sbrothy said:
OK, as I said in my DM I really didn't want to clutter this thread up even more, but I find that when you're comparing my opinions to Ayn Rand's I have to say something (or kinda live with being compared to a certain other, just as despicable, person of Austrian heritage). I think it's somewhat of a jump, even though I meant it at an ontological level.
So, just to make sure you understand I'm not that kind of person I implore you to look at
this Civicswatch thread.
I'm not an unconditional fan of how the world works and a lot of the people inhabiting it. But it is like it is.
Not trying to hijack the thread but seriously? Ayn Rand?!
sbrothy said:
OK, I might as well call
Godwin's Law myself. Sorry.
EDIT: And BTW it was a somewhat tasteless joke. Ignore me.
* I'll try to keep this as short as possible. I was planning to respond to your DM. But since you've gone public, giving everyone the impression that I've attacked you personally, I need to clear the record.
* I did not compare you to a despicable fiend, for the simple reason that I do not consider Ayn Rand to be a despicable fiend. I don't agree with all her premises (some have major flaws in my opinion) and philosophy, but she does have some valid points.
* I did write that the points you were trying to make (as far as I understood them) were already covered in
Atlas Shrugged. By this I mean the following: competence and hard work by themselves are not sufficient to guarantee success in society. Whether you work in academia, industry, or government (especially in government), there is a political hierarchy that you need to navigate to achieve success. Early in my career, a manager (who was Italian-American) told me in a mock Sicilian mobster accent: "You no play-a the game; you no make-a the rules". I served for many years as an industry mentor to STEM students. I helped several navigate the transition to the realities of the workplace once they graduated: they were often totally bewildered by the scenarios they faced.
* You wrote that we all must play the game: if you choose not to play, people will hate and distrust you; but if you choose to play, even badly, people will respect you. But I
can choose not to play. Doing so will entail sacrifice, such as being passed over for a promotion or award that I had earned, or not securing the funds that I needed .... I have in fact done this mucho times in the course of my career. If the price of success (in terms of self-respect, personal integrity, ...) was not something I was willing to pay, I simply did not pay it. If people hated me or distrusted me for so doing, so be it. If I would have earned their respect by playing their game, even if I played it badly, then that respect would have had zero value to me.
* Remember the resolution in
Atlas Shrugged: a set of people banded together, decided not to play the game according to the rules established by those in power, established a new society, and let the old society die. Of course, this was an exaggerated, melodramatic, grand-scale resolution. But on an individual scale, we can choose not to play the game, as long as we are willing to suffer the consequences.
* I'll end on a note of some (though perhaps only an iota of) relevancy to this thread. Besides PF, there are several other structured forums that I participate in. Overall activity has slowed down; a couple are moribund. A couple of forum admins told me (prior to recent AI developments) that the younger set preferred Facebook and Reddit. I looked at those sites and didn't care for them at all. If I wished to participate in those communities, I would have to play their games. I chose not to play. No loss to me; since the help I provide >> the help I receive.