|
Doc Hawkins posted:Alan Moore's primary inspiration for Rorschach was the lunatic objectivism of fellow Comics Guy Steve Ditko; for conservative creeps to enjoy the character is not entirely unlike their enjoying Steven Colbert. It's downright Borgesesque (Borgesian? Borgestic?). Borgesque.
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 18:49 |
|
|
Pinely posted:Now I really want to know what that helmet is. Was it like a medieval movie and he was wearing a helm? Or Top Gun with a fighter pilot helmet? Or was it a beer helmet? Maybe a medical anti seizure deal? Motorcycle helmet. I guess he was planning to leave on a motorcycle and I made it much better in my imagination: quote:http://www.torontosun.com/news/albe...8/16039256.html Life with him seems like an awesome experience straight out of 1990s Lifetime original movies or possibly Gaslight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Pinely posted:Now I really want to know what that helmet is. Was it like a medieval movie and he was wearing a helm? Or Top Gun with a fighter pilot helmet? Or was it a beer helmet? Maybe a medical anti seizure deal? According to this it was a motorcycle helmet after leaving the movie (and presumably about to get on a motorcycle), which sounds like a reasonable helmet, but then he escalated. It's all very  efb
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
The thing about Rorschach is that while he's a profoundly messed-up person, it's easy to argue that his response to the story's ending was, in fact, the correct one. Ozymandias's gambit may have worked in the short-term, but the story drops a lot of hints that he just papered over deep-rooted problems in human society by killing millions of people, and that his new peace won't last long (poo poo, just look at his name). Dan, Laurie, and Jon are just overwhelmed by the whole thing and flee in their own different ways, leaving the insane conspiracy theorist as the only one trying to bring one of history's greatest mass-murderers to justice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Motorcycle helmet. I guess he was planning to leave on a motorcycle and I made it much better in my imagination: wow what a crap judge. Darth Walrus posted:The thing about Rorschach is that while he's a profoundly messed-up person, it's easy to argue that his response to the story's ending was, in fact, the correct one. Ozymandias's gambit may have worked in the short-term, but the story drops a lot of hints that he just papered over deep-rooted problems in human society by killing millions of people, and that his new peace won't last long (poo poo, just look at his name). Dan, Laurie, and Jon are just overwhelmed by the whole thing and flee in their own different ways, leaving the insane conspiracy theorist as the only one trying to bring one of history's greatest mass-murderers to justice. pretty much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Wasn't Rorschach literally a diagnosed schizophrenic? He's basically "What if the Joker was Batman?".
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Wasn't Rorschach literally a diagnosed schizophrenic? He's basically "What if the Joker was Batman?". yeah, but i dont see him as a joker type. he is more like what if the mentaly ill homeless man who carrys the "gently caress the world" sign was a costumed vigilante who actualy good at his job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
I would also say there's a strong suggestion that Rorschach's response to Ozymandias' scheme would be to undo the short term benefits while doing nothing to remedy any of those same problems. Like, the plan was a terrible one and morally horrific but the response was literally, 'I think what you did was horrible so I'm going to undo whatever good it may have done so that we can the worst of both worlds.' Stopping the plan is one thing but how to deal with the aftermath of its success is, I think, something Moore points out stereotypical heroes aren't really able to deal with. In a way Rorschach is an idea of some Captain America figure in a world where Hydra has won and we've got world peace and order. He can't even stop to weigh up the pros and cons, he can't really consider the costs because that starts to take away part of what makes him a hero. Captain America can't compromise, which in comics makes him an idolised figure but once you change the context makes him a bit of a psycho.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Understanding the psychology of Rorschach
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Aurini 'studied for a degree' but I've never seen him directly mention having one. He feels like he knows enough to give advice to PhD students tho. haha what oh gently caress: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvyj7fkfsWQ (Sorry for this boring play by play poo poo, I can't help it, this was too dumb. I kind of want t make a reply video but I kind of think that's a terrible idea, so enjoy this probably terrible post!) OK what the hell is he saying at like 1 minute: "We all know Aron Clay's book is worthless"? What?? He's not wrong about the financial thing, at least, that's something lots of folks going into grad school need to know but uhh a PhD candidate probably already has that figured out and if not it's pretty much too late. But if this is going to be "advice" on a professional, personal career decisions level, maybe he'll have a point? 