It was contributed to by the ridiculous _Listerine arguments of many assigning homework to go read this or go read that, rather than have an actual logical discussion.

I recall a ludicrous exchange from my assertion that "Freedom = Responsibility". This is a simple axiom. One can not have freedom if one does not take responsibility for one's actions using that freedom. Nothing could be simpler. Next a 75 round iteration of circular BS ensued, mainly focused on the completely irrelevant subject of "conscripted military service". Whoever that was (do ewe know?) had their ears so stuffed with Ayn's speeches and pictures of her in swimwear that he couldn't listen. Thank your that idiot hasn't resurfaced since COVID.

Then add the more ridiculous positions condemning Trump, when there is ONLY a decision between Trump and Hillary. NO reasonable Libertarian can believe that Hillary was better for freedom than Trump. Yet, people took out 12 gauge shotgun and fired them at their foot out of spite because Trump wasn't 100% aligned with Libertarians or a dork. WHO CARES? He is better than Hillary. More spiteful nonsense.

THAT is why this site has transitioned.

*Listerine because it can't be any good if is doesn't taste terrible.

Very interesting! Read this a couple times. Capitalism, free markets and liberty also create a tiered system - the tiers being determined by ability and one's willingness to work (crime aside). Peterson isn't advocating for socialism. That said, rising tides lifts all ships. Right now the approach to help those of the lower tiers (the Proles) is to steal from the successful by the threat of force and give it to the Proles as though Uncle Sam is giving them a loving gift. Brilliant.

I once attended a meeting at my friend's house - a "town hall" meeting with Congressman Vic Fazio. I asked him if there was any chance we'd get a flat tax from DC as that had entered the national conversation. He winced and said that doing away with the mortgage deduction would harm the housing industry. I quickly replied, "If you tax me near the rates being proposed I'll go buy another house." (insert cricket sounds here). Haha!

Peterson is an excellent example of "you know your over the target when you're getting the flack"...

Pronouns as used in this way are just part of the Marxist puzzle being assembled to crush the rest of us. Anti-science. Pronouns (forget your own name). Don't "threaten democracy" by expressing your concerns, etc... Soon, they'll be burning people on stakes or subjecting babies to experimental treatments. Oh...nevermind...

Thanks for coming out. Don't forget to tip your waitress...

Right, but like all things, I take her ideas as one of many good ideas, one of the best, and develop my own opinions.

Rejecting people who agree with 95% of what you do is one of the best examples of foolish spite. Ayn was loaded with it. Some of her strongest supporters here were as well.

"Probably half of the lurkers here are theists, here just because of Rand's pro Capitalism, leaving out the laissez-faire. They do not understand the outline of Objectivism in Galt's speech which is purely secular with no hint of theism. I am sad to see that religerous revival in the USA is getting its influence into the Gulch." Hear! Hear! +1

She considered sacrifice as the trading of something of more value for something of lesser value to feel good according to some moral belief for getting some kind of self worth.
In chess it is carefully considered, when done by choice for later gain, to call it a sham sacrifice.

The speech lost me in the beginning with the Universe as being intrinsically good. Good only applies to life and not not a non-conscious thing such as an universe

"He may depart from Ayn / Objectivism in some areas,..."

Rand's personality and life style are irrelivant to her philosophy of Objectivism. I have never liked her lifestyle especially what appeared as a cult leader of the Collective.

Probably half of the lurkers here are theists, here just because of Rand's pro Capitalism, leaving out the laissez-faire. They do not understand the outline of Objectivism in Galt's speech which is purely secular with no hint of theism. I am sad to see that religerous revival in the USA is getting its influence into the Gulch.

The speech is difficult to get through the religeous gobbledygook and BS to find anything useful for rational humans.

LMAO!

I've visited the Gulch for many years and it was clearly created to promote the Atlas Shrugged movie trilogy and all the discussion that goes along with that. In the early days the discussion was certainly heavily weighted on that topic and Ayn Rand, but not exclusively (fortunately).

The "About" narrative also clearly states, "Galt's Gulch is a community of like-minded individuals who come together regularly to share interesting content and ideas with each other and debate politics, economics, philosophy and more." I would say the "..and more" is partially explained in the "Ask The Gulch!" invitation where it says, "Got a question about Objectivism? Ayn Rand? Politics? Life? Dinner? Or... anything else for that matter." The Gulch is a marvelous forum that wanders freely from topic to topic with serious discussion mixed with great humor. Of course Ayn Rand and her work still applies to many topics in the Gulch, but doesn't have to. There's a lot of knowledge and fun to be had here and most all of it is on a civil level, which keeps me coming back. Contribute as you wish, but always enjoy the ride.

I like FFA's Eric Peters Autos, that's a great site showing things under the surface.

