268
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] SnotFlickerman 150 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Alan Moore wrote Rorschach for a fucking reason and it wasn't because "Rorschach was right!"

Moore was clearly aware of people who are sympathetic to great causes but would undermine them and destroy society just to be able to say that they were right.

Rorschach was right in many ways, but he spent his time looking down on everyone and anything else. His hate for the world was visceral and colored his perception. He was happy to destroy the world just so he could prove to himself that the world was beyond redemption.

The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout 'SAVE US!'...and I'll look down and whisper 'No.'

-Rorschach from Moore's Watchmen

He doesn't support these movements because they're filled to the gills with fucking Rorschachs.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 65 points 1 week ago

V for Vendetta had a similar message. V was really not all that much better than the people he was fighting. He tortured the fuck out of Evey in order to get her to do his bidding. I'm sure it pissed him off to a huge degree that people started adopting Guy Fawkes masks as an actual symbol of revolution. Moore chose that mask for a reason. That reason is that Guy Fawkes was both fighting oppression and trying to turn England into a theocracy.

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 58 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The issue with subtle critiques of facists is that facists will enjoy them non ironically.

See Watchmen, V for vendetta, starship troopers, warhammer 40k, on and on.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 35 points 1 week ago

40k isn't a critique any more, and I'd argue it stopped the moment the Emperor became an actual strongman who is the bestest and smartest and handsomest immortal wizard human to ever live who guards humanity in its sleep uwu step on me daddy~~~~

Compared to the original, first edition version, where everything was at the whims of unreliable narration and it was understood that whatever the Emperor was in 30k, and that is a very big question, he's a corpse on a throne in 40k.

Starship Troopers stopped being a critique the minute the first film ended, and the book never was.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

It really is unfortunate.

load more comments (1 replies)

There's also the factor that the movie is very different from the original comic, and the folks who adopted the Guy Fawkes mask as a hacktivist icon mostly just saw the movie.

[-] MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

He still tortures the shit out if Evie in the film

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] TheOctonaut@mander.xyz 4 points 1 week ago

trying to turn England into a theocracy.

Oh! You come with the anti-Catholicism baked in. The Brits will love you.

Fascinated by the continued adherence to the idea that overthrowing a monarch who is simultaneously the head of the national church is a movement toward theocracy.

[-] MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Replacing the secular head of state with the clerical leader would be a significant step towards theocracy. The monarch of the UK might be the head of the faith but they are not seen as a member of the clergy. The Pope, who would ultimately have controlled the UK had Fawkes succeeded, would be a theocrat.

[-] TheOctonaut@mander.xyz 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The Pope, who would ultimately have controlled the UK

There's the anti-Catholic education paying off. Which countries did the pope control again? Why would the UK have been different from Spain, France or Italy? Why does being crowned by a pope or an archbishop differ? How, with apparent seriousness, are you defining the man who said this in parliament as a "secular head of state":

The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth, for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself, they are called gods. There be three principal [comparisons] that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God, and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures, kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the Divine power.

Even today British monarchs are ordained as kings with holy oil. It is not a secular position.

Mind-boggling that even young children don't see through this blatant myth-building for what it is. The same scaremongering is used even today by regressive Orangemen about papish plots.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

Which countries did the pope control again?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_States

I get that you are very, very upset that anyone dare criticize Catholicism, but that doesn't excuse you from being ignorant of history.

[-] TheOctonaut@mander.xyz 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I'm not ignorant of history. I'm on paper still a Catholic, since the Irish church decided to stop taking excommunication requests in 2005. Thanks for the Wikipedia article though.

Yes, very clever, the area the pope literally was sovereign of was under his control. I'm sure a clever guy like you understands the difference between that and the idea that literally any Catholic is 100% subservient to the Pope at all times regardless of their own rank and power, which is the sort of nonsense you're usually railing against when it's your flavour of old-timey god-stuff.

Tip though, and a bit of genuine sympathy here, when the UK continues down it's path of right-wing bigotry and you feel your family isnt safe again, you are now in a Common Travel Area with a far more welcoming "Catholic" nation. Feel free to walk across the border unchecked and I promise I won't you rat you out for describing a basic awareness of England's anti-Catholic biases as a "need to be a victim".

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That has nothing to do with cleverness. You asked which countries the Pope controlled and I showed you. Facts have nothing to do with cleverness. I'm not clever, I'm almost certainly far stupider than you. I just know history.

Also, I never said every Catholic is 100% subservient to the Pope or even implied it, so why are you putting words in my mouth? Are you usually this dishonest?