1:40 - Jared Diamond's books "have a lot of good history with a few liberal biases" lol The shape of this so far is that you can study something else and still write about history from that other disciplinary perspective. Um, OK, anyone can do that but again, this is stuff you tell someone considering grad school: Only pursue a PhD in history if you can't really imagine being happy doing anything but researching and teaching history professionally. And that other perspective is as likely to be a detriment to the quality of your historical writing if you don't really understand the way academic history works, the state of the field, the proper use of primary sources, and are basically just dashing some biotruths onto a plate of pop history from Barnes and Noble, which I suspect is Aurini's angle here. 2:05 - "If you are a young kid, stay away from the humanities, they are incredibly expensive..." Again, a PhD candidate is not just starting out and what you should be telling a "young kid" is not to accept an offer unless you'll get funding. That he thinks paying for grad school is a necessity is tell #1 that he's probably talking out of his rear end. 2:20 - Now things are getting interesting: "You're not going to learn much from these profs, it's a giant Ponzi scheme." His "trained in history" schtick is starting to really come through here. Yes you can learn a lot about history in your spare time, but this is advice from someone who does not understand what grad school is for. This is where it's really, really apparent that he is talking out of his rear end. You're not supposed to "learn from profs" in terms of content, you're there to get caught up on the historiography and benefit from discussion with peers and experienced historians about where the discipline is going, what needs to be uncovered or clarified, and how to do that effectively. You will however learn a ton from your professors about being a professional in the discipline of history because it is effectively professional training on how to be a historian from people who have been historians for possibly decades. Dunno what this "ponzi scheme" business is about, is the implication that you're being parasitically taken advantage of by your advisers? That can happen pretty much loving anywhere, but where does the pyramid come in? Should I be offloading some of my 2/3 of the grading load to easy marks from the incoming cohort in exchange for vague promises of some kind of reward flowing ultimately from my adviser? Grad school actually is pretty exploitative, but that has more to do with how higher education generally is being structured on more corporate lines and the resulting administrative priorities than with "profs" taking you for a ride. Referencing "Aaron" again, kinda feel like I missed something, totally not going back to figure out what. 2:55 - Thought he was onto something about how programs are accepting more grad students than there can possibly be professorial positions for, but then: "The average IQ at universities is plummeting"  3:10 "So, for this guy..." oh poo poo, are we finally going to hear something relevant to an ABD rather than a prospective grad student!? 3:25 - "If you're this far you may as well finish it." What, no, this is terrible advice! This is exactly the kind of bad advice or thinking that keeps people in academia long after they're burned out, it's sunk costs fallacy nonsense and if you really are disturbed by the awful financial prospects of academia you need to tell doctoral candidates to be flexible and willing to bail if their passion for history isn't enough to justify the opportunity costs of keeping going! poo poo! 3:30 - "You'll get to have a 'Dr.' in front of your name..." Ah, yes, vanity, a brilliant motivation to validate. Gotta get that identity bling. Jesus Christ. 3:35 - "You probably learned more about history from your passion than from the school," again, you don't know what the gently caress this is for buddy! And your PhD candidate advisee should hopefully be able to tell. Overriding irrepressible passion is the only valid reason to do this poo poo, and you don't do it to "learn from school" (i.e., the program, which is basically an extended professional development process) except in as much as a passion for the subject is what motivates you to keep up with course readings and writing papers. 3:40 - "That 'Dr.' in front your name will make a difference in a way that 'B.A.' won't..." lol starting to get a little on the nose here. Like yeah, it's more impressive than not having it, but what does he think it's "making a difference" for? Giving your vlogging more legitimacy? 4:05 - "This is where it gets interesting," loving finally. 4:20 - "Get the PhD, and then secure a position from a college and university" lol, oh word? thanks for the heads up man! 4:35 - "All your teaching and research, don't do it with the naive idea that you're doing something to advance the knowledge of the human race, pfft!" Then what the gently caress do you do it for? I don't give a poo poo what answer he's got lined up for this, why the gently caress would anyone enter academia at all unless they cared about advancing the cause of knowledge? That is the loving point. If you do not believe this is in any way the case, if you sincerely think that there is now way it can be true, that it's all a sham, don't finish your PhD, get the gently caress out and find anything else to do, because there is no plausible mercenary motivation here! If you just want to "secure a position" in some careerist self-interested move, that's easier said than done in the academy. (Once again, it looks like he doesn't know what the gently caress he is talking about, golly!) 