually like moby dick. it’s the best book written about god, like, ever.

  119. Most Objectivists have not read Atlas (yours truly included…it’s booooring).

    Which is exactly what I’m saying. The rest of the canon is moderately more readable, but any time you see a discussion about Atlas Shrugged, I’d bet you good money most of the people talking about it have only “read” it.

  120. Shem: “at least 80% of the people who claim to have read Atlas Shrugged (as opposed to skimming it for the major points/sex scenes) are lying.”

    Bullshit, I say. Show your work.

  121. It’s called “estimating”, Anarchrist. Not everything requires a graph to capture the essence of truth, you know.

  122. Count me as another one that enjoyed Moby Dick. I hated it the first time, a friend told me to reread it a decade later and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It’s like the anti-Catcher in the Rye. You don’t get it as much as a punk teenager.

  123. What a sausage fest.

  124. What the hell are you guys laughing at? These profiles sum up the majority of the personalities on here. There’s but a small, inconsequential difference between the two.

    The problem with righteous indignation is that it leaves open, and even encourages the dissection of the critic’s own character.

    It’s not fun, is it?

    With enough creativity, anyone can be made to look stupid.

    Also, can we leave terms like “loser” to kids in Middle School? You’ve failed in life if you die unhappy.

  125. You’ve failed in life if you those around you die unhappy.

  126. Yes Mortimer, because you’ve really taken the high road here. God knows that a marginalized minority should always sympathize with the pathologies of other marginalized minorities.

    Shame on us libertarians for mocking the social ineptitude of others when we should be supporting the unique relationship opportunities open to a group of people that openly profess a belief that they are ubermen whose standards of beauty, mind and soul are so aspirational that all potential mates must pass rigorous judgement before they are deemed worthy. Yes, unique.

  127. mo, that’s a good comparison there.

    “What the hell are you guys laughing at?”

    “My name is Daniel. I consider myself to be a born-again egoist and I have dedicated the rest of my life to self-improvement. People see me as a socially inept loner because I tend to avoid superficial conversation but actually I love talking to people who like to think (the problem being I don’t know very many).”

    that’s fucking funny.

  128. You mean because people who like to think avoid me? Is that what’s so funny?

  129. “You’ve failed in life if you those around you die unhappy.”

    If you can’t make yourself happy…

    But I understand your point.

  130. Can somebody translate Anarchrist’s comment for me? I’m afraid I don’t speak douchebag.

  131. hah. Like there are women on the internet.

  132. “Objectivist male seeks Cherry 2000”

    Epi,

    I kowtow before your knowledge of film.

    Also,

    Abdul…just awesome…

  133. “I’m afraid I don’t speak douchebag.”

    {hah!} No, you just pull bullshit straight out of your own ass.

    Pretty neat trick.

  134. Dating Disciples is an online dating service provider offering free online dating, christian dating and matchmaking services. Register now and find your true friend.The internet dating christian dating service provider with unique features : Forums,Audio Scriptures,Bible Search,Online Bible Studies,Sermons for Singles,Full Membership Priviledges Free,Ability to Give and Rate Suggestions,ECards,Flash Movies and many other unique features.

  135. it is very useful post.
    fantastic article .
    i think it is great.

  136. What works of art has Rand inspired, rather than written?

  137. With joining a dating sites for Christians, you are clearly giving the idea that you are looking for a partner who is a Christian.

  138. Great tips on christian dating thanks!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.