/siberia/ - Off-topic

wtf are you talking about

stroke-inducing gem

i think any and all media aimed at children should be completely destroyed and all children's books burned. infantilization is what causes this, and that i suspect is something designed by the ruling class to make the proletariat into more pliable slaves like how humans domesticated animals. dogs and cats basically live in a state of extended puppyhood/kittenhood and human beings are going the same way.

>le zoomers
if your only interactions with an entire age cohort are online with picrew pfp mfers thats a (you) problem OP 90% of genpol on this site is based off twitter screenshots and not shit else fr

>>737940
marvel films are great in depicting how the average person views politics and the world in general

I'm a baddie tbh might cheat on my gf w/ the hot raver enbie.

OP's post makes perfect sense and everyone here is stupid.
Anyway, anyone who would honestly argue that Rorschach having sympathetic qualities is a flaw of Watchmen has such a wrongheaded idea of fiction and art that nothing they say about the subject could possibly be correct except by accident.

>>737940
>extended puppyhood/kittenhood
new newgene retardation dropped

>>737928
>>738061
reminds me of this stupid tumblr meme

all fiction should just be a retelling of the humiliation fascists faced in 1945, it should be retold over and over again

>>737928
>a Nazi is a real type of person but "a baddie" is not.
Just because you've never seen a mustichio'd man in a top hat and cape walking around like this out and about doesn't mean they're not out there.

>>738067
That image is fine in context. A lot of self-proclaimed satire lacks an actual critique, instead just exaggerating the subject for key-jingling, or ranting about a subject and using "but it's satire" as a shield from criticism, as though satire is somehow beyond criticism itself.

Some people (twitter users) fail to understand you can't apply that image's critique to literally every satire, as they often do have clarity of purpose and target.

If you take the image's message at face value without factoring in misuse it's correct.

>>738153
idk this is too close to the concept of "punching down" which i also find stupid and shallow. idiots dont stop being idiots when out of power. ie making fun of flat earthers is technically "punching down"; the flat earth model has no mainstream support and the earth is always depicted as round, but its fine, bc theyre idiots

i dont even think its necessarily wrong of an argument to make. its usually just evidence cited is ok at best. like a high school essay.

>>738156
>making fun of flat earthers is technically "punching down"; the flat earth model has no mainstream support
Used to be, now-a-days there's a lot of flat earth politicians at high rank, so I'd consider that punching up.

Making fun of snake oil is a grey area though, since principally it'd seem like punching up, but people end up making fun of the victims rather than the salesmen, so it ends up being punching down.

>>738153
>A lot of self-proclaimed satire lacks an actual critique, instead just exaggerating the subject for key-jingling, or ranting about a subject and using "but it's satire" as a shield from criticism, as though satire is somehow beyond criticism itself
But it's possible to fall prey to both of these things while still having a clarity of purpose, so it doesn't have anything to do with the image.

>>737928
Rorschach is a mustache twirling caricature though. He just also has moments where he has a point about something, like Ozymandias's plan being a bad idea, so he can seem like he's more broadly correct if you don't think about his ideology too much. He's also generally juxtaposed with even worse products of the system and the system itself in a way where his crusader like mentality is an understandable response, which seems like not a very good idea if your goal is to portray him as totally without merit. Killing a predator because the law is too soft to do it is pretty much peak right wing fantasy.

More broadly, the issue with a lot of this kind of satire is it has too narrow of a viewpoint. The criticism is generally from the perspective of the author, who is already opposed to the subject. Often the same things they consider a problem are the things that those people consider appealing. To readers who are either on the fence or not familiar with what's being satirized, it isn't automatically obvious what the attitude of the author is. You have to write for your audience, and Alan Moore's own response to how the character is received suggests he failed to do that. It's not enough to communicate why you have a problem with something; you have to grapple with why other people don't.

>>738318
>seems like not a very good idea if your goal is to portray him as totally without merit
Maybe that's not the goal you absolute fucking mongoloid.

>>738321
>“I wanted to kind of make this like, ‘Yeah, this is what Batman would be in the real world.’ But I had forgotten that actually to a lot of comic fans that smelling, not having a girlfriend—these are actually kind of heroic. So actually, sort of, Rorschach became the most popular character in Watchmen. I meant him to be a bad example, but I have people come up to me in the street saying, ‘I am Rorschach! That is my story!’ And I’ll be thinking, ‘Yeah, great, can you just keep away from me and never come anywhere near me again for as long as I live?’”
That's basically what Alan Moore said about the character and people who identify with him.

>>738384
ok but like those are just outward physical and social descriptors about him. his penultimate critique was to make him smell bad and have no girlfriend? thats it? this is killing me. if thats the depth of thought to make this character unappealing no wonder everyone lapped up his character. its quite an easy task to turn something like smell and having a significant other into points of pride.

>>738462
and these things arent even the main focus. like, im pretty sure the nihilists attracted to Ror-shack's character whose entire argument is that a person with enough force can shape the social miasma, so regardless of social capital like smelling bad and having a girlfriend, which can arguably be due to social factors out of the characters control from which he would like to take back control of, like would see no incoherence in the character.

It happened again and people are mad over decent writing because some basement-dwelling neckbeards might side with the Wrong fictional character.

<Fallout: New Vegas lead writer worries Caesar's argument for authoritarianism 'was done a little too well,' but still believes 'you can't just make your tyrants cardboard villains'

>>738384
What part of this quote implies that Moore wanted to create a character who was "totally without merit"?
For fuck's sake, can the wormbrained didacticists on both the left and the right who criticize Moore for writing Rorschach the way he did think for FIVE seconds and answer why someone whose sole intent was to write a worthless loathsome human being would:
>give that character a sympathetic backstory
>emphasize his rare moments of genuine compassion and friendship
>make him oppose people who are indubitably 100% evil
Other than that maybe, the supposed goal to write some weird propaganda leaflet whose intent was to make people not like Batman was secondary to the goal of writing someone with realistic, lifelike nuance?

>>738384
>>738563
Yeah lol, the whole point of Watchmen is to wanted to present a superhero setting with a more understandable and grounded set of motivations and flaws. Also the previous text from that quote is this:

< You could put a superhero in the real world for a dramatic effect, because they are kind of stupid. They got these tight costumes, stupid names; they’re kind of unbelievable, so if you actually put them in the real world and have people reacting to them the way that people would, you’d laugh at them, you’d be scared of them. It would be a different way of looking at them, so that’s what went mostly into Watchmen. (Gibbons and I) thought about superhero types like Batman, so I thought, 'What would he be like in the real world.' And he'd be very much like Rorschach—if you’re a revenge-driven vigilante, you’re not quite right in the head.

< Yeah, alright, your parents got killed when you were a kid, whatever, that's upsetting. But for most of us, if our parents were killed when we were little, would not become a bat-themed costumed vigilante—that’s a bit mental. So, I thought, ‘Alright, if there was a Batman in the real world, he probably would be a bit mental.’ He wouldn’t have time for a girlfriend, friends, a social life, because he’d just be driven by getting revenge against criminals… dressed up as a bat for some reason. He probably wouldn’t be very careful about his personal hygiene. He’d probably smell. He’d probably eat baked beans out of a tin. He probably wouldn’t talk to many people. His voice probably would have become weird with misuse, his phraseology would be strange.

>>738563
>>738564
It pretty much boils down to
>write cahracter with sympathetic traits
>people relate to them
>shocked pikachu face

>>738465
It is funny that the arguments often focus on what are essentially harmless quirks, the kind if things you often do see in "mental" aka neurodivergent people. It's pretty on brand for the average reader to have more of a problem with not showering than the political stuff or the violence.

Also, without getting too far into it, Rorschach is effectively positioned as the protagonist of the story. His investigation of the Comedian's death drives the plot. His intuition about something bigger going on is ultimately vindicated, and he's the only one to stand up to the designated villain in the end. Comparatively, Ozymandias and the Comedian are pretty overtly villainous, and Silk Spectre, Nite Owl, and Manhattan are too self absorbed to affect the plot as much. Some of that can be dismissed as the audience being plotfags, but the plot in the story ends up with millions dead, so it shouldn't surprise that readers are more invested in that than in characters' personal drama. Especially since among the dead are characters the audience has probably grown attached to like Bernie and Bernard.

None of this is "moralism" btw. Watchmen is a gem and it's good it exists but that doesn't mean it's perfect or above critique. A lot of the value of a lot of art is in what it unintentionally reveals about the creators and fans.