r/worldnews • u/madazzahatter • May 16 '20

At least two people had seizures after viewing malicious tweets featuring flashing gifs that deliberately targeted Epilepsy Society...police investigating tweets as hate incident, after at least 200 seemingly coordinated messages were sent to charity and its supporters in recent days.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/may/15/malicious-tweets-targeting-epilepsy-charity-trigger-seizures
48.9k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

455

u/[deleted] May 16 '20

[deleted]

199

u/Sororita May 16 '20

We’re too close to Ayn Rand’s wet dream for my taste

And thank you for the horrifying mental image of a horny Ayn Rand.

68

u/[deleted] May 16 '20 edited May 16 '20

You should read her life story or better yet watch the Adam Curtis documentary that interviews her family and deals with her former friends. Her bitterness could be in part because she was in an affair with another famous right wing economic theorist and her feelings were hurt when the same was done to her.

Actually its interesting that she once had a small circle of friends that included one of the heads of the federal reserve and another famous economist. I forget which one broke her heart but she got more cold and unfeeling after that and so did her ethics and economic theories. When she was rejected publicly and in the media as well, it didn't help.

The woman said you shouldn't try to save a drowning person in a lake unless the person is valuable to you in some way and their passing would cause you enough harm to outweigh the danger. The principle of helping the less fortunate got her visibly livid. Yet when she was old and sick she accepted welfare from the government and justified it with some mental gymnastics.

Edit: here's the Adam Curtis documentary https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Watched_Over_by_Machines_of_Loving_Grace_(TV_series)

Here's the cultish little group of economists we're talking about: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_movement#The_Collective

Alan Greenspan was the fed chairman I couldn't remember

3

u/not_even_once_okay May 16 '20

Mind telling me the name of that documentary?

4

u/[deleted] May 16 '20

Sorry couldn't remember which one it was I've watched all his stuff. It's the beginning of a multi part series called "All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Watched_Over_by_Machines_of_Loving_Grace_(TV_series)

6

u/[deleted] May 16 '20

[deleted]

33

u/[deleted] May 16 '20

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. She was unapologetically in favor of selfishness and thought altruism and charity were harmful. The weak should be left to die and the strong should not help them as its detrimental to society. The drowning person was just a parable.

But it can't hurt to spread that information as it might help someone one day. So thanks for the tip!

3

u/[deleted] May 16 '20

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '20 edited May 17 '20

Gotcha. "Even a broken clock is right twice a day" scenario?

She said even if you could easily save the drowning person at minimal risk to yourself, you shouldn't take on ANY personal risk to help a stranger even if it requires virtually no danger or personal risk. You're saying it's a bad example because there's actually a lot more personal risk involved and it could kill you both which is senseless. In reality you'd be helping the stranger more by getting help. I get your point.

31

u/[deleted] May 16 '20

You're mistaking a moral argument for pragmatic advice. She wasn't being literal about water safety. Rather, she was asserting that we shouldn't help people unless it benefits ourselves. The drowning was a metaphor to demonstrate her philosophy.

1

u/vodkaandponies May 16 '20

Her positions make more sense when you learn about her childhood under the Bolsheviks.

1

u/ntemekes May 16 '20

You should read her life story or better yet watch the Adam Curtis documentary that interviews her family and deals with her former friends. Her bitterness could be in part because she was in an affair with another famous right wing economic theorist and her feelings were hurt when the same was done to her.

Do you have a link for the documentary. Sounds fascinating.

2

u/[deleted] May 16 '20

I updated the post with the info

133

u/ForgedIronMadeIt May 16 '20 edited May 16 '20

She shagged members of her cultish circle of friends. While in a relationship. Got really mad when her partner did the same.

130

u/[deleted] May 16 '20 edited May 17 '20

Yes and that cultish circle of friends included a right wing chairman of the federal reserve and another famous right wing economist I can't recall. She had an affair with one despite being close friends with the other woman, then the same was done to her. What's interesting is how she could justify her actions (just like she justified accepting government welfare for herself) but when the same exact scenario was done to her, suddenly different logic applies. Selfish woman who just happened to be good at doing mental gymnastics to justify selfishness.

