Glenn Beck on Penn Jillette's new book about atheism


Recommended Posts

Glenn Beck on Penn Jillette's new book about atheism

In case anybody missed the news, Penn Jillette has a new book that was just released this month. It is called: God, No!: Signs You May Already Be an Atheist and Other Magical Tales.

Here is what the book is about (from the Amazon page):

From the larger, louder half of the world-famous magic duo Penn & Teller comes a scathingly funny reinterpretation of The Ten Commandments. They are The Penn Commandments, and they reveal one outrageous and opinionated atheist's experience in the world. In this rollicking yet honest account of a godless existence, Penn takes readers on a roller coaster of exploration and flips conventional religious wisdom on its ear to reveal that doubt, skepticism, and wonder -- all signs of a general feeling of disbelief -- are to be celebrated and cherished, rather than suppressed.

With Glenn Beck just winding up his Restoring Courage even in Israel, it's a no-brainer to imagine he thinks this book is trash.

Right?

Right?

Right?

Well, here is a quote from him that is published on the back cover of Jillette's book (screenshot from Amazon and quoted text below that for easier reading):

Beck-Jillette-GodNo.jpg

There are few people in the country who question more boldly, brashly, and bravely than my friend Penn Jillette. This book is funny, provocative, and profane. But is it right? God, no!

God, no?

How about this?

God, yup!

But did it really happen? Or is it as everybody knows it has to be?

Penn Jillette would never use the endorsement of Glenn Beck for his book on atheism.

Oh no!

Never in a million years!

And Glenn is such a religious kook that he would never associate his name with an irreverent and outrageous act of blasphemy.

Oh no!

Not even after the Judgment Day and he's already sewn up his place in Heaven!

But there the quote is in all its glory. It's undeniable.

Glenn Beck is on the back cover of Penn Jillette's book and not as an object of satire.

Read it and weep, Beck-haters!

Weep deeply for your prejudice! The facts betray you!

Now, how about a little gravy from Leftie Larry on the same back cover? (But, sorry, Larry the Lame, you don't get a screenshot.)

This planet has yielded exactly one mutual friend for Glenn Beck and me and that friend has written a brilliant book called God, No! Penn reveals 'the big secret of magic,' tells you why tattoos are perfect expressions of atheism and exactly what to eat when you know you're going to vomit later." --LAWRENCE O'DONNELL

(sigh...)

Leave it to the lame leftie to start talking about vomit when people are having fun...

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

According to one review:

"Jillette even says in the book's introduction that he's 'a loud, aggressive, strident, outspoken atheist, and I'm an asshole.' "

Based on that, I can’t deny that his book contains some significant insight.

I hold Penn Jillette in utter contempt for his despicable treatment of Nathaniel Branden. In my opinion he represents the essence of nihilism:

Nietzsche characterized nihilism as emptying the world and especially human existence of meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.

I think Nietzsche was talking about people like Penn Jillette, who don’t care who they crap on as long as it suits their mood of the moment. Apparently Jillette wrote the book in direct response to a challenge by Beck for an atheist to compose a secular Ten Commandments. I do not have a strong opinion one way or another about Beck, but the fact that Beck likes him does nothing to enhance my view of Glenn Beck. In fact, if anything it lessens my view of Beck.

Incidentally, for those who claim that Jillette has been influenced by Ayn Rand, there doesn’t appear to be much of any resembance between Jillette’s secular ‘commandments’ and the basic virtues of the Objectivist ethics (rationality, integrity, productiveness, honesty, pride, et. al.). I have not read the book, but the table of contents—in which he lists each of his new "commandments"--reads more like a Lenny Bruce comedy routine than remotely serious ethical thought. (And that's not really being fair to Lenny Bruce.)

And then I went to Amazon and saw this excerpt from his Afterword: “Atheism is the Only Real Hope Against Terrorism.”

It’s not fair to blame all Muslims for the horrible acts of a few people. That’s wrong. . .At least we shouldn’t blame just Islam. We should blame all faiths. We should blame faith in general. . .Being religious means being okay with believing in things without evidence. . .Once you’ve condoned faith in general, you’ve condoned any crazy shit done because of faith.

The only people who can really speak out against religious terrorists are atheists. We’re the only ones that can say, “We don’t respect crazy shit that you believe.”. . .It’s faith itself that’s wrong.

The only real argument against religious terrorism is to try to share the reality of the world. . .We must stop glorifying faith.

F--k faith.