[-] TheOctonaut@mander.xyz 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I'm not accusing you of that (in fact I literally said that you understand its not that), but I'm guess you're ignorant of how that is how it is taught in the British curriculum. The motif you're talking about Alan Moore using - the Gunpowder plot and therefore Guy Fawkes wanting to replace the noble British monarchy with a foreign theocracy - relies entirely on that context. British history is carefully curated with "that was a foreign plot and the British nation bravely survived it" vs "a foreign ally saved and restored our glorious nation". For many, the presence of Catholicism is one of the primary deciding factors in that.

Are you usually this unable to take criticism without insulting people? (Yes, daily)

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I’m not accusing you of that

You literally accused me of that. Now you're gaslighting.

This is what you said: "Yes, very clever, the area the pope literally was sovereign of was under his control. I’m sure a clever guy like you understands the difference between that and the idea that literally any Catholic is 100% subservient to the Pope at all times regardless of their own rank and power, which is the sort of nonsense you’re usually railing against when it’s your flavour of old-timey god-stuff."

The motif you’re talking about Alan Moore using - the Gunpowder plot and therefore Guy Fawkes wanting to replace the noble British monarchy with a foreign theocracy - relies entirely on that context.

You have presented zero evidence to the contrary. None whatsoever. "Trust me, bro, the British are wrong" is not how history works.

Are you usually this unable to take criticism without insulting people? (Yes, daily)

You've been rude and insulting to people all over this thread, unprompted, so that's pretty fucking ironic.

[-] TheOctonaut@mander.xyz 3 points 1 week ago

I genuinely don't know how you interpret "I'm sure you understand the difference" as "you actually believe this". But sure, I'm manipulating your mind.

The evidence - well, an argument, because this isn't a paper - is exactly what you so helpfully brought up the Papal States for. Apart from literally his own domain, the pope did not turn any other nations into a Catholic theocracy because their monarch was Catholic.

It should be the other way around really - this idea of Catholic blind obedience to the pope is advanced as an assumption hy British historians despite having no example or evidence that it would be the case other than "that's what Catholics are like" despite the Anglican church literally arising from a Catholic English monarch disobeying the pope.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

You saying things is not evidence that the Gunpowder Plotters did not want a Catholic theocracy.

And I already said that Catholics do not have blind obedience to the Pope so stop putting words in my mouth. Apparently you think lying about me is a way to the truth. It is not.

despite the Anglican church literally arising from a Catholic English monarch disobeying the pope.

Yes, that's the whole fucking point. The Anglicans were oppressing the Catholics and the Gunpowder Plotters tried to commit mass murder in order to not just end that oppression, but bring back Catholicism by force. They were literally forming an army. Both sides were in the wrong here, which was also Moore's reason for using the Guy Fawkes mask. To show that people fighting oppression can also be oppressors.

And if you think any of that is untrue, present some evidence. Don't insult, don't be rude, don't just tell me I'm wrong, don't tell me the British are liars, present some evidence.

[-] TheOctonaut@mander.xyz 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I didn't put any words in your mouth... I really don't understand how you're not getting that. I said you understand that it's not true. Literally just read the part you quoted.

Actually none of what you said just now was untrue. The leap that is unexplained is that bringing back a Catholic monarch would turn the UK into a papal theocracy where no other Catholic kingdom was (except the Papal States!).

And that specifically is the part that I'm arguing has no basis in fact - you're asking me to provide evidence that something wasn't going to happen. Usually we ask for evidence of speculation, not against speculation. It doesn't help that the people that could have said so were hung drawn and quartered, and the history written by people who immediately brought in further anti-Catholic legislation.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

you’re asking me to provide evidence that something wasn’t going to happen.

Yes, I am. Because you made a claim and that's how the burden of proof works. It is not my fault if you made a claim you can't prove.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

Actually, you have made multiple claims and have backed none of them up. Like how the British are lying.

Of course, if you actually know what Guy Fawkes wanted, then you know he wanted a theocracy. Why you think it matters if he would have achieved it, I don't know.

Catesby and his co-conspirators had an ambitious but simple goal: dig a tunnel under the parliament building, fill the tunnel with gunpowder, set it off and murder the entire English government. Then create a Catholic theocracy by kidnapping the King’s nine-year old daughter and installing her as a Catholic queen.

https://insertphilosophyhere.com/guy-fawkes-terrorist/

Do you really think they wanted a nine-year-old in charge?

You are welcome to dismiss that, but it's your claim that it isn't true, so it's up to you to back that claim up. It is no one else's job to prove you are telling the truth, just yours.

[-] MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

As the Papacy coronated Kings they had a role to play in the legitimacy of any King. The Papacy has a history of playing favorites in this regard.

Please provide a source that substantiates the idea that people currently living in the UK see the monarch as a religious leader.

