
We Built a $2M/Year Business Selling Barbecue Tools - patwalls
https://www.starterstory.com/cave-tools
======
CSSer
I was interested until I got to the point where he cited Atlas Shrugged among
the reading material that has influenced his personal philosophy. Just...
Really?

~~~
dang
Please don't post unsubstantive comments about the weakest thing you find in
an article. Those aren't interesting.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
CSSer
I think there’s a lot of substance there. Objectivism is a morally bankrupt
excuse for a philosophical system, and Atlas Shrugged is a farcical,
unrealistic and flimsy narrative awash with paper-thin characters and comical
villains that exist only to serve as an excuse for Rand’s selfish world view.
His selection suggests to me that he is either emotionally very immature
and/or that his primary driver is unabashed hedonism. I find that pretty
disturbing. Don’t take my word for it. Walk into any philosophy department at
any university and start defending Objectivism. They will tear you down and
dismiss you, and for good reason: it’s regressive, egotistical trash.

EDIT: My only regret is that I didn’t say the above in my original comment. I
neglected to consider that not all people may be familiar with the subject.

~~~
dang
The horse of Aynrandianism was long ago beaten to death and produces
exceedingly mediocre discussion. Therefore this counts as a generic
ideological tangent, which breaks the site guidelines, and which we ask users
not to go on
([https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20generic%20ideological%20tangent&sort=byDate&type=comment)).
It's off topic here.

Picking the weakest thing in an article to complain about breaks the spirit of
this guideline: " _Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of
what someone says, not a weaker one that 's easier to criticize._" It leads to
bad and boring threads. You really had to swoop to cherry-pick that detail,
which could hardly be less prominent.

The topic here, obviously, was the author's business. Off-topic comments that
are whimsical and unpredictable are fine on HN; but going off topic in order
to grouch about something, or turn to some generic issue, lowers the curiosity
level and is not fine.

Also, you're crossing into personal attack, a whole other thing the HN
guidelines require users not to do. We definitely don't need users tearing on
other users here!

~~~
CSSer
> The horse of Aynrandianism was long ago beaten to death

Apparently not. As for the mediocre discussion, fine.

> You really had to swoop to cherry-pick that detail, which could hardly be
> less prominent.

Fair enough. I suppose I'm used to being rewarded for reading the entire
article.

> The topic here, obviously, was the author's business. Off-topic comments
> that are whimsical and unpredictable are fine on HN; but going off topic in
> order to grouch about something, or turn to some generic issue, lowers the
> curiosity level and is not fine.

Fair enough. Message received. However, I feel compelled to comment that it
seems like a potentially worrisome policy. If all controversial topics are
avoided unless they are the primary subject of the submission, it seems like
it potentially exposes the community to an insidious legitimization of
unsavory beliefs. I suppose that's your concern and not mine. I'll stick to
the main topic of the article in the future, and minimize the kinds of
objections we've discussed to the subtext of my comments, if they're included
at all.

~~~
dang
Props to you for a much more open-minded response than most people would have
in that position.