4:55 - "That stuff went out the window 50 years ago." Oh really now. Around 1965 you're saying that academia stopped being about advancing human knowledge? Why oh why would that rough milestone year be significant...? CULTURAL MARXIST FRANKFURT SCHOOL LIBERAL INDOCTRINATION CAMPS BECAUSE OF THOSE HIPPIES AND UPJUMPED DARKIES 5:00 - "What you're doing is playing a political game." Yes. Yessss  5:05: "There are few positions for professors and lots of applicants for those easy dollars." Kinda makes you wonder why going through with this to "secure a position" is worth it, huh? "Easy dollars"? Does he know what the process of getting tenure is like? (Of course not.) Is it really "easy" if it takes finishing grad school and writing a dissertation and playing the application game and probably moving god knows where away from wherever you want to live just to get your foot in the door? More of the same, correct notes about how it's not a growth industry and it's basically zero-sum cutthroat competition for dwindling resources and positions (but just go ahead and "secure a position," sure), but then... 5:40 - "You need to be politically correct..." (play your loving hand already you goddamn tease) "...you need to fit in with these people and get along with these people." That depends on being "political correct"? You have to do this in any profession! 5:50 - "You need to study game and how women work." Hahaha oh my god, gently caress yes I am going to PUA my way to a job by seducing the female faculty wherever I apply, what the goddamn gently caress! Holy poo poo! 6:00 - "If you're smart and charismatic, you're likely to get a position." Nope, that is nowhere near sufficient, and is this what passes for an "Aurinu Insight"? "Competent and likable people have an easier time getting ahead in careers," wow! Amazing! 6:00 - "Part 2, it's not zero sum. *drag on cigar* And here's where you make your contribution to humanity, this PhD thing is very cynical." Yeah, almost as cynical as telling people that their teaching and research isn't for the benefit of advancing the knowledge of humanity and it's naive to think so, huh? 6:35 - tl;dr the non-zero-sum part is writing books for public consumption. You're only making a difference and advancing knowledge if people who want to buy popular history books see yours on the shelf and pick it up, not when someone is in the classroom learning from you. All that is just being playing the game to "secure a position." But what sort of writing does he think constitutes "playing the game" here? Does he event think you have to write anything with scholarly merit to get a tenure-track position and then tenure? If you want to write popular history for mass market, just go and loving do it. Popular history can be great, I appreciate good pop history, but "secure a position as a professor so you can write pop history" is just astoundingly idiotic. But on the other hand, it is exactly what you expect someone who lists "trained in history" as one of his merits to say about academia. It is something that everyone who knows nothing about it cooks up, not because it's bad advice, but because it's not something you need academia for. 8:00 - "Don't write boring white papers that only other PhD read, what a waste!" I know, who goes into academia to participate in academic research and debate? No one who wants to give you a position as a professor cares about that poo poo. But seriously, straight up, if you don't want to write research of interest to other academic historians, nothing about this process of "securing a position" matters a single bit because that is what being a professional historian working in the academy is about. 8:10 - "Write the papers they want to read, don't write the truth for them." It's been obvious for a while what's really going on here, but this is the closest the subtext gets to breaching the surface: this advice is for conservative/libertarian grad students who feel like they're undercover in a left-liberal thought police state and they need to fly under the radar to get ahead. "Not writing the truth" gets you ahead when "the truth" is racist garbage, but what's the end game here? Pretend to be some Marxist believer in the lie that the nergo is the equal of the white man until you get tenure, and then, surprise! I hate blacks and think the Gilded Age owns, and you can't do poo poo about it, owned! He's basically presenting the idea that you need the legitimacy of academic credentials to back up your mass market work and you have to play the part of the liberal academic long enough to get them. I know people in my program who would lap this poo poo up, who I am pretty sure already have figured out that this is what they are there for: to write a lovely but passable dissertation and then trade on the prestige of having a PhD to lend credibility to their awful political opinions. The Newt Gingrich Plan. Which I guess constitutes "making a contribution to humanity" through mass market paperback, because conservative pop-history schlock just doesn't sell unless the author's got that "Dr." I guess. 