"You're gonna have to do better than trying to make a disingenuous distinction between the novel and the politics. You know perfectly well that they're indistinguishable…"Well, Rand would say the "novel and philosophy", but that's nit-picking :). And I was being a bit disingenuous in regards to Objectivists, but…

I understand the distinction you're making, Dr.D, I just don't think it applies to the folks in Rabin's piece. We may be talking about "public policy", but we're also talking about a message board for fans of a novel. If he were trolling, say, the Ayn Rand Institute (or whatever the official capital-O Objectivism…

Nathan's post I linked to wasn't anything more than pointing and laughing at irrelevant zealots at a Rand fansite. The people on that site have *zero* public policy influence. They are, essentially, the objectivist equivalent of fans at a Phish concert that Nathan was defending in this piece (and in his book).

This reminds me of something that's annoyed me for a while. How is that Vice piece different than Nathan pointing and laughing at Objectivists:

It wouldn't be the AV Club if a mention of Ayn Rand didn't throw the comment section into an apoplectic rage!

It wouldn't be the AV Club if a mention of Ayn Rand didn't throw the comment section into an apoplectic rage!

I hate to nitpick (not really), but wouldn't Kevin Hart be a more accurate "court jester of hip-hop"?