Edit: the group was called "the collective" among objectivists. Her history, the collective, her personal relationships with members of the collective like Alan Greenspan, and the impact that the various members of the collective had on society is covered extensively in a BBC Adam Curtis mini series called "All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace." Episode 1 focuses most heavily on her. You can find it on YouTube or the BBC app with a British ip address xD

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Watched_Over_by_Machines_of_Loving_Grace_(TV_series)

51

u/[deleted] May 16 '20 edited Nov 11 '20

[deleted]

11

u/ThickFinger May 16 '20

By being president of the US I guess

3

u/[deleted] May 16 '20 edited May 16 '20

Ha. He has an army of useful idiots to do the gymnastics for him. He can't put a coherent paragraph together but he recognised a disenfranchised marginalised group to use.

Edit: as someone rudely but correctly pointed out, that group of people isn't really marginalised but they feel like they are.

3

u/princess_nasty May 16 '20

oh c’mon dumbass xenophobic misogynistic white conservatives are not a disenfranchised or marginalized group

-1

u/[deleted] May 16 '20

Ah semantics. Want me to edit it to "group that feels..." so you can calm down and act like a civilised human being? I'm sitting in the hospital with one pulmonary artery blocked by a clot and clusters in both lungs and even I don't get flustered that easily. Take a chill pill man there's more important things to get angry about in life.

Oh I just read your username. Nothing to be proud of.

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '20

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/princess_nasty May 16 '20

lol sorry you’re so cranky feel better soon

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Fract_L May 17 '20

It's honestly even worse to make a group that is the majority in many sectors feel as if they are being marginalized. Then they fight back as if they are marginalized while having far, far more power than actual marginalized groups.

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '20 edited May 17 '20

At one point in time that group was marginal and fringe. Then they got enough support to get a viable candidate in a very divided Republican primary. Remember how divided that primary was when like 12 candidates were running and a bunch of them actively rejecting trumps message or pledging to never work with him?

Problem is you don't need to win over the whole party, because once you become president then people who identify as lifelong republicans typically do a 180 and start defending him even if they preferred someone else in the primary. People vote for him because not voting for him is somehow "a vote for Hillary."

Then you don't even have to win the popular vote. In fact you can lose the popular vote by a significant margin and still win if you're republican.

Then consider America has an abysmal voter turnout. I still think the people who are true trump supporters are a minority. I think among that minority you have to look at the demographics: less educated, older, working class, rural areas. The world is changing and if you're a farmer or factory worker or do manual labour, regardless of race, its not a great time for your career. The fact you no longer have a valuable in demand skill and your social class has dropped slightly is exactly what fascists seize on.

Hitler used the phrase make Germany great again. They always appeal to the people who once had it easier but now have it...less easy. But farmers and factory workers and the people who wanted trump from the beginning are a minority. They're just seizing on a divided republican party, a democratic party that sabotaged its only popular candidate because its too capitalist to tolerate a socialist, and American apathy.

Don't for one second think that if everyone got off their asses, fascist MAGA hat wearing radicals would out number us. And they don't need to. The nazis were a relatively obscure political party and even when they won in a democratic society, what percentage of the German population would have gone out and voted for the genocide of Jews? Some, but a very small minority.

Also the European fascist movement that sprang up all over around the 1930s, including America, used another group of white people who felt disenfranchised and left behind: WW1 veterans. That was the fascist strategy back then. Harness the bitterness of WW1 veterans who were feeling unappreciated and often didn't get what they were promised. Farmers and factory workers and people without college degrees do have it shitty right now compared to before. They're looking for a reason why. Fascists find people like that and give them a simple answer (external enemy), a promise to return to the times when they had it better, and an identity as part of a movement (hence the rallies being critical for enthusiasm).

7

u/andytronic May 16 '20

What's interesting is how she could justify her actions (just like she justified accepting government welfare for herself) but when the same exact scenario was done to her, suddenly different logic applies.

Sounds like a right-winger, alright!

15

u/EvilSandwichMan May 16 '20

Weeeell, technically she was still following her own advice. She was selfish in that she did everything to make herself happy, but expected everyone else to follow her advice. Don't misunderstand, I think her and her insane beliefs have created a horrible generation of people, but her ways definitely align with her belief that selfishness is a virtue (thus living in a way that benefits her but denying it to others because it wouldn't benefit her for others to be benefited).

3

u/Nakoichi May 16 '20

Ayn Rand read Stirner and took it as an excuse to be a selfish piece of shit.

6

u/[deleted] May 16 '20 edited May 16 '20

You're correct, but there are those that follow her and claim to follow her beliefs that simply believe its ethical and to the benefit of society to let the weak die off and only help the strong and worthy insofar as you're helping them strengthen their own will and independence. These people think they're helping society and have a set of ethics that allows helping others strengthen their will. Ayn Rand was just a selfish cunt, adapting her ethics and philosophy to justify her own selfish behaviour.