Foul-mouthed, whim-worshipping nihilist that he is, he can’t say anything explicit about the importance of being guided by reason. He just says we should go with the "evidence." Even so, I have to say I liked his wholesale denunciation of faith as total bullshit. His words would have a lot more power if he didn’t give you the impression that he believes almost everything is bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis,

The union of Beck and Jillette, however clunky, speaks to their adherence to a single political principle on which both agree: the right of each individual to believe or disbelieve as he or she sees fit.

They don't just say it, either. They do it.

I agree with that principle and I admire people who implement principles like that. I don't have to agree with them on other issues to recognize the one where they are consistent and admirable. Basically, I see them supporting the even wider principle that each person has the right to (and should take responsibility for) his or her own thinking from the ground up.

Both Beck and Jillette have large numbers of fans. I seriously doubt you will find either becoming a dictator or control freak.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael:

Precisely.

I am still amazed by the rigidity of big "O" objectivism to be comfortable with diverse personalities who, although bizarre by their "standards," share the pro freedom live and let live agenda.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hold Penn Jillette in utter contempt for his despicable treatment of Nathaniel Branden. In my opinion he represents the essence of nihilism:

You inadvertently left out a word in your second sentence above, Dennis. The word "uninformed" needs to be inserted between the words "my" and "opinion."

Helpfully,

JR

P.S. Your firm adherence to the word taboos pioneered by William the Conqueror is cute, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a fan of Penn and Teller, and clearly their treatment of Branden was, well, stupid as living hell. Disclosure: I enjoy Bullshit, The Aristocrats, own several seasons of Bullshit on DVD and have seen P&T live in Las Vegas.

But from what I know, Penn is an Objectivist or at least pretty damn close to one.

Dennis, this book is not meant to be some sort of deep philosophical treatise. Its casual reading, written by a comedian, who wants to write entertaining pieces that happen to also have an argument in them.

Yes, the book is primarily a critique of faith in general; its a critical work or a rebuttal rather than a piece of positive philosophy (stating what is wrong as opposed to what is right).

But how is this nihilism?

This isn't the only thing Penn Jillette has ever written. If this book is nihilism then any author who writes a single work of pure critique is, by your standards, a nihilist.

Secondly, critique is implicitly affirming. If a critique states (in whatever words) "X is wrong because of A, B and C" then the critique is implicitly affirming A, B and C. Actual nihilism couldn't even (consistently) perform a critique; actual nihilism results in total apathy towards everything.

Swearing, writing primarily critical commentary, and having a personality which is not consciously modelled on either Rand, Roark or Rearden, are not symptoms of nihilism.

That said, about the Branden episode...

1) If P&T are Objectivists, they can't fail to know about Branden. Therefore they must be orthodox Objectivists that want Branden discredited for bringing into question the perfection of their goddess.

2) If they aren't orthodox Objectivists its probably fair to say either they are a) very casual Objectivists that simply aren't sufficiently well-versed in the Objectivist subcultures to know about Branden's involvement with Rand (I think this is highly unlikely, but its still a possibility), or B) are not Objectivists but are Objectivist-influenced (Jillette is on record as saying positive things about Rand and Objectivism).

3) They decided to pin the blame for the faults of the Self-Esteem Movement (and yes, there were many faults in that movement) on Nathaniel Branden because Branden is kind of pretentious (not that there's anything wrong with that, I am too) and the general public likes to see pretentious people mocked and humiliated. This is either a case of a) "screw the facts, lets make something funny" or B) not doing the research and thus failing to realize the self-esteem movement's faults primarily came from when the mystics and collectivists came in and distorted the idea of 'self-esteem' into 'hearing nice things from other people.' Or both.

That said, the Branden episode did harm my affection for Penn and Teller. But they're still damn funny and I'm all for atheist libertarians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jillette and NB

I am almost loathe to bring this up, but this is a forum of ideas and truth. So here goes.

I have a much better theory about why Jillette blasted NB and it has nothing to do with him adhering to the ARI-Valliant line of argumentation about NB. Notice that even the people who claim that or insinuate it are not exactly comfortable with the idea of Jillette being that way. He's just not that dorky or stupid. Something seems off.

I believe it seems off because it is. Here's my view.

The Mastering Self Esteem product

Back during the time when Jillette did his NB bash, there was something else happening in the self-help industry. You can see what it is here on this sales page: Mastering Self Esteem.

That video of Eben Pagan talking is about 25 minutes, so set some time aside if you want to watch it. (It's actually worth the time and he really talks up NB--but only starting about halfway through. It's actually a nice experience to hear good things said about him the way Eben does. btw - That is not an affiliate link. I don't make a dime from it.)

So, how is this pertinent to Jillette and NB?

Let's not forget that Jillette has constantly lampooned the self-help industry and the self-help gurus who have appeared on Oprah. Now, if you watched the video, you can't help but notice that this Mastering Self Esteem project by Eben Pagan is a line-up of some of the very people and issues that Jillette habitually blasts. And these people are doing an homage to NB.

The timing of the product launch and Jillette's roast are close enough to think about a correlation between them.

And, by-the-way, the product only costs 500 smackaroonies.

To be fair, it's actually $497--and further actually, the price is quite good for the overwhelming volume of stuff Pagan provides. Er... that is, if you believe this stuff has value. If you don't, like Jillette obviously does not, this sounds like a rip-off with all due pomp and circumstance.

For the record, I, myself, find value in this stuff.

As an aside, Pagan mentioned in the video that the program would only be open for 2 weeks. But the buy button on that sales page still works, so it is still open. I don't know why he doesn't change that message, but there it is. I don't think that is a good thing. Critics can accuse this of being a false scarcity tactic to increase sales. I believe it is an oversight, but whatever. The end result is that you don't get live participation in the webinars anymore, but you do get the recordings of them along with all the other stuff. So if you look at it from a "live" standpoint, the scarcity is real. However, that is not the way Pagan said it. (And, to be clear, I don't approve of misleading the public.)

So what has this "aside" got to do with Jillette or NB?

Hmmmm...

Nothing...

:)

Disclaimer about Eben

There are another 2 items--underbelly items--I am going to bring up, but first, I want to make a disclaimer about Eben Pagan despite any criticism I may have of him.

I think Eben Pagan rocks.

And what does that have to do with Jillette or NB?

Actually, something, so please stay with me.

Among the self-help professionals, I believe Eben is top of the top quality-wise. He not only simplifies a vast quantity of information, he puts it in a form you can use for practical results. I hold that he represents the "expert" industry at its finest. I have not yet gone through his entire "Wake Up Productive" course (which is included in Mastering Self Esteem), but from the few videos I have seen, I have learned some very useful time management stuff that I did not know (and some stuff about diet, of all things). I presume the rest of the course is of equal high quality. Also, I have been through several of Pagan's other courses. Not one dud, so far. On the contrary. It's all good.

One of the main problems most of Pagan's critics have is that he charges a high price. It is true that he does that, but since when has charging a high price ever been morally wrong--especially for Objectivists and libertarians? So I have no problem with that. And there is a yang to that yin. You can find most of Pagan's stuff bootlegged on torrents and download sites in the darker corners of the Internet. I once saw him in an interview address this issue. He basically said he comes from an abundance mindset, so that if anyone gets his material in that manner and gets value from it, he is happy with the good karma that comes from it.

That shows you what kind of person he is.

Underbelly Part 1--Scoring With Women

Now for the underbelly--of which Jillette has to know.

The first thing is that Eben Pagan has a persona he developed for the pick-up women industry--David DeAngelo. This is how he made his name before he went into information products in general. The flagship product of David DeAngelo is "Double Your Dating" and it is one of the most popular ones out there. Since Eben looks like a total nerd and dork, he was the perfect face for that product. (Think about who buys that stuff. :) )

Now take a look at what Jillette thinks of the PUA (pick-up-artist) industry. Google it. There are whole episodes of TV shows devoted to it. Then imagine Jillette learning that one of the big dogs in that industry is promoting NB as the grandfather of his skills. (Added, of course, to what he thinks about the line-up in the Mastering Self Esteem project.)

Is it any wonder he bashed NB?

Underbelly Part 2--Salty and the Syndicate

There's even a seedier side--and this one is something I really thought hard about before writing on it. But hell, fact is fact.

You can learn oodles of stuff about the sewage of the self-help world (and about Eben Pagan) on a quite colorful site: The Salty Droid.

(Frankly, this is what Lindsay Perigo should have been if he had any measure of integrity instead of the raw hatred and lusting after guru status that drives him.)

This foul-mouthed robot persona is the creation of one Jason Jones (you can read here the start of his interview with himself), a lawyer in Chicago on a personal mission from hell. Although the Droid is a persona (Avenging Angel-bot with a Dirty Face), Jones backs up his attacks on self-help gurus with court documents, audio and video recordings, and other factual proof. This has earned him exponential growth in popularity.

One of his targets is The Syndicate--a group of Internet marketing gurus who promote each other's stuff to their email lists in the manner of a cartel. And guess where Eben can be found? Hmmmmmm...?

To get some perspective on what this cartel means, let's think about some numbers. Suppose Guru A has a list of 800,000 people (which a few of these people have if not more). Suppose 0.05% (one twentieth of one percent) of the people he sends an email to buys a product--that means 400 sales for one email blast. Now suppose that product goes for $2,000 and his commission is 50% (which is quite normal among that crowd). That's $400,000 in commission for one email.

To be fair, it's never "one" email. There's a technique called "product launch" that goes with it, so there's a bit more work involved for the affiliate Guru--and he will offer bonuses. At least those numbers are the way it used to be. Frankly, I don't think they are that high anymore because of the huge quantity of crap launches that have recently happened. But the steady stream of newbies into the funnel always guarantees that some great money comes from this.

Now let's look at Guru B. It's the same story.

And the same with Guru C, Guru D and all the other Gurus in the Syndicate. Their only obligation is that they have to promote each other's stuff so that the others will promote their stuff. And, like I said, commissions are usually 50%.

As I hinted, Eben Pagan is a member of this Syndicate. I always feel embarrassed when I get an email from him promoting some garbage (not all of it is garbage, only a ton of it is), but the truth is that he sold out integrity-wise for the millions of dollars the Syndicate provides him in extra sales of his own products (which are generally very high quality). I, myself, don't trust his recommendations any longer.

I expect there is going to be some legal stuff coming down on these folks before too long. I don't support the involvement of the state (I think old Salty Droid would do a great job on them over time as it is), but I see it coming.

Back to Jillette and NB

I believe that Penn Jillette is aware of all of this--and he was aware of it before, back when he did the Branden bash. Let's keep in mind that Mastering Self Esteem was pumped out to this Guru email circuit.

But Jillette has his own demons, to coin a phrase. Sometimes he is booked to speak at events where some of the people in the Mastering Self Esteem project are also booked (like Brian Tracy, Joe Polish, Eben himself, etc.). So, in order to keep up his satire of the self-help world, who better to go after than the person receiving the homage--the one who never appears at those events? It sends a message, but it doesn't burn his bridges.

If it looks like nobody in this whole affair has a Certificate of Sainthood, well... that's because nobody does.

Not one.

I am glad NB got some thick change out of it for his old age, though. He deserves it, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart.

What About Glenn?

Since this is on a Glenn Beck thread, let me end by saying something Glenn would say. Don't believe a word of what I just wrote merely because it comes from me. Go do your own research and homework. Read everything. Check all facts. See stuff for yourself.

And then come to your own conclusions. If you end up thinking Penn Jillette suddenly turned into a James Valliant fan, more power to ya'. I know what I think and it ain't that.

Like I said, think for yourself. My conclusions are merely a frame to help get you started.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Just to clarify, I was merely proposing an hypothesis. I don't think my list of alternatives are the only ones. Your information certainly is eye-opening.

That said, it does end up boiling down to Penn pinning all the flaws of the self-esteem movement on Branden, which is allocating blame to someone for the results of substantially modified and heavily altered versions of their ideas (much like Rand's targeting of Kant, even if the blame is more appropriately assigned to Hegel and Fichte).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, it does end up boiling down to Penn pinning all the flaws of the self-esteem movement on Branden...

Andrew,

This actually supports my post.

If you listen to the Pagan video on the sales page, he attributes NB with starting the entire self esteem movement. (NB does, too, for that matter.)

It only stands to reason that Jillette's lampoon would attribute all the faults of the self esteem movement to its "founder." That kind of thinking is how comics make stuff funny.

(btw - I wasn't criticizing anyone, and that includes you. I was just adding enough different valid information so that people within the Objectivist/libertarian mindset can see that there is a whole other range of possibilities for stuff like this outside of the traditional oversimplified imitation of Rand's approach--which is that people often use principles as a crutch instead of a tool. And I speak as one who has done that way too much, myself. We tend to stay within an intellectual principle-bubble when people or certain hot-button items within our subculture are referenced. Often, that bubble is too limited for us to be able to see the real reasons for things. Even today, I often have to force myself to observe first, then apply principles. I've done the contrary so much that it's turned into a bad habit.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jillette and NB

I have a much better theory about why Jillette blasted NB and it has nothing to do with him adhering to the ARI-Valliant line of argumentation about NB. Notice that even the people who claim that or insinuate it are not exactly comfortable with the idea of Jillette being that way. He's just not that dorky or stupid. Something seems off.