He promised them he would take the course if and only if they allow him to record and post online every second of it for the whole world to see...

Fuck pronouns. Just speak to a person's face and use their name. May as well just use their name all the time. Problem solved...or avoided at least.

I’d start speaking only in pronouns just to have fun with it. “He him said she they were going to see ksee zee veerk seer. They them will discuss the micro aggressions committed against zhee.”

"So discussions on this site should relate in some way to Objectivism, not simply to philosophy in general."

How is Objectivism to claim superiority if not in the comparison to other ideologies? I firmly disagree with the notion that only Objectivism should be discussed on this forum because such a claim makes the assumption that the discussion is over. (Where have we heard that before?) I'll just also add that as a paid member of this forum for more than ten years, you're going to have a hard time winning people over if you can't 1) relate to them and 2) build bridges of knowledge between the two of you. If you're so focused on the differences or what makes you right, it's vinegar to flies.

Any theory - especially one so encompassing as a social theory - should be openly debated and challenged if only to verify its veracity. And there is no better way to do that in my mind than by either bringing up some current event and discussing it in context of what should be or contrasting some other philosophy to Objectivism. Let the merits of any philosophy speak for (or against) it and let's objectively call a spade a spade.

I didn't say it was stagnant. I said (and stand by) dedicated "only" to... MANY others contribute to a Gulch. Ayn's writings are absolutely NOT then only scripture. And, just like I said, many others have valuable input as well.

If that insults you, it shouldn't. It shouldn't even insult Ayn.

Wow. That's just insane.

it's also happening in the rest of the world. I refused to call someone by their "pronouns" and now my daughter hasn't spoken to me in a year and half as a result (and she wasn't the one making the request.) She says she never will again, either. As a result, I haven't been screamed at, nor forced to speak lies in all that time. I wonder if she even realizes what she has done.

"However, a site dedicated only to her, her writings, and a stagnant philosophy is a waste."

That's both inaccurate and insulting. Her philosophy is not "stagnant", and a site dedicated to anything of interest to a sufficient number of people is not a "waste".

The “about” section of this forum describes it as “the largest active online community focused on the propagation of Ayn Rand's ideas.” So discussions on this site should relate in some way to Objectivism, not simply to philosophy in general. For example, both fishing and chess are (for most people) hobbies, but it wouldn’t be appropriate to post a discussion that’s mainly about chess or other hobbies on a fishing forum.

He was forced to attend a "sensitivity training" course or have his license revoked. He vowed never to use pronouns though: his argument was that as a licensed psychologist he couldn't treat anyone properly by conforming to their delusions.

What was really telling about the lawsuit was that it wasn't any of Peterson's patients who brought the suit. It was the industry itself - and they never should have been granted standing to sue because they couldn't show any harm. It was the most targeted, bogus lawsuit outside of Trump's impeachments.

Although he lost the case in the Canadian Supreme Court, he didn't start using the "proper" pronouns, did he? (Serious question - I haven't heard either way, but I know what I hope....)

"This sounds so wonderful, why hasn't it been tried and proven successful?"

Because one has to get past the platitudes and get to the underlying precepts to determine if something is going to work. Marx' stuff fails because it proposes inequality: communism always fails because it creates a tiered society.

Peterson isn't advocating for socialism, and if one spends any time listening to him, one finds that he patently rejects it in favor of personal accomplishment, self-actualization, and personal growth. It's right here in this speech as well. He doesn't advocate for some low-minded slog through life, but in exploring and finding meaning from top to bottom. But he realizes that this process doesn't happen in a vacuum - that part of what gives life meaning is how we help each other to succeed.

Bag on Peterson all you want, but if that's all you have to offer, you're missing out on everything that the conference was about.

Do you really read most of the posts? This is a conservative site now. Post something about abortion and watch.

However except where invisible friends affect decisions, there are very good articles posted, particularly by FFA.

Ayn was not perfect either (smoking and screwing around with guys). She made an awesome contribution with her philosophy and communications. However, a site dedicated only to her, her writings, and a stagnant philosophy is a waste. Milton Friedman was more compelling in his positions in my view. Thomas Sowell is a genius as well. JBP is contributing, and demonstrating why these silly incendiary polarizing totalitarian left positions are foolish. This is needed today as well. If Ayn dismissed him, it would be yet another mistake she made.

I can't watch this thing now, but should later. JBP is awesome! He takes on a lot of totalitarian leftists and tears them apart.

He may depart from Ayn / Objectivism in some areas, but probably 95% aligned with most people here. Ayn is not 100% right. She was a bonehead for smoking. She screwed around a lot with men. I suspect she would take issue with JBP like she did with Libertarianism ... mainly because it distracted some from her.

Rush is awesome! 2112 is fantastic! Can't believe Neil Pert dedicated the album to Ayn Rand. Awesome!