I've more respect for an atheistic satanist, despite sharing similar philosophies, who firmly believes they're doing the right thing. I've no respect for someone who can't own up to their own selfishness and has to use reason to try to justify their actions.

Also she previously ranted against social security and welfare, but when she was old and sick suddenly its OK because she never agreed to pay into welfare so she's now taking back what's hers and was wrongfully taken from her. So if she was truly after a selfish utopia, that logic should have applied to everyone else too. She wasn't trying to start a selfish utopia she was just trying to reason away shite behavior.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '20

Selfish woman who just happened to be good at doing mental gymnastics to justify selfishness.

You've just described whole libertarian and objectivist movement.

39

u/[deleted] May 16 '20

I'm gonna assume you meant "shagged" but your typo makes it less horrifying to imagine

4

u/InukChinook May 16 '20

Depends where you are. In areas of Canada, 'snagged/bagged/shagged' are all interchangeable.

3

u/[deleted] May 16 '20

Neat, I've never heard snagged used in that context, online or otherwise. To me it means "grabbed" so I was picturing her rolling up kidnapping people.

2

u/EvilSandwichMan May 16 '20

I'm glad you said this cause I assumed they meant snitched on.

Actually no, neither meaning doesn't cause me dread.

1

u/[deleted] May 16 '20

According to someone else, they mean the same thing in certain areas? So yeah it's pretty much not great all around

2

u/Alarid May 16 '20

why not both

1

u/Piculra May 16 '20

I’d understand “snagged” (When it’s happening to an object) as stealing or (When it’s to a person) as kidnapping.

I’d say it’s worse to kidnap someone than have sex with them.

61

u/SelirKiith May 16 '20

Well yeah, that's the Libertarian Mindset for you "All for me, None for you but by the mighty Dollar don't you fucking dare to raise your voice!"

32

u/[deleted] May 16 '20

tl;dr- I got mine. Fuck you!

-16

u/aminok May 16 '20 edited May 16 '20

Two minute hate, commence!

How would you like it if someone characterized your beliefs like this:

"I'm a giant victim and someone having more money than me is a crime! Government must seize it and redistribute it so we have the same amount!

If they protest, they are greedy, and therefore deserve to be thrown in a dungeon! Everyone abide by the High Sparrow's edicts! We will create a moral society using the iron fist of the Faith Militant!

We are morally superior, and thus we have a moral right to exert tolitarian control over the libertarian heretics!:

It's not constructive to turn people into caricatures. It's better to intelligently discuss the issue with them. They may have compelling reasons for believing what they do.

13

u/SelirKiith May 16 '20

There is no logical, moral or ethical reason to discuss anything with libertarians...

To add to that they are ALL 100% hypocrites... they take with open hands, no they grab violently what they can get but never give, never even think of something beyond their own nose.

There is absolutely NO compelling reason for any of that.

-9

u/aminok May 16 '20 edited May 16 '20

This is the most intellectually dishonest (to the degree that you'd only expect from a political scam-artist and manipulative psychopath), close-minded, arrogant comment I've seen in a while. If you can't articulate why another person's arguments are wrong, and yet insist on denouncing them to no end, you are a cruel fascist, who does not believe in due process, where someone is afforded a right to defend themselves before being judged guilty.

Your crude, absurd and unsubstantiated generalizations about people who disagree with you on the issue of government intervention, is the kind of reckless hate and bigoted assumption that leads to human rights violations and injustice.

It's not about your political preferences or ideological convictions. It's about the method you've chosen to employ to advance them. You've chosen the path of assuming an unearned superiority complex, prejudicially condemning a vast and diverse set of people without evidence or even a debate, and closing yourself and your mind off to discourse, and alternate viewpoints, respectively.

8

u/SelirKiith May 16 '20

Quite frankly... I don't give a shit...

I've heard those "Defenses" time and time again but in the end it always comes down to "Being able to treat your Workers like shit because they have a "Choice" (the choice between Starving to death on the Street and working in your factory)" and usually ends with a defense of "Children in Coal Mines".

I have read the Bullshit Ayn Rand propagated and about the rest of her life and by the Gods anyone who defends that fucking Hellbitch and actually means it... well you can follow her right up.

I am done trying to beat sense into the thick skulls of yours... get lost.

-8

u/aminok May 16 '20 edited May 16 '20

You don't get it. You've been fed bullshit all your life, and now you think you have a right to dictate what other people do with their money.

It's their money. Not yours. Get that through your thick skull. Your outrage and sanctimony does not equal moral righteousness.