8:45 - "Alternatively, YouTube videos" loving CALLED IT, WOOP WOOP, grind your way through the obscurity and toil from writing a dissertation to getting tenure so that people will take your vlog seriously. God drat! Look, real talk, the idea of people with academic history training doing more to popularize history is great, but this is something people burned out on the grind of academia consider when they don't want to finish their PhD or they don't want to keep chasing a tenure-track position, because that's when it makes sense. It would be great to do it if you have tenure, sure, but this is advice for an ABD with a Masters. Make up your drat mind, Aurini, your questioner is equipped to write pop history and do quality history vlogging right the hell now. And on that note... 10:25 - "Play the game the way they want you to play it, but on your own time..." lol at the idea that playing the game of getting tenure leaves you with any "your time" for pop history work. He does not understand the workload of the process involved. Not a huge shock, but worth noting that his advice boils down to "get a PhD if you're this far, I guess, and then putter away at securing tenure so you can do what I do, I, 'trained in history' neoreactionary vlogger Davis Aurini, impart this insight to you." GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
 The strange thing is, even Aurini should acknowledge that the people doing crucifixions were on the wrong side of history. E.g., crucifying Jesus, or Germanic slaves. And surely even he would agree that beyond all of the things the Nazis did he agrees with, the low popularity of putting unwilling humans in ovens these days is, all in all, a good thing. And then, maybe theologian and historian Aurini is making a complicated point here about the difference between crucifixion and crucifiction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Jesus, listening to this guy is like being stuck at a family dinner table inbetween your creepy sexist uncle and your dorky virgin cousin. He slobbers all over Beethoven even though the guy was by the standards of his time an ultraliberal who hated monarchy and wrote an incredibly over the topmusical arrangement of a poem by another liberal about how national divisions and other hatreds are stupid and we should embrace the brotherhood of all men (OK women are kind of left out but it was 1824, cut the dude some slack).
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:
the article he is attacking is pretty retarded. it has the right idea, but because salon sucks. Yeah alot of great people, even progressive people held lovely awful beliefs. it seems stupid to me to attack dudes who have been dead almost 100 years using modern liberal values. I get schools dont educate kids enough on the real stories of america and they should. but no one in history would be a great person would never hold up to modern social values. I am saying this as a history major, because my classes always taught us it was stupid to judge people from modern standards. that said Jefferson was rapist monster. alot of the arguments (the new deal having racist elements, the constitution keeping slavery) are met with no shits by most history people. I think all that stuff should be taught but this article just kinda sucks. they are just learning that history is full of awful poo poo that may help some but fucks over others. its sucks alot But they are right that white nationalism/racism is on the rise with people like trump. http://www.salon.com/2015/12/22/whi...dium=socialflow but either way. Aurini is dumb fascist gently caress who is impotently lives through his race in hopes that some sadbrain nerds will thing he is smart.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:He slobbers all over Beethoven even though the guy was by the standards of his time an ultraliberal who hated monarchy and wrote an incredibly over the topmusical arrangement of a poem by another liberal about how national divisions and other hatreds are stupid and we should embrace the brotherhood of all men (OK women are kind of left out but it was 1824, cut the dude some slack). Beethoven's evolving opinion of Napoleon is interesting in this context: Beethoven's secretary Ferdinand Ries posted:In writing this [the 3rd] symphony, Beethoven had been thinking of Buonaparte, but Buonaparte while he was First Consul. At that time Beethoven had the highest esteem for him, and compared him to the greatest consuls of Ancient Rome. Not only I, but many of Beethoven's closer friends, saw this symphony on his table, beautifully copied in manuscript, with the word "Buonaparte" inscribed at the very top of the title-page and "Ludwig van Beethoven" at the very bottom ...
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:He slobbers all over Beethoven even though the guy was by the standards of his time an ultraliberal who hated monarchy and wrote an incredibly over the topmusical arrangement of a poem by another liberal about how national divisions and other hatreds are stupid and we should embrace the brotherhood of all men (OK women are kind of left out but it was 1824, cut the dude some slack). "There are many dukes in the world. There is only one Beethoven."