IMO your theory isn’t better, but is just as far fetched. Maybe we should all send Penn an email, to prompt him to do a “Penn Point” on the subject.

You can learn oodles of stuff about the sewage of the self-help world (and about Eben Pagan) on a quite colorful site: The Salty Droid.

(Frankly, this is what Lindsay Perigo should have been if he had any measure of integrity instead of the raw hatred and lusting after guru status that drives him.)

The 10 steps article could have been a career guide for Jabba. Note:

8. Brag

9. Develop a Personality Disorder

10. Self-Destruct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis,

The union of Beck and Jillette, however clunky, speaks to their adherence to a single political principle on which both agree: the right of each individual to believe or disbelieve as he or she sees fit.

They don't just say it, either. They do it.

I agree with that principle and I admire people who implement principles like that. I don't have to agree with them on other issues to recognize the one where they are consistent and admirable. Basically, I see them supporting the even wider principle that each person has the right to (and should take responsibility for) his or her own thinking from the ground up.

Both Beck and Jillette have large numbers of fans. I seriously doubt you will find either becoming a dictator or control freak.

Michael

Michael:

Precisely.

I am still amazed by the rigidity of big "O" objectivism to be comfortable with diverse personalities who, although bizarre by their "standards," share the pro freedom live and let live agenda.

Adam

You are not alone in being amazed.

Makes you wonder why Ayn Rand made that silly connection betwen being rational and being moral.

'Live and let live' and forget all that foolish theorizing about "morality." So what if anyone trashes someone you admire? So what if someone decides to spend their life lying in the gutter with a bottle of Jack Daniels? Who cares about all that childish nonsense about moral values? Or standing up for what's right?

Kindly dispense with the "neo-Objectivists" label and just call yourselves libertarians, because what you are advocating bears no resemblance at all to the ideas of Ayn Rand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis, this book is not meant to be some sort of deep philosophical treatise. Its casual reading, written by a comedian, who wants to write entertaining pieces that happen to also have an argument in them.

Yes, the book is primarily a critique of faith in general; its a critical work or a rebuttal rather than a piece of positive philosophy (stating what is wrong as opposed to what is right).

But how is this nihilism?

This isn't the only thing Penn Jillette has ever written. If this book is nihilism then any author who writes a single work of pure critique is, by your standards, a nihilist.

Secondly, critique is implicitly affirming. If a critique states (in whatever words) "X is wrong because of A, B and C" then the critique is implicitly affirming A, B and C. Actual nihilism couldn't even (consistently) perform a critique; actual nihilism results in total apathy towards everything.

Swearing, writing primarily critical commentary, and having a personality which is not consciously modeled on either Rand, Roark or Rearden, are not symptoms of nihilism.

Here is how I characterized nihilism above:

I hold Penn Jillette in utter contempt for his despicable treatment of Nathaniel Branden. In my opinion he represents the essence of nihilism:

Nietzsche characterized nihilism as emptying the world and especially human existence of meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.

I think Nietzsche was talking about people like Penn Jillette, who don’t care who they crap on as long as it suits their mood of the moment.

I explained what I meant by nihilism and also provided a link to the wikipedia entry on nihilism. Nihilism represents a basic attitude of contempt toward human values in general. Much like altruism, it is not possible to be consistently opposed to values as such and remain alive.

From what I can tell, Penn Jillette comes as close as anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis,

The union of Beck and Jillette, however clunky, speaks to their adherence to a single political principle on which both agree: the right of each individual to believe or disbelieve as he or she sees fit.

They don't just say it, either. They do it.

I agree with that principle and I admire people who implement principles like that. I don't have to agree with them on other issues to recognize the one where they are consistent and admirable. Basically, I see them supporting the even wider principle that each person has the right to (and should take responsibility for) his or her own thinking from the ground up.

Both Beck and Jillette have large numbers of fans. I seriously doubt you will find either becoming a dictator or control freak.

Michael

Michael:

Precisely.

I am still amazed by the rigidity of big "O" objectivism to be comfortable with diverse personalities who, although bizarre by their "standards," share the pro freedom live and let live agenda.

Adam

You are not alone in being amazed.

Makes you wonder why Ayn Rand made that silly connection between being rational and being moral.

'Live and let live' and forget all that foolish theorizing about "morality." So what if anyone trashes someone you admire? So what if someone decides to spend their life lying in the gutter with a bottle of Jack Daniels? Who cares about all that childish nonsense about moral values? Or standing up for what's right?

Kindly dispense with the "neo-Objectivists" label and just call yourselves libertarians, because what you are advocating bears no resemblance at all to the ideas of Ayn Rand.