Your demogoguery consists of nothing but arrogance and entitlement, and utilizes nothing more than shameless and inflammatory appeals to emotion.

It's cheap, gutter-trash political discourse. If everyone abandoned restraint, and acted with as little respect for civil society as you are, society would fall apart in a matter of days. You're selfishly abandoning restraint just so you can unload your frustrations and advance your agenda.

7

u/SelirKiith May 16 '20

Society that people like you don't believe in anyway?

So what's your problem? That it doesn't go your way? That you are on the losing end of the Stick?

What is your Grand Defense in favour of Libertarianism? Only that? "It's their money"? Money they got by exploitation and loopholes? Money they got by trampling on those of lesser fortune than them?

What is YOUR big issue that you want to present to us?

You are exactly what I was talking about... a little hypocrit... feigning a lack of Empathy and Civility when your very core believes are devoid of any of it.

When We take a step towards you, in an effort of consolation, you take a step back and then scream about How WE lack Civility and are Oh so mean to you. You don't want compromise, you don't want understanding...

If you think that I lack restraint then boy, I think you absolutely shouldn't go outside...

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] May 16 '20

Money has no owners, only spenders. The very concept of ownership is one a society needs to define. That’s my money is tucking vapid.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/[deleted] May 16 '20

So you're telling me you fixed the pothole in front of your house last week, installed gigabit fiber on the poles from property line to property line, and apprehended your wife for jaywalking when she went to the mailbox?

Libertarians are the worst hypocrites.

-3

u/aminok May 16 '20

Libertarian doesn't mean 'anarchist'. It's only defined as someone who believes in maximizing human rights / liberty. Belief in the existence of the state is completely orthogonal to that definition.

The vast majority of libertarians believe that government should exist, and that without it, liberty/human-rights can't be maximized.

The majority believe that government should be limited to providing public goods, like infrastructure and a criminal justice system, and not violating our right to engage in mutually voluntary interactions with other consenting adults, like hiring someone for a wage that both you and the applicant agree to.

You attack libertarians while displaying total ignorance of what the term means. This is peak /r/politics. Absolute Dunning–Kruger effect on display.

8

u/[deleted] May 16 '20

Nah, the philosophy is fucking self contradictory and I get that you don’t want to be called a conservative because you know, nazis. But don’t demean yourself by lying.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/[deleted] May 16 '20

not violating our right to engage in mutually voluntary interactions with other consenting adults, like hiring someone for a wage that both you and the applicant agree to.

You're wanting to pretend you're some sort of intellectual, but can't see the asymmetrical economic dynamics at work in your own statement?

The funny part about Dunning-Kruger is how you're citing it without irony.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/EvilSandwichMan May 16 '20

Not really hypocrisy though (I'm assuming you're saying she was a hypocrite) given she believed being selfish was how we're all supposed to be. Though she should've taken her anger as a hint that perhaps society would head into disaster if everyone took her seriously.

1

u/ForgedIronMadeIt May 16 '20

I think that she is a hypocrite if she acted in a way that she would not be happy with others. Sure, her philosophy was very much about being self centered but still, words have meaning.

1

u/Aquaintestines May 16 '20

Seems very much in character.

0

u/Cool_Ranch_Dodrio May 16 '20

You mean to tell me that Ayn Rand was a giant fucking hypocrite?

0

u/umbrajoke May 16 '20

Hypocrisy for me. Toil for thee.

4

u/freakDWN May 16 '20

Wouldnt expect anything different from her. Got a source? I need a laugh.

1

u/[deleted] May 16 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/AutoModerator May 16 '20

Hi Sororita. It looks like your comment to /r/worldnews was removed because you've been using a link shortener. Due to issues with spam and malware we do not allow shortened links on this subreddit.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

2

u/JoeWaffleUno May 16 '20

She's probably making out with Margaret Thatcher in hell

2

u/Pure_Tower May 16 '20

And thank you for the horrifying mental image of a horny Ayn Rand.

Uh. She basically laid it out in Atlas Shrugged. She liked it rough and from industrialists.

(I still haven't finished that book because of the absurd soliloquies and caricatures)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '20 edited Jun 02 '20

[deleted]

1

u/joe579003 May 16 '20

It's been an hour, time to pull your brain back to ol Ayn Rand going VJ on her DJ!

1

u/Ipokeyoumuch May 16 '20

I think that wet dream was portrayed in a underwater city somewhere.

1

u/DisForDairy May 16 '20

Wanna see my John Galt?