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:(OK women are kind of left out but it was 1824, cut the dude some slack). Schiller posted:Wem der große Wurf gelungen, Dapper_Swindler posted:... nerds will thing he is smart.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
I'm trying to understand what the satire is of Roosh's 'legalise rape' article. He claimed it was satire after people said 'what the gently caress' about it, but I really genuinely don't get what his actual point was if it is. When he tries to explain what the satire is himself he just re-states the same tenets of the article. It also doesn't help that some of the folks who agreed with him supported the idea wholeheartedly right up until he called it satire, and some did a little longer even.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i read it that he's hedging his bets out of some unconscious low self esteem, being 'trained' in history just means, like, you went to an archive and looked some stuff up and wrote about it. I took it as meaning he started the degree and didn't finish it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Aside from the language used to justify the futurist ideology, what separates these people from third-way movements that have been around for forever? Fascism is one of the key spices in any political system. It will always be part of what we do, since leanings toward fascism and collectivism and libertarianism and all the different ways people want to order their lives are in each of us. We will always have something inside of us that demands better behavior from ourselves, our peers and our countrymen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:I'm trying to understand what the satire is of Roosh's 'legalise rape' article. He claimed it was satire after people said 'what the gently caress' about it, but I really genuinely don't get what his actual point was if it is. When he tries to explain what the satire is himself he just re-states the same tenets of the article. Reactionaries think that satire means "directly saying what I actually believe while also making jokes or giving up all pretense of being polite." See also: radio commentator Rush Limbaugh mocking children and the disabled.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:2nd verse of the Ode an die Freude goes like this: That doesn't make it better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:That doesn't make it better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:Fascism is one of the key spices in any political system. It will always be part of what we do, since leanings toward fascism and collectivism and libertarianism and all the different ways people want to order their lives are in each of us. We will always have something inside of us that demands better behavior from ourselves, our peers and our countrymen. Well, no fascism isn't really a core part of every political system. While a certain amount of control is a part of a system (no you people should not be out murdering each other and we're going to punish you if you try to do that) fascism is ultimately dividing the world into us and not us and all the political power belongs to us. The justifications vary of course but you ultimately end up with that. Us is in no way accountable to not us. This is why the first step of fascism is always to find some reason for us to be the better category. This is also why fascism wasn't exactly the newest ideology and why Mussolini liked the idea of reclaiming ancient Roman prestige for a new Italy. See, fascism automatically disenfranchises people. Actually it's extremely aggressive about it. This is why fascism sucks and why right wing politics are awful. It's always about enfranchising us and disenfranchising them. More democratic systems are about giving everybody a say. While you do end up with a ruling class of a sort they're beholden to the interests of those that elect them as they can be voted out at any time. Fascism takes that away or at the very least severely restricts who can do the electing. While there is a certain amount of control that the system exerts on the people the idea behind democracy is that it's for the common good. The idea behind more tolerant, democratic system is more along the lines of "OK, here are the rules: don't steal from each other, don't murder each other, don't trample on each others' rights. Beyond that you can do basically whatever you want within reason. Got it?" In theory democratic systems have "majority rules with minority rights." Fascist systems have "I have power, you don't, gently caress you. What I say goes." Which is incidentally why you have so much right wing thought tied up in some of these ideas these days. It's why you have upper middle class white guys making arguments that they're the smart, enlightened ones that should get to make the decisions for everybody else, who are all dumb and bad. It sounds like fascism because, well, it is. It's all about disenfranchising them while we put us in charge. This goes against democracy because if those people are going to have to play by the rules of the system then they should have a say in how the system functions in the first place. If you disenfranchise entire groups of people things...tend to not go well for them. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
Well, no. Fascism is the binding together of individuals into a greater polity, which is any political system other than purely anarchist ones. Liberal systems, communitarian systems, and systems typically called fascist in the modern sense simply have different emphases on what the polity should accomplish for the individual. All three are valid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:Well, no. Fascism is the binding together of individuals into a greater polity, which is any political system other than purely anarchist ones. Liberal systems, communitarian systems, and systems typically called fascist in the modern sense simply have different emphases on what the polity should accomplish for the individual. All three are valid. Anarchist spotted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:Well, no. Fascism is the binding together of individuals into a greater polity, which is any political system other than purely anarchist ones. Liberal systems, communitarian systems, and systems typically called fascist in the modern sense simply have different emphases on what the polity should accomplish for the individual. All three are valid. So what you're saying is that "let's agree to not murder each other" is fascism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Well, no fascism isn't really a core part of any political system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What about the political system literally called fascism? Is fascism a part of fascism? Oh hey that's a really stupid typo. I meant "every" system. Gotta fix that. Sentences come and sentences go but typos accumulate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:Well, no. Fascism is the binding together of individuals into a greater polity, which is any political system other than purely anarchist ones. Liberal systems, communitarian systems, and systems typically called fascist in the modern sense simply have different emphases on what the polity should accomplish for the individual. All three are valid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:In a way Rorschach is an idea of some Captain America figure in a world where Hydra has won and we've got world peace and order. He can't even stop to weigh up the pros and cons, he can't really consider the costs because that starts to take away part of what makes him a hero. Captain America can't compromise, which in comics makes him an idolised figure but once you change the context makes him a bit of a psycho. Peace through genocide isn't peace in your Hydra example. Rorschach was right to try to expose Ozymandias. You can't kill your way towards Utopia. That's kind of what the HBD people miss,when they talk about the R/k selection strategies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
rudatron posted:It might be better to say that fascism takes some elements of all human societies and then overemphasizes them, at the expense of others. But those elements are a part of any human society and shouldn't be seen as inhuman or out of character, but should be placed in balance with all the other elements of humanity. Right. Or, rather, liberal, socialist and fascist impulses should all be in balance. Liberty, equality, fraternity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 09:43
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:Peace through genocide isn't peace in your Hydra example. Rorschach was right to try to expose Ozymandias. You can't kill your way towards Utopia. That's kind of what the HBD people miss,when they talk about the R/k selection strategies. Like I said morally abhorrent act but it's something that does give you some short term relief and possibly lays the ground work for a genuine peace. I'd say from a more 'grown up' moral perspective it's something to be abhorred but once it's a fact you look at what the best way to deal with it is. It's possible to decide to reveal it to the world, maybe that is the right thing to do, but that right action has costs and may possibly mean that the fall out of killing millions ends up being a violent backlash before a slow return back to the doomed status quo or even an acceleration of that status quo. Rorschach never even stops to consider that. He knows what is right in his moral code and he refuses to let a wrong action (by someone else) mean a good outcome. In his head Ozymandias is the villain and so whatever he's doing has to be thwarted (note, not just stopped) and it's as simple as that. He doesn't have any crisis of conscience that what he's doing might be wrong, he doesn't for a second think about the possible consequences because that doesn't matter. It's the flip side of 'do the right thing whatever the cost' is that you really need to be a bit of sociopath to act that way. One of the famous example is the whole axe murder thing in Kant's deontology, lying is wrong so if an axe murderer turns up at your front door asking where your friend is you should tell him the truth rather than lie. That's the thing about Watchmen, everyone in it is either a normal human caught in the middle of everything (Nite Owl, Silk Spectre) or a monster of some sort. Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan are the sort of super-human monsters who are looking at a picture on such a big level that the 'right' actions are horrific while Rorschach is someone so wedded to his own moral code he'd see the world burn before sacrificing it. For young libertarians or HBD types it's attractive because 1) the moral code is simple and understandable and 2) they can share the same sense of being victimised by the wider world and being a 'hero' despite it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
Are there any weird MRA/Dark enlightenment conventions or meetups in the UK? For future videos I want to travel to these places to document the hilarity. I recognise I'm signing my death warrant here but still.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Are there any weird MRA/Dark enlightenment conventions or meetups in the UK? I imagine you'd get a similar mix at any given UKIP or EDL rally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
/pol/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJYVtPLDY80 edit:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46kPhDAKEnY editx2: OOHHH. Turns out this is TheRightStuff guy BornAPoorBlkChild fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Are there any weird MRA/Dark enlightenment conventions or meetups in the UK? A friend of mine laments that Fathers4Justice has become rife with those types. That might be a good starting point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
I dunno if there's much room for "intellectual" xenophobia here in the UK between the EDL/UKIP and the generalized xenophobia inherent in the national discourse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
They meet in the break room of the Express offices at lunchtime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I dunno if there's much room for "intellectual" xenophobia here in the UK between the EDL/UKIP and the generalized xenophobia inherent in the national discourse. As opposed to the United States where
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 18:49 |
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:As opposed to the United States where The US tends to be really good at breeding interestingly insane people whereas I find we tend towards the mundane kind of insanity over here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:36
|
|