Don't get the MGS on the list. I, frankly, haven't played all of them. Only TPP. And in there you are it even playing as solid snake. And, say, we consider this Pic as a Venom snake, so how exactly is he a bad guy? The whole point of the game is to peacefully remove arms from an enemy, nukes included. I mean, ofc you can go full Rambo and kill everyone and build nukes. But then youd be evil for doing so. Real game is to go pacifist and save everyone. How is this "I misunderstood the message"?
Again want to mention thatI have no idea about the rest of the series. I would like an explanation.
My exwife has a large slytherin tattoo. That house in pottery is just “the bad guys”. There’s not charecter arch or deeper meaning, no complexity in writing.
They are just the bad guys, who are evil and mean. That’s it. She loves em.
There are cool fictional bad guys and annoying fictional bad guys like prince Joffrey (GoT), king Einon (Dragonheart), Dolores Umbridge (Harry Potter), Winn Adami (DS