Penn Jillette is crowdsourcing now

[Steven]

I don't really understand why people are so wary of Ayn Rand? Granted, I've never really read much of her stuff, but her philosophy is about objectivity and individualism, isn't it? Don't really see what's wrong about that, it's more her fan-base bringing disrepute by association, of course James Randi took his name from her, don't like that beardy cunt much, then there's Penn himself who comes across as a Southern Baptist loudmouth preacher for atheism.

[Pepotamo1985]

I don't really understand why people are so wary of Ayn Rand?

Largely because her hateful doctrine has had a profound impact on many bedroom dwelling sadacts who have gone on to comprise great swathes of the current Western ruling class - in business, politics and economics.

Add to this that she was perhaps the worst author of all time. She's makes Dan Brown's prose resemble George Orwell's, or something...

Granted, I've never really read much of her stuff, but her philosophy is about objectivity and individualism, isn't it?

I strongly recommend you read up on her 'philosophical' positions. Her philosophy is as much about 'objectivity' as the KKK's modern platform is about the right of American states to self-determination and freedom from federal tyranny. She had the temerity to call her 'philosophy' Objectivism, and she does talk about objectivity - primarily, the contemptible, methamphetamine addicted cow seriously believed that her subjective tastes in music, art, literature and...pretty much everything were objectively, rationally and even morally better than other people's (and today, her fanbase actually argue on the internet about what modern artistic trends she would've approved of, and would've disliked, in a quest to 'objectively' identify and assess the worth of particular movements or artists). She even said that smoking was an objectively moral act - in fact, an individual's moral obligation - amongst other assorted insanity.

However, that's all peripheral. The primary 'objective' truth she wanted to propagate was that it's objectively right and rational to be incredibly selfish and aggressively pursue your own aims and goals, even if this comes at a major direct or indirect detriment to people around you. That rich people are rich because they are more talented and special, and objectively better people, than those who aren't. That people who aren't successes don't deserve the affection of their peers, or a decent standard of living.

Whilst in the case of many cuntish libertarian philosophies these notions bubble under the surface, Rand was very open and honest about actually thinking this, and having the destruction of basic standards of human decency and kindness as her end-goal. She literally said on several occasions that it was objectively immoral to be altruistic in any way, and wanted all social institutions and taxation abolished.

In epic schadenfreude of the highest order, she died alone, on welfare.

of course James Randi took his name from her

Not heard this before, I was under the impression he picked the name Randi because 'The Amazing Randall' didn't have much of a ring to it.

According to this - http://blog.tehelka.com/james-randi-on-ayn-rand/ - he's barely acquainted with her philosophy.

[Steven]

Not heard this before, I was under the impression he picked the name Randi because 'The Amazing Randall' didn't have much of a ring to it.

According to this - http://blog.tehelka.com/james-randi-on-ayn-rand/ - he's barely acquainted with her philosophy.

I read somewhere he was a fan of hers and hence took the name with the I ending just being an old magician's thing, Houdini etc. The fact Randi put Penn and Teller together and Penn being a Rand fan cemented the notion for me. But yeah, I suppose someone could have seen Penn's politics and put two and two together and got three.

As for Rand's politics I can sort of see how she might be hated from a liberal stand-point, but I guess there are arguments for her view as well. For instance welfare, I'm sure they would argue if a member of the community is sick or needs money that the community should come together to provide for them out of charitable notion. Not saying I agree but that's usually the kind of dodge these people take. I've never read her actual political writing, tried to read Atlas Shrugged once but I thought it was long-winded and terrible, but it was once the most popular book on the planet for some reason. I suppose it fit the paradigm that America was under in the 1950s. Her fiction writing being a barely-veiled attempt to 'put across' her politics.

As for the rich being rich because they are better, that is literally the American Way. Giving the huddled masses hope in a capitalist freedom where earning money is your chance for social betterment. It's pretty much why everyone loves America, just worded in a very different way.

[Pepotamo1985]

I read somewhere

I was waiting for that.

hence took the name with the I ending just being an old magician's thing, Houdini etc.

As I said - his name is JAMES RANDALL.

Randi putting Penn and Teller together cemented the notion for me.

He's also a magician and debunker, like the others.

Although, it's wicked to see your logic actually explained in a cross-sectional, narrative form. Lots of the thing you say make a ton more sense, now.

As for Rand's politics I can sort of see how she might be hated from a liberal stand-point

I generally think the 'well, it's a political difference' is a non-point platitude, up there with "that's just your opinion", but that's another story...I don't think arguments against Rand's philosophy can relativised or trivialised, to be chalked down to differences of ideology.

but I guess there are arguments for her view as well.

None that don't circularly necessitate her notion of selfishness being an objective core position, or take their grounding from that point, to my mind - but oh well.

For instance welfare, I'm sure they would argue if a member of the community is sick or needs money that the community should come together to provide for them out of charitable notion. Not saying I agree but that's usually the kind of dodge these people take.

Yeah, I alluded to this in my first post - whilst most strands of libertarian philosophy dress up or at least shroud an inherent hatred and contempt for the weak and vulnerable in society, or at least have rationalisations and responses to criticisms such as the one you've listed here that sound positive, Rand was literally unapologetic - and, in fact, quite strident and proud - of the fact she thought poor people deserved to die and didn't deserve any kind of helping hand from anyone. She saw any form of communitarian equilibrium or structure as immoral.

Atlas Shrugged was once the most popular book on the planet for some reason.p

Nah. It was panned on its release ánd found favour with the kind of people I alluded to in my first post. Since then, her followers have conspired to vote it into every '100 best books ever' poll, but that's about it.

As for the rich being rich because they are better, that is literally the American Way

Hmm, not sure how true that is. Whilst a key starting point for the US was, in Madison's phrasing, a desire to "protect the opulent minority from the tyranny of the majority", over time America grew to reject that philosophy. By the 1940s, America was effectively a Communist utopia - full employment, very strong unions, low prices, the highest wages in the world, and taxes of over 90% on the highest earners. An informal class structure or social ranking asserted itself even then, although it was probably better described as a 'community structure' (the local entrepreneur being at the top of the pile, etc.).

Rand's writing was specifically written to destroy this way of thinking, and I daresay has had a reasonable degree of impact on modern American thought - primarily because the people propagating her beliefs are the people who benefit the most from that way of thinking.

It's pretty much why everyone loves America, just worded in a very different way.

???

[werfvgbhnj]

I am really selfish. I hate Rand because I think her selfishness is inferior to mine.

Yeah, intellectualise that you dead bitch.

[Mary is not amused]

Also, she had machine-guns in her tits.

[jutl]

Donald Trump is helping get them through the door.

[jutl]

On Ayn Rand, two good reasons to dislike her beside her 'philosophy' are her flatulent, verbose prose and her naming names in the McCarthy hearings

[Steven]

I was waiting for that.

As apposed to what? It came to me in a prophecy? I divined it from some pig's intestines? How else am I supposed to be getting information.

As I said - his name is JAMES RANDALL.

No it's not, he was born Randall James Hamilton Zwinge. Sorry to be pedantic, but as that is your oeuvre, I should return the favour. Haha, you're provably demonstrably wrong about something. Have at you!

Although, it's wicked to see your logic actually explained in a cross-sectional, narrative form. Lots of the thing you say make a ton more sense, now.

Yes, seeing as I mentioned I have little interesting in Ayn Rand or James Randi, the fact I read somewhere that FAMOUS OUTSPOKEN ATHEIST JAMES RANDI and FAMOUS OUTSPOKEN ATHEIST AYN RAND may have some sort of connection seeing in their similar outlook and name and knowing that FAMOUS OUTSPOKEN ATHEIST PENN JILLETTE fits snugly between the two I just assumed what I read was true. I didn't go out of my way to debunk that notion because I had no fucking reason to.

But as usual you go from a discussion about something into a thinly-veiled personal attack on the wont that I should take everything I ever read and cross-reference it in a big encyclopedia with footnotes just especially for you. I was wrong, but I just read it somewhere it's not a notion I formed myself. But rather than just saying that you like to turn it into a character attack about someone making a genuine and easy mistake on a subject they purposely said they weren't clued up about in their opening post on a fucking comedy forum.

As for the rest of your post you make some good points about the climate of the time, but isn't that kind of the point - that the only people reading Rand would be the well-to-do financially solvent forward thinking set. It's a philosophy that would only be consumed by the people who were in a position to echo it's notion. I don't get the image hard-working labourers would be coming home to their copy of The Fountainhead or whatever. It might be interesting to see at exactly which point in Penn's career that he got turned on to Ayn Rand, when he was a poor carney worker, or rich globehopper? People's politics tend to echo their own position in society, that's just the bare-bones Darwinian nub of it. Wasn't Alan Greenspan one of her devotees also?

???

Fucksake, you know exactly what I mean. America the free, poor immigrants coming over and working hard and being rewarded with a good lifestyle? I mean please tell me you might have heard of this concept propagated somewhere, as I'm pretty sure it's been intimated in just about every kind of media there is ever. I'm off now to a Freemasonry meeting, where we sit in blood-scrawled pentagrams and whistle the I Dream Of Jeannie theme while masturbating into Albert Pike's skull, toodles.

[Famous Mortimer]

From the founders of Kickstarter regarding 'names' utilising Kickstarter:

So, now you know.

My immediate question from reading that is, how much of this new money that Spike Lee et al are bringing in is just going to other "names"?

But whatever. To expect the now-quite-wealthy owners of Kickstarter to give an honest view of millionaire filmmakers getting their fans to fund their films, while the filmmakers keep all the profit, is a fool's game. I don't think this model of doing things is good, and I think it'll fall apart sooner or later.

PS. I don't think I've ever heard Randi express an opinion on religion, so I'm not sure OUTSPOKEN ATHEIST is necessarily the most accurate expression to bandy about re: him.

[werfvgbhnj]

Is that Penn's house he's standing outside of during that pitch? If so, it really undermines him saying that he needs more money than he has himself to make this movie, with a goal of a mere million. He probably has that much in cars alone.

[Pepotamo1985]

As apposed to what? It came to me in a prophecy? I divined it from some pig's intestines? How else am I supposed to be getting information.

That's slippery work. I clearly wasn't criticising your stated mode of imbibing information.

I was taking the piss out of your tendency to reflexively believe crap you remember reading somewhere a long time ago (or maybe someone told you between mouthfuls of Special Brew in the street one day), enough to trot out on an internet forum, when even the laziest, briefest Googling would've demonstrated it was baseless.

Of course, I'm setting myself up for a fall by saying that and...

No it's not, he was born Randall James Hamilton Zwinge.

Pow. Ya got me. Apologies, genuinely easy mistake to make, I hope you'll appreciate. A lot easier than...

I read somewhere that FAMOUS OUTSPOKEN ATHEIST JAMES RANDI and FAMOUS OUTSPOKEN ATHEIST AYN RAND may have some sort of connection seeing in their similar outlook and name and knowing that FAMOUS OUTSPOKEN ATHEIST PENN JILLETTE fits snugly between the two

Randi is a famous skeptic and magician. He's spoken a bit about religion in the past, but that's generally in the context of criticism of Elmer Gantry type faith healers and hucksters like Jimmy Swaggart et al. Not sure that qualifies him as a FAMOUS OUTSPOKEN ATHEIST in any way, shape or form, beyond Randi being a renowned skeptic, who is on record as an atheist...much like almost every, if not every, renowned skeptic you'd care to name.

When I think of Ayn Rand, too, her atheism isn't the first thing that sprung to mind. In fact, whilst she was critical of 'faith', if anything Ayn was highly defensive of organised religion, as she (correctly) recognised that it was mankind's first attempt at philosophy. So, yeah, not sure she qualifies as a FAMOUS OUTSPOKEN ATHEIST, either.

Shan't quibble with that status being bestowed on Penn, really - but anyway, you're moving the goal posts, as originally you said you based your belief on the fact that Randi introduced Penn to Teller.

I just assumed what I read was true. I didn't go out of my way to debunk that notion because I had no fucking reason to.

THIS is the problem with you quoting vaguely remembered shite that you've read somewhere.

someone making a genuine and easy mistake on a subject

I'd question how easy a mistake it was to make, but ANYWAY.

Fucksake, you know exactly what I mean.

Well, you said that everyone loves America, which is quite an alien concept to me, so I was just asking what you were going on about.

[Sam]

Hang on, organised religion came much later than philosophy.

[jutl]

Hang on, organised religion came much later than philosophy.

I'm not sure anyone really knows that.

[Tiny Poster]

Ironically, the third Atlas Shrugged movie is relying on Kickstarter donations too:  http://www.avclub.com/articles/atlas-shrugged-producers-turn-to-kickstarter-for-h,103253/

[Pepotamo1985]

Hang on, organised religion came much later than philosophy.

I'm not sure how you can make that assertion...

[Noodle Lizard]

Presumably the very first fully-evolved humans occasionally thought "What's this all about then?" before they managed to create a fan club for whatever it was they reckoned was the answer.

[Blumf]

Ironically, the third Atlas Shrugged movie is relying on Kickstarter donations too:  http://www.avclub.com/articles/atlas-shrugged-producers-turn-to-kickstarter-for-h,103253/

Not sure if that's ironic, I'd guess that crowd funding is Objectivist approved, individuals deciding and acting on what they want.

Adam Curtis' take on Ayn, which kinda touches on the idea (prefigured somewhat):
http://vimeo.com/27393748

[Weeping Prophet]

I think some people miss the point of crowdsourcing.

It's not just for people who don't have money. It's for filmmakers (or artists) who want to bypass the studios and produce projects for a specific audience. Instead of one studio exec risking millions and deciding what audiences want to see, you get tens of thousands of people risking $20 for a project that's geared specifically toward them. Why would Penn invest millions of his own cash for a project that isn't going to make money? I know some people do, but it's considered a stupid idea unless you're James Cameron and you're making Titanic. I know it's an obvious point, but films aren't meant to exist in a vacuum; they're made to be viewed by people, unless you're making homemade porn. Penn's making a film specifically for people who want it to exist. So why not let them fund it? If he invested his own money, that'd be a pretty expensive gift.

Penn: "I want this to exist."

Patrons: "We want this to exist."

And then the film is brought into existence by people who want it to exist.

I've racked my brain and still can't understand why a reasonable person would have a problem with this.

[Ignatius_S]

...but films aren't meant to exist in a vacuum; they're made to be viewed by people, unless you're making homemade porn....

Now, who's missing the point?

*edit*

Seriously though, you made good points. However, in some cases, the people involved aren't intended for the product to be financed via Kickstarter (or whatever). They're using crowd-funding to get seed money and as a means to demonstrate bigger companies that there's a demand for the project and to get data on the potential customers. They have no intention of bypassing the system.

Slightly different, as this was an established brand, the Veronica Mars Kickstarter, supposedly, this was done in order to show Warners that there was a demand for a film amongst the fans. This it did in spades and it's got lots of great PR for being 'fan funded'.  Although it's claimed that the Veronica Mars production budget is using Kickstarter money only, this was according to an anonymous source 'close to the project,' maybe that's true maybe it's good ol' Hollywood PR bullshit. Even if it is true,Warners is still paying for the marketing and distribution.

[Noodle Lizard]

If anything, I think crowdsourcing might prove that the (admittedly horrible) studio system with its interfering executives may be preferable to giving some truly irredeemable narcissists completely free reign over their projects.  'The Canyons' is a great example of that, and that's with a line-up of very well-respected people in their field up until that point.

Don't get me wrong, if Penn's film comes out and is anything but horribly-received, I'll pay for it.  As it stands, there's nothing really to go on but his word that it'll be super good.

Hey, remember that Kickstarter movie campaign that wasn't started by millionaires?

[Noodle Lizard]

If he invested his own money, that'd be a pretty expensive gift.

Well, money that these same people funding this will have given him at some point or another (seeing P&T, buying his books etc.)  That's not to denigrate how hard he works for it or to say that his money isn't deserved, but still.  And I have my suspicions that this is a film he wants to make for himself more than anything else.  Certainly the case with Zach Braff and James Franco.

[Mary is not amused]

Hey, remember that Kickstarter movie campaign that wasn't started by millionaires?

Yes and you can still donate!

[vrailaine]

Hey, remember that Kickstarter movie campaign that wasn't started by millionaires?

Gimme the Loot?

[Tiny Poster]

You're a bad, bad boy.

[Famous Mortimer]

I know it's an obvious point, but films aren't meant to exist in a vacuum; they're made to be viewed by people, unless you're making homemade porn. Penn's making a film specifically for people who want it to exist. So why not let them fund it? If he invested his own money, that'd be a pretty expensive gift.

Penn: "I want this to exist."

Patrons: "We want this to exist."

And then the film is brought into existence by people who want it to exist.

I've racked my brain and still can't understand why a reasonable person would have a problem with this.

Your argument seems weirdly predicated on films being free to watch - if he makes a film, and it's good, then people will be more likely to pay money to watch it. It's the whole point of investing the money to make a film, surely?

The "people want it to exist" thing is odd, too. If Penn was known for filmmaking, and that's what his fans liked him for, then there'd be people who wanted this potential new film to exist. But it's not that- he's a magician and TV presenter, who's not really done anything more than bit parts in films since "Penn and Teller Get Killed" in 1989. He's asking people who know him for other things to fund a passion project he doesn't have faith will make money.

I'd rather watch a five-minute pitch made by some unknowns than a multi-millionaire saying "I don't want to risk any of my own money on this film I really want to make, but I'm happy for my fans to waste some of theirs". For example, I chucked a bunch of money on the latest film by Astron-6 - their pitch was "we can make it for our usual zero budget, but if we raise X then we'll be able to do this cool thing, Y and we can hire some proper actors", and so on.

These people just don't need this avenue to make money, is my problem. Someone with a guaranteed fanbase like Penn would be able to get the investment to make the film he wanted through normal channels, but he wouldn't get to keep all the profits.

[Tiny Poster]

If Penn was known for filmmaking, and that's what his fans liked him for, then there'd be people who wanted this potential new film to exist.

But there are bound to be plenty of fans who would love to see him turn his hand to anything. They aren't going to think "well, he's not really a filmmaker...", just "my hero/this person I really dig wants to make a movie, cool!".

The rest of your points are fair though.

[chand]

As for the rest of your post you make some good points about the climate of the time, but isn't that kind of the point - that the only people reading Rand would be the well-to-do financially solvent forward thinking set. It's a philosophy that would only be consumed by the people who were in a position to echo it's notion. I don't get the image hard-working labourers would be coming home to their copy of The Fountainhead or whatever. It might be interesting to see at exactly which point in Penn's career that he got turned on to Ayn Rand, when he was a poor carney worker, or rich globehopper? People's politics tend to echo their own position in society, that's just the bare-bones Darwinian nub of it. Wasn't Alan Greenspan one of her devotees also?

Not sure why I'm replying since your position is "I don't know much about Ayn Rand but here's a spirited defence of her anyway", but here we go; the smartest thing the rich achieved in the US in particular was to construct a myth that anybody could become rich, and that they those who do must deserve it. In reality, that's of course impossible - you can only have so many rich people and society's wealth distribution will always be a pyramid with a few at the top and millions at the bottom. But people who aren't at the top can still believe in Randian philosophy, because all it requires is for people to view the people below them as leeches piggybacking on their hard work. I know a dude who's fairly low-paid who likes Ayn Rand, because ultimately he hates the notion that his taxes are being used to support people below him on the pyramid, like all his hard work is being stolen from him by the Useless Eaters. These types of libertarians are just fucking crybabies, the equivalent of highly-paid actors using their Oscar acceptance speech to complain about how they could have had an even bigger fee if the guy who brought their coffee and put up with their tantrums had been paid less than minimum wage like the little rat fucking deserved because fuck him, he wouldn't even HAVE this job without my acting genius, fucking Oliver Twist cunt with his begging palms.

So, Rand fans can work at a Wal-Mart for fuck-all and still believe in her philosophy because they don't get why they have to work these long hours and have a portion of their wages go to fund someone's food stamps. All it really takes to believe in Ayn Rand is a complete lack of empathy, a sense of misplaced entitlement, and raging, seething bitterness that the world isn't giving you enough credit, and there's plenty of that outside the ultra-rich. As long as you have relative wealth and privilege over someone you can buy into the dogma of the 'deserving'. The 'every man for himself' philosophy benefits the wealthy most, but it also filters down to those who merely want to be rich.

[Tiny Poster]

Sad tale about someone who was raised according to Rand's tenets here: http://www.salon.com/2011/04/05/my_father_the_objectivist/

[Famous Mortimer]

chand, having a century or more of state-approved propaganda that the pyramid you described is the only possible way of existing certainly helps too.