Dennis:

You actually consider what you posted an argument?

Ayn's linkage between the rational and the moral is fully understood. However, it does not condemn someone to Objectivist "monkhood," where we, in order to keep our moral purity badges, only associate with the folks who passed the rational moral purity tests.

Only laugh at pre-authorized morally pure comedians.

In fact, St. Ayn would denounce your penchant for football cheerleaders as not being either rational, or morally pure, don't you think?

Adam

building the Ayn Calvinist Shrine for Dennis where the morally pure and rational can "prey" on buxom football cheerleaders

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is how I characterized nihilism above:

I hold Penn Jillette in utter contempt for his despicable treatment of Nathaniel Branden. In my opinion he represents the essence of nihilism:

Nietzsche characterized nihilism as emptying the world and especially human existence of meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.

I think Nietzsche was talking about people like Penn Jillette, who don’t care who they crap on as long as it suits their mood of the moment.

From what I can tell, Penn Jillette comes as close as anyone.

I haven't seen Penn Jillette do anything that is "emptying the world and especially human existence of meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value."

Whilst yes, he skewered Branden (I should add that the reasons he skewered Branden were actual faults of the self-esteem movement, but they resulted from non-Bradenian elements of it.. it was an instance of incorrect targeting), he's also skewered plenty of mystics, altruists and anti-Enlightenment types. And by skewering them he's implicitly affirming the opposites of what they espouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are not alone in being amazed.

Makes you wonder why Ayn Rand made that silly connection between being rational and being moral.

'Live and let live' and forget all that foolish theorizing about "morality." So what if anyone trashes someone you admire? So what if someone decides to spend their life lying in the gutter with a bottle of Jack Daniels? Who cares about all that childish nonsense about moral values? Or standing up for what's right?

Kindly dispense with the "neo-Objectivists" label and just call yourselves libertarians, because what you are advocating bears no resemblance at all to the ideas of Ayn Rand.

Dennis:

You actually consider what you posted an argument?

Ayn's linkage between the rational and the moral is fully understood. However, it does not condemn someone to Objectivist "monkhood," where we, in order to keep our moral purity badges, only associate with the folks who passed the rational moral purity tests.

Only laugh at pre-authorized morally pure comedians.

In fact, St. Ayn would denounce your penchant for football cheerleaders as not being either rational, or morally pure, don't you think?

Adam

building the Ayn Calvinist Shrine for Dennis where the morally pure and rational can "prey" on buxom football cheerleaders

Adam

When did I ever say the things you’re attributing to me? I said nothing about “condemning” anyone or refusing to associate with anyone or setting arbitrary rules about which comedians it’s okay to laugh at.

I simply said that I have contempt for Penn Jillette and that I think he is a nihilist. I also said that my opinion of Beck was lowered somewhat because of his wholesale endorsement of Penn's foul-mouthed, obscenity-laced book. I gave my reasons, and you and Michael suggested it was wrong to morally evaluate anyone who advocates ‘live and let live.’

I can tell you for sure that if I were in the same room with Penn Jillette and he began talking about Ayn Rand in the way that he does in the “Pennpoint” video (above) I would likely leave the room. He frequently disgusts me. That doesn’t mean I would necessarily “condemn” him or even refuse to ever associate with him. He’s probably a “nice guy.” Lots of people are “nice guys” but I’m still going to evaluate them. I evaluate everything.

In answer to your question: No, I do not think Ayn Rand would disapprove of the fact that I like buxom cheerleaders, or buxom women in general. She sure didn't hold it against Mickey Spillane.

I make no claims to absolute moral purity. Far from it. There are plenty of times when I may do things which I later decide were unworthy of me. For instance, I often tell myself to wait an hour before hitting “add reply,” and then go ahead and do it anyway. Check out my last post on the Bachman thread in the Garbage Pile (“Sarah Palin Says Size Does Matter”).

Ann Coulter recently said that the reason she likes Bill Marr is that he’s funny, and being funny excuses just about everything. I couldn't stop laughing, so I hit “add reply.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen Penn Jillette do anything that is "emptying the world and especially human existence of meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value."

Whilst yes, he skewered Branden (I should add that the reasons he skewered Branden were actual faults of the self-esteem movement, but they resulted from non-Bradenian elements of it.. it was an instance of incorrect targeting), he's also skewered plenty of mystics, altruists and anti-Enlightenment types. And by skewering them he's implicitly affirming the opposites of what they espouse.

Andrew,

Penn Jillette quotes from the Pennpoint video (above):

“The Atlas Society. Crazy people talking about crazy things.”

“Ayn Rand was a fucking whack job.”

“If one thing was right about Ayn Rand, she was a blast to fuck.”

“Wouldn’t it be cool, just for blasphemy purposes, to tell Mel Gibson that 'I jacked off during your movie'?”

He claims to admire Ayn Rand, and then uses his TV show to crap on one of the most prominent exponents of her ideas.

I regard such unintelligible behavior and such “commentary” as “emptying the world and especially human existence of meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.”

If you don’t, then we will just agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are not alone in being amazed.

Makes you wonder why Ayn Rand made that silly connection between being rational and being moral.

'Live and let live' and forget all that foolish theorizing about "morality." So what if anyone trashes someone you admire? So what if someone decides to spend their life lying in the gutter with a bottle of Jack Daniels? Who cares about all that childish nonsense about moral values? Or standing up for what's right?

Kindly dispense with the "neo-Objectivists" label and just call yourselves libertarians, because what you are advocating bears no resemblance at all to the ideas of Ayn Rand.

Dennis:

You actually consider what you posted an argument?

Ayn's linkage between the rational and the moral is fully understood. However, it does not condemn someone to Objectivist "monkhood," where we, in order to keep our moral purity badges, only associate with the folks who passed the rational moral purity tests.

Only laugh at pre-authorized morally pure comedians.

In fact, St. Ayn would denounce your penchant for football cheerleaders as not being either rational, or morally pure, don't you think?

Adam

building the Ayn Calvinist Shrine for Dennis where the morally pure and rational can "prey" on buxom football cheerleaders

Adam

When did I ever say the things you're attributing to me? I said nothing about "condemning" anyone or refusing to associate with anyone or setting arbitrary rules about which comedians it's okay to laugh at.

I simply said that I have contempt for Penn Jillette and that I think he is a nihilist. I also said that my opinion of Beck was lowered somewhat because of his wholesale endorsement of Penn's foul-mouthed, obscenity-laced book. I gave my reasons, and you and Michael suggested it was wrong to morally evaluate anyone who advocates 'live and let live.'

I can tell you for sure that if I were in the same room with Penn Jillette and he began talking about Ayn Rand in the way that he does in the "Pennpoint" video (above) I would likely leave the room. He frequently disgusts me. That doesn't mean I would necessarily "condemn" him or even refuse to ever associate with him. He's probably a "nice guy." Lots of people are "nice guys" but I'm still going to evaluate them. I evaluate everything.

In answer to your question: No, I do not think Ayn Rand would disapprove of the fact that I like buxom cheerleaders, or buxom women in general. She sure didn't hold it against Mickey Spillane.

I make no claims to absolute moral purity.

It's hyperbole Dennis. And sarcasm.

You seem to pile a lot of moral certitude on her endorsement of Spillane. As Heller pointed out, "They formed a mutual admiration society that pleased them both. After she died, he (Spillane) said, "Ayn Rand and I, we don't have to shrug. We can carry the weight," and, "We were friends. That's the biggest thing I can say." [Heller, pg. 311].

Spillane also flirted with her which she thoroughly enjoyed. [ibid.]

In the blue highlighted statement above, you seem to indicate that you would shun a comedian that spoke disrespectfully of Ayn. I was just pointing that out with my hyperbole.

I just find your overkill on people who have disparate points of view disquieting.

No big deal.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Michael suggested it was wrong to morally evaluate anyone who advocates 'live and let live.'

Dennis,

What suggestion?

I'll let Adam speak for himself, but as for me, this just didn't happen.

I stated my own positive evaluation and that's all. And in the opening post, I had some fun with the stereotypes of Beck and Jillette do not allow for them to support each other on anything, yet they did (and do) on a fundamental freedom principle.

A more careful reading of my posts will generally reveal that I am pretty clear at saying what I mean.

If you want to disagree with me on something, it would be helpful (and far more rational) to disagree with something I actually wrote and believe in rather than something made up like your observation above.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Penn Jillette quotes from the Pennpoint video (above):

“The Atlas Society. Crazy people talking about crazy things.”

Listen to his tone of voice. He's quite clearly being insincere at this point. After all, in a later part of the video he did say "I agree with a lot that she said."

“Ayn Rand was a fucking whack job.”

In context, he says this line after discussing her many personal eccentricities (which did include some character flaws). "A fucking whack job" is simply a very profane way of saying "eccentric." Since he said "I agree with a lot of what she said" she clearly isn't calling her a whack job for her ideas.

“If one thing was right about Ayn Rand, she was a blast to fuck.”

Please remember that Penn Jillette is a comedian and his style of comedy frequently involves making outlandish and offensive statements. This is not a sincere personal statement; this is a video for entertainment purposes.

“Wouldn’t it be cool, just for blasphemy purposes, to tell Mel Gibson that 'I jacked off during your movie'?”

Just imagine Mel Gibson's reaction to such a statement! It would be priceless!

And yes, blasphemy can be quite a pleasurable, empowering experience.

He claims to admire Ayn Rand, and then uses his TV show to crap on one of the most prominent exponents of her ideas.

I agree that at the very least, that show was terribly researched. Blaming Branden for the faults of a movement that was influenced by many other people's ideas is indeed boneheaded especially since it was not his ideas that got applied in an institutional context (the schools etc. didn't use Branden's concepts of self-esteem at all). But the show needed a 'villain' and Branden acts somewhat pretentious so the decision was made to pin it on him.

You're a therapist; you know precisely the flaws in the self-esteem movement and how many outlandish claims are made by people in it. That episode of Bullshit made a reasonable critique of the movement in general; it simply targeted the wrong person. You know, how Ayn Rand blamed all the evils of German Idealism on Kant.

Do I consider that a good thing? Absolutely not. But I don't think its absolute proof they are nihilists. They're entertainers, their job is to lampoon and mock and offend.

I should also add that I've seen the episode in question just recently; Branden is actually treated relatively gently compared to the other people involved. Also, the show never actually provided a citation for Branden's claim that self-esteem caused pretty much every evil; I think its fair to say that Branden's actual claims were much less hyperbolic.

I regard such unintelligible behavior and such “commentary” as “emptying the world and especially human existence of meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.”

Its not unintelligible. Its easily understood; you just need to stop treating it as serious philosophical digressions and see it for what it is. Its comedy.

If you don’t, then we will just agree to disagree.

And we shall.

Edited by studiodekadent
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hyperbole Dennis. And sarcasm.

You seem to pile a lot of moral certitude on her endorsement of Spillane. As Heller pointed out, "They formed a mutual admiration society that pleased them both. After she died, he (Spillane) said, "Ayn Rand and I, we don't have to shrug. We can carry the weight," and, "We were friends. That's the biggest thing I can say." [Heller, pg. 311].

Spillane also flirted with her which she thoroughly enjoyed. [ibid.]

In the blue highlighted statement above, you seem to indicate that you would shun a comedian that spoke disrespectfully of Ayn. I was just pointing that out with my hyperbole.

I just find your overkill on people who have disparate points of view disquieting.

No big deal.

Adam

I find your neutrality toward people who talk like that about people you admire disquieting. So we’re even.

How would you feel if he talked that way about the woman in your life? Or Barbara?

I don’t think you can give someone a pass on common human decency because he’s a comedian. And, personally, I don't find potty mouth language funny. I think it usually reflects a lack of talent, maturity and self-confidence.

If he disrespected my girlfriend in that manner, I would feel tempted to punch his lights out, Mike Hammer style. (Emphasis on the tempted. I realize he’s 6-6. A certain level of prudence is mandatory when dealing with someone who is 6-6. I know. I once had a fit of road rage with Kareem Abdul Jabbar.) I would certainly let him hear about it.

I do think that moral judgment is a big deal, but my approach is simply to say what I think and move on. And I would never patronize his show in Vegas. Other than that, I agree. With something of this nature, it’s no big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would you feel if he talked that way about the woman in your life? Or Barbara?

I don't think you can give someone a pass on common human decency because he's a comedian.

I do think that moral judgment is a big deal, but my approach is simply to say what I think and move on. And I would never patronize his show in Vegas. Other than that, I agree. With something of this nature, it's no big deal.

Dennis:

If he and I were talking at a party, or a political gathering and he was disrespectful to my lady, I would be very clear with him. As to Barbara, if she was there also, I would act the same.

However. this is a comedic performance in the "public square" about a highly public personality.

As an aside, the taller your opponent, the more openings, he who is lower usually wins if they know what they are doing.

At any rate, no big deal works for me.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think that moral judgment is a big deal, but my approach is simply to say what I think and move on.

What a relief! Egad! Imagine how unspeakably tedious it would be if he said what he thought and then stuck around! I mean, the constant, Phil-like sniffing and preening about the silly word taboos first introduced into our language by William the Conqueror is tiresome enough! That we should have to endure more? Perish the thought!

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now