That was a really low quality and demeaning article. The author seems to enjoy taking cheap shots. For example zie also makes fun of people who cosplay Harry Potter. The majority of the article was basically name calling. Though the article did at least make a real argument about objectivist philosophy and taxation a (though it didn’t engage with Rand’s counter arguments).
I am not an objectivist but I found this article terrible and question why someone would enjoy it.
I found the article funny. That being said, I strongly suspect that most of this perceived funniness stemmed from the fact that it was mocking Objectivism, which I happen to disagree with, and that I would have found it much less funny had its wit been directed toward something I actually do agree with.
For instance, I used to lurk around RationalWiki rather often, and I confess I did appreciate the humor in their articles. Then I saw their article on LessWrong and EY, and the funniness quite dissipated. However, upon closer inspection, it wasn’t because there was a shift in the humor itself; quite the opposite, in fact! RW was mocking a cause they perceived as crazy in exactly the same way that they mocked other causes, such as creationism. However, this humor, when directed at LW/EY, suddenly started feeling much less benign and much more like a personal attack. And it was then that I realized exactly how members of other causes might feel upon reading mocking articles about their movement, and why something that had previously seemed like harmless fun to me might not be so harmless.
This is not to say Objectivists, creationists, or the like are correct. It is to say, however, that mocking them is rarely helpful, and, I would go so far to say, actively mean-spirited. I now believe that arguments should stand on their own merits, and that ad hominem attacks, humorous or not, are almost never appropriate. (I placed the word “almost” there because there might be certain cases that I haven’t thought of, although off the top of my head I can’t imagine any such cases—which of course is somewhat tautological.)
So, while I did find the linked article funny, I do not approve of it or other essays like it. To anyone who would disagree with me: imagine how you would feel if, as an Objectivist, you read that piece. Would you perceive it as good-natured teasing, or as a scathing attack that mocks your intelligence? The answer, I think, is obvious.
That was a really low quality and demeaning article. The author seems to enjoy taking cheap shots. For example zie also makes fun of people who cosplay Harry Potter. The majority of the article was basically name calling. Though the article did at least make a real argument about objectivist philosophy and taxation a (though it didn’t engage with Rand’s counter arguments).
I am not an objectivist but I found this article terrible and question why someone would enjoy it.
I found the article funny. That being said, I strongly suspect that most of this perceived funniness stemmed from the fact that it was mocking Objectivism, which I happen to disagree with, and that I would have found it much less funny had its wit been directed toward something I actually do agree with.
For instance, I used to lurk around RationalWiki rather often, and I confess I did appreciate the humor in their articles. Then I saw their article on LessWrong and EY, and the funniness quite dissipated. However, upon closer inspection, it wasn’t because there was a shift in the humor itself; quite the opposite, in fact! RW was mocking a cause they perceived as crazy in exactly the same way that they mocked other causes, such as creationism. However, this humor, when directed at LW/EY, suddenly started feeling much less benign and much more like a personal attack. And it was then that I realized exactly how members of other causes might feel upon reading mocking articles about their movement, and why something that had previously seemed like harmless fun to me might not be so harmless.
This is not to say Objectivists, creationists, or the like are correct. It is to say, however, that mocking them is rarely helpful, and, I would go so far to say, actively mean-spirited. I now believe that arguments should stand on their own merits, and that ad hominem attacks, humorous or not, are almost never appropriate. (I placed the word “almost” there because there might be certain cases that I haven’t thought of, although off the top of my head I can’t imagine any such cases—which of course is somewhat tautological.)
So, while I did find the linked article funny, I do not approve of it or other essays like it. To anyone who would disagree with me: imagine how you would feel if, as an Objectivist, you read that piece. Would you perceive it as good-natured teasing, or as a scathing attack that mocks your intelligence? The answer, I think, is obvious.
Couldn’t tell you, my memories of six years ago are not too sharp.