this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2024
853 points (97.1% liked)
Comic Strips
13095 readers
3174 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- [email protected]: "I use Arch btw"
- [email protected]: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"The only moral use of [thing I disapprove of] is my use of [thing I disapprove of]."
A quote that may have originally been about abortion, but applies to most things that serial disapprovers disapprove of.
See also: "Do as I say, not as I do." or as it usually is these days: "Do as I say. I am also doing as I say and if think you see me doing otherwise, no you didn't."
I will never get tired of linking to this: The Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion
Can I be tired of how relevant it still is?
That tribalist mindset is what defines conservatism. It's only coincidentally right-wing. Some people's claims, on every subject, are just shuffling cards. They have a conclusion and it needs an argument-shaped sentence. They don't care if this one contradicts the last one. They don't understand the concept.
And they think that's all you're doing, because they think that's all there is.
I genuinely hate to disagree but taking social security when you need it is acting in your natural self interest. It's not hypocritical. Ironic yes but not "do as I say not as I do". Also doesn't make it a good philosophy to govern by
The issue here isn't her being on social security, it's her arguing against its existence because 'Nobody should need it'.
Please reread the comment I'm responded to
We did. If she was consistent, she should have just chosen to die since it’s wrong for others to help her.
That would not be acting in her "rational self interest" read the comic. Ayn Rand was a monster but that's just not the definition of hypocrite and it is not in line with saying "do as I say not as I do". She said be selfish take what you can and did. I do not agree with this but I'm not pretending it's hypocritical. It is consistent with her fucked up beliefs
The rational self interest bit isn't what makes her a hypocrite here. RSI is a position that states you take whatever you can whenever you can, so it fits perfectly. The reason we're calling her a hypocrite is because she spent years calling social security "immoral" only to hop right on it immediately when it became beneficial to her.
Ayn Rand: "Social security is an immoral redistribution of wealth and should be abolished. One is entitled to what they've earned themselves."
Also Ayn Rand:
Right. When it benefited her. You can still participate in a system you believe is immoral without being a hypocrite. This is like calling a socialist a hypocrite because they exist in a capitalist society. That's just not true. Within the realm of her own control she acted consistently. It is ironic and emblematic as the antithesis of her own philosophy (which is hilarious and enraging), but it is not hypocritical. Calling it so just weakens the real criticism.
I think you're taking too broad strokes with participation. . A socialist MUST participate in a capitalist system as that's the world around them. That does not make a socialist a hypocrite. However the socialist CAN participate in the capitalist system in a way that socialism ideologically considers exploitative (as a capital owner who exploits others). That makes a socialist a hypocrite.
As for Ayn Rand, she MUST participate in social security to the extent where she has to give a part of her wealth to social security programs. However she CAN, but doesn't have to, use social security for get benefit. She ideologically opposed social security, but when the time came she chose to use the very thing she opposed. It's textbook hypocrisy. If she wanted to be consistent with her ideology she shouldn't have relied on social security.
If she did not take it when it benefited her, that would have been hypocritical. She was acting selfishly and taking the money she could. In fact she HAS TO in order to be acting in her own self interest. Are you arguing that taking social security when you can is not in your self interest? If she had been saying not to take social security until that point that also would have been hypocritical (afaik that was not what she was saying but I can't find anything definitive, her arguments were generally just anti tax and now I've ruined my search history). Saying that social security shouldn't exist and that it is immoral to force people to pay into it and all that other bs rhetoric is not against the people taking social security, it's for the government taking taxes for these programs in an effort to end the program.
Exactly. But just like the socialist that is operating in the society they're in with the beliefs they have, Ayn Rand was operating in RSI when she took social security because it was available. This is irony. This is disgusting. This shows how her beliefs are bad and wrong. It shows how the right wingers can act against their own interests. But this is not hypocrisy. I can still believe gambling at a casino is a good money making venture even when I go broke gambling, I'm not a hypocrite, I'm just dumb. Ayn Rand can still believe social security is immoral even as she takes money from it, she's just dumb.
Acting in self interest is supposed to be without the sacrifice of others.
She views any kind of redistribution of wealth (including social security) as something that causes people to sacrifice something.
Her own words show that taking social security is not in line with acting in your self-interest because taking social security is sacrificing others.
I'll ask again, are you arguing that taking social security when you can is not in your self interest? The system doesn't go away if you don't take it and you've already paid into it. The wealth is already being redistributed and going to be redistributed. She is still going to have pay into the system if she lives. Not her decision for it to exist or pay into it. The decision is to take the money or don't. Which is the decision that is self interested?
Yes. That is exactly what Ayn Rand is saying.
And? Paying into it shouldn't change your ideological stance. Or is a vegan allowed to eat meat if they pay to eat at an all you can eat restaurant that serves meat? After all they've already paid for the meat.
Yes, she is being forced to participate in the system the same way socialists are forced to participate in a capitalist system. Nobody is calling her a hypocrite for paying taxes.
According to Rand. A decision made with rational self-interest is a decision that can't sacrifice others and any redistribution of income is a distribution of sacrifice. That means any action in the redistribution process is not compatible with rational self-interest, because the process itself is sacrificing others. She gets a free pass on paying taxes because that participation is forced upon her. She doesn't get a free pass on taking out social security because now she chose to participate in a process that is sacrificing others. Rational self-interest doesn't justify her decision because she is choosing to sacrifice others.
That is just not true. You can't reinterpret and stretch a quote to make it defy very simple logic and completely dismisses and leave unaddressed that she did not control those systems and already was forced to pay into. You don't think taking money you're entitled to, that you've already paid into, is in your self interest. That is literally what those words mean. It is in your self interest to collect on a system you paid into. Full stop. You are completely unreasonable if we can't agree on that
I can't use her own words to show how she's a hypocrite? My bad, I thought we were having a honest discussion. Go enjoy your successful defense of Ayn Rand and her ideology because I'm fucking done with you.
I'm defending what words mean dummy
By deliberately ignoring the meaning given by the author of the term and instead making up your own definition that suits your argument? Such a crusader for correct meanings.
This is a critique of social security as a program it says nothing about what someone who has already paid into the system should do. They were already "robbed". Taking money you're entitled to is rational self interested. That's just what those words mean.
Like how I called her dumb immoral and wrong over and over again? And you think you're trying to have an honest conversation?
I wonder what you think this means. You seem to struggle with what words mean
You don't have to try so hard anymore, you've already defended her ideology. We're done here, I've already tagged you as "defends Ayn Rand" so in the future I'd know who I'm talking to.
Please let me know where I defended her ideology? And you're going to be very confused by that tag if you see me in that lmao. I explicitly have condemned her ideology over and over. Hypocrisy does not equate to moral. You can be hypocritical in a moral way. You clearly just don't know what that word means
She considers wealth redistribution as something that causes people to sacrifice their wealth. She also considers rational self-interest as something that can't happen if others sacrificing anything. Thus voluntarily participating in an act of wealth redistribution, which getting social security is, contradicts rational self-interest because it's causing others to sacrifice their wealth. Her doing that either means she's a hypocrite who doesn't actually believe in her own work, which you disagree with and defend (as evident from the very first comment you made), or her work is ideologically inconsistent, which you also disagree with and defend (the comments where you argue it's in her self-interest because she's paid into it).
It doesn't matter to me which way you're going to try to twist this, you're going to end up defending her or her ideology because you've already done both of those things. I'm not going to continue arguing over those points because I've already established my surrender. You won the defense of Ayn Rand, hence the tag.
Yeah got that. Not disagreeing nor have I ever disagree with that.
No. You do not voluntarily participate in social security. It is taken out of your income by law. Not taking the money doesn't mean you haven't participated in it if you've already paid in.
Again, show me one instance of me defending her ideology because I can show you me consistently condemning it every(?) comment I've made. You clearly believe hypocrisy and immorality are the same concept but they're not. You can be hypocritical and moral and you can not be hypocritical and immoral. They're correlated but not the same thing. These are different words. I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand
this is like, her whole method. ayn rand is not a philosopher so much as a rhetorician. her positions seemingly come out of no entrenched school, and seem to rely on equivocation and wordplay.
trying to hold her to her own standard is pointless, because she has no standard.
I didn't mean Rand herself. I meant the other guy was taking too broad strokes when it comes to participation. If a socialist becomes a capital owner and someone says calls them out for not being a socialist you can't be "well they have to participate in the capitalist system so the criticism is moot". They have to participate only to the extent of what is effectively forced upon them, but it doesn't mean they have to go and start exploiting others. Same with Rand. Yeah, she had to participate in the taxation part of the process. She didn't have to participate in the getting benefits part but she still chose to participate.
And the entire argument here is over whether or not she's a hypocrite for not practicing what she preached. I think in that sense we're in agreement that she's a hypocrite because even if she herself has no standard she still preached about a certain standard. I honestly don't care if it's her lack of standards or too high standards of whatever ideology is present in her works, I simply see a disconnect between what she's said and what she's done and to me that's hypocrisy. The other person however is trying to hold her to her own standard by trying to argue her actions are consistent with the ideology she presented.
You actually were referring to the comic, not the post you were responding to. The post you responded to did not say that at all.
I literally quoted the comment I responded to
What are you talking about?
The fact that she eventually needed the social security checks shows that it was in her natural self interest for the system to exist and for her to pay into it. A safety net, whether or not you will ever personally use it, is something that is good for society overall and serves everyone's self-interest by being there to catch one when they fall.
If you're walking a high-wire, it is in your rational self interest to use a harness. Even if it costs money to ensure everyone gets a harness, and suppose you even have a high enough "skill" that you never actually get to use yours; a world that you never have to see anyone fall to their bloody death or worry about your own death is certainly better than the brutal alternative for the amount you pay into the harness.
If you go to a festival and there are paramedics on standby, just in case; the paramedics have to get paid even if nobody ends up needing them, but they are there because the chances are high enough that somebody could get hurt and the response will be much more efficient with better outcomes if travel time to the venue isn't a factor. Nobody plans to get hurt, but everyone pays into it through the ticket price. It is in everyone's self-interest to have them there. If you follow Randian philosophy, it is only in your interest if you happen to be the one that gets hurt, but this is entirely unpredictable.
She's a hypocrite, because she herself is not able to fairly assess her own natural self-interest but her philosophy expects everyone else to be able to do so.
That seems like a stretch but it's definitely the best argument I've heard. The hypocrisy is in needing social security then, not taking it. I could definitely see some arguments against it, like claiming the existence of social security is what necessitated it, but that's definitely not as clear cut and I can respect that perspective
Pedantic and missing the point almost intentionally. Must be a redditor
What she should have done was admitted she was a dumb and selfish bitch
I agree she was a dumb and selfish bitch. I think it's important to be concise, especially around something that's brought up repeatedly like this and this thread in particular is trying to call her hypocritical. When we call someone a hypocrite that isn't, it weakens the argument. I want a solid condemnation of this person and their philosophy that doesn't have holes people can poke and then over correct with
I don't use Reddit, that's really weird to use as an insult though especially when so much of this sites content comes from there
Reddit is famous for saying stuff like "the world won't end just humans!" It's just kind of pedantic and basic knowledge thrown in that doesn't really add anything helpful to a more complex problem