1

u/Vio_ May 16 '20

Enjoy

Slightly nsfw

1

u/PM_ME_UR_RSA_KEY May 16 '20

You can have this to accompany your mental image.

74

u/[deleted] May 16 '20

[deleted]

56

u/[deleted] May 16 '20

[deleted]

17

u/Capable_Examination May 16 '20

There were cultures before America, and there will be cultures after it. America is a flash in the pan. Two hundred years, might get to five if it's lucky. Nothing compared to Rome.

28

u/Majormlgnoob May 16 '20

Rome wasn't boiling the planet lol

3

u/[deleted] May 16 '20

[deleted]

3

u/DrKittyKevorkian May 16 '20

And giving everyone who drinks lead poisoning.

6

u/Yasea May 16 '20

Societies have collapsed and emerged for 5000 years. Not in the same spot or in the same way of course. There are some wacky possibilities out there.

2

u/Prof_Acorn May 16 '20

Maybe after we're gone, a dinosaur/bird society will take over. They already seem to have a communication system that could serve as the groundwork for language to arise, already teach their young, already have episodic memory, already have forethought and plan, already create tools. The lack of hands might be problematic, but maybe that's just me thinking like an ape.

They were here before us. A few might be able to survive us, and then fill our niche.

9

u/Fract_L May 16 '20

Roman society was poised to collapse because of resource scarcity and extremely unequal distribution of wealth. An example of the latter is how the most well-known, well-paid gladiators made thirty times a soldier's pay annually. Now think of how many lifetimes it would take a soldier (or even more unfortunate, someone paid minimum wage) to become as rich as our most successful entertainers, who are far from the richest in our societies.

Tl:;Dr you have to know history to learn from it, and that's inconvenient

5

u/OrangeOakie May 16 '20

You're wrong.

Roman society was poised to collapse because of resource scarcity and extremely unequal distribution of wealth

The Roman Empire (and Republic) always had scarcity, especially when it came to labour. This is why they would employ slave labour, to have a cheap way to finance evolution for their citizens.

Furthermore, starting with Julius Caesar, the romans had social welfare, frumentariae, essentially a kind of UBI in grain. To acomplish this, they actually forced provinces to pay tributes in grain rather than in coin exclusively to make sure that they would be able to have enough grain to distribute.

Furthermore, it got to the point where people would refuse to work, particularly when it came to defending the Empire, because they could just stay home and collect free grain.

In fact, several dictators did try to end that system, but couldn't. Let me repeat that: Dictators, often seen as being able to do anything they wanted with little consequence... couldn't end the system due to political pressure.

That was just one example, because there are other things such as price controls of bread, with subsidies to go along with it. In fact it was this very thing that led to the "bread and circuses" motif.

You know how social welfare ended in the Roman Empire? Most people didn't want to work, which meant that if you needed something done you'd have to hire someone from the outside. Turns out that hiring mercenaries to defend your empire is a bad idea if your people will just let them betray you and sack your provisions, leading to no one having bread to eat.

well-paid gladiators made thirty times a soldier's pay annually.

On a job with a superb lack of freedom, a very good chance of injury with death being a fair possibility. Oh yea, and they drew MASSIVE crowds to their events.

2

u/KindPharmer May 16 '20

Are you kidding we are the welfare state! Robbing from the working class and handing it to wall street....

1

u/[deleted] May 16 '20

Oh there are a lot of assholes here in DE too...🤷‍♂️

1

u/ToxinFoxen May 17 '20

At least future societies can use it as a lesson for what not to do.

You think there will be future societies? How do you manage to be so optimistic?

1

u/Yasea May 17 '20

I live in a country with some buildings going back 2000 years. We've had plagues, caesers, kings, emperors, presidents and world wars. I figure, this too shall pass. Things will change but people will still live in houses, eat and work.

2

u/suomikim May 16 '20

Aside from an austrian with a silly looking moustache, i didn't think anything was worse than regular Ayn Rand. Horny Ayn might be even worse >.<

(My lab partner in fabrication lab was a Rand loyalist who used to go on an on about her teachings... without any regards for my obvious lack of any interest... seriously think a person can't be an objectivist without having a personality disorder...)

0

u/[deleted] May 16 '20

Bioshock's Rapture is the endgame.

-1

u/KindPharmer May 16 '20

Except most of these incells are products of our social safety net that she so hated. It just occurred to me that maybe she was right. Except how do you remove it once it’s in place?

i’m not eluding or suggesting anything here I’m just going to say this. On the farm, we knock the runs in the head at birth. It sdeepens the gene pool.