I don’t think anyone is promoting an anti-Roman Catholic ideology as much as you have an apparently biased and flawed understanding of Fawkes goals.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

Please do read about the Gunpowder Plot because you clearly don't know about it if you think this is some anti-Catholicism thing.

Also, I am talking about Moore's point, not whether or not you believe the point is based in fact.

But your need to be a victim when you aren't even a factor here is relevant.

[-] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago

anti-catholicism baked in

Thats called a brain, my dude. They're normally included in the package.

[-] Juice@midwest.social 4 points 1 week ago

What part of rorschach's views are revolutionary? Rorschach is a chud. Maybe his views are extreme but not revolutionary. False equivalence be wilin

[-] pauldrye@lemm.ee 78 points 1 week ago

It would probably be faster to list the things he doesn't have a negative view about.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago

I was about to say the same thing. Pretty much the only thing I can think of that he has a positive view of is the hand puppet he worships.

And to his credit, he freely admits it's a hand puppet.

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago

Chaos magick isn't really about believing your own bullshit so much as getting real silly and being able to chat up witchy chicks.

[-] SGforce@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Let's not forget the orgies

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

How could I?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

What I came in to say. He's a curmudgeon. A genius, but not the most personable.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago

What revolutionary culture? I've never seen any evidence that inspired revolutionary culture. Some cringe culture absolutely, but actual revolutionary culture? Nonsense.

[-] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 11 points 1 week ago

Have you never seen Anonymous before? They are a revolutionary group whose motif is the Guy Fawkes Mask, which is a symbol that comes directly from the character V from V for Vendetta, who wears one because his mask "is an idea, and ideas are bulletproof". Anonymous has done a lot of notable things, both good and bad, such as going after the Church of Scientology and trying to take part in the pandemic riots, and it is in response to some of this that Alan Moore has brought up the revelation or fact that Anonymous, he would tell/inform you, is excessive and misses the point, distorting his vision for social action, with him implying the same exact objection about Luigi Mangione and those who support him years later. He made characters regardless of good and evil, not models of it (heck, V admits at one point he sabotaged a train just to get his hands on real butter to go with his breakfast, an unmistakably "this must be an anti-hero" move, but everyone wants to focus on things like the "what they did was monstrous, so they made a monster" justification that wasn't meant to be taken as the doctrine it became), and he did not intend people would weaponize use of it as a platform, though most people are only aware of the initial remark of praise he gave Anonymous for combating the Scientology, which is what made it to the encyclopedias.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

You are really understanding Moore's point in V for Vendetta. His whole point is that good and evil are subjective. Which, as far as I can tell, is true in the real world.

V is really not better than the people he is fighting and he has no plan for the aftermath, which will clearly be a horror show.

And I guarantee you plenty of members of Anonymous committed their own horrible acts that would be considered evil by others. Being part of a good cause does not make you a good person.

[-] Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Anonymous are not a revolutionary group imo. Revolutions are bloody are done the in the streets. They're a nuisance at best.

what they did was monstrous, so they made a monster" justification that wasn't meant to be taken as the doctrine it became), and he did not intend people would weaponize use of it as a platform,

Personally I think that was pretty naive on Moore's part. It resonates with ppl because it's true. Revolution is often bloody and morally black because ppl have reached their breaking point.

[-] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago

Revolution doesn't necessarily have to entail violence or blood. The very first recorded strike in history had laborers in ancient Egypt succeed simply by showing up in large numbers. People could also get "creative", such as when the Catalonians declared independence by forming a human circle around their desired territory.

[-] Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Revolution doesn't necessarily have to entail violence or blood

Licking a doorknob doesn't necessarily mean you'll get sick but the overwhelming odds are you will. Also using Egypt and Catalonia as examples of peaceful revolutions is strange considering Egypt squashed tons of challenges to the throne, revolts, etc. with violence and Catalonians have engaged in straight up terrorism

[-] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 week ago

I rather don't think the movements he helped inspire would ask about his opinion though.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FryHyde@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 week ago

TBF Alan Moore has a negative view of the idea that anyone has ever read or enjoyed his work.

[-] UrukGuy@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

UK here - never used stone, LBs or pints as a measurement

If I was measuring bodyweight, I would use KG. Grams for anything light.

The only time I see Milk measured in pints, is bottles or cartons of standard dairy milk in supermarkets. Any other milk is litres, including dairy such as Jersey / Cream top milk

[-] ALiteralCabbage@feddit.uk 4 points 1 week ago

How old are you? I'm mid 30s and grew up with stone for human weight, and kg for everything else.

LBs never (except baking from old recipe books), and pints for beer only.

I never know where the cutoff is for us lot.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Alpha71@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

TLDR; Angry British man, angry about stuff.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Ceedoestrees@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2025
268 points (100.0% liked)

Today I Learned

18708 readers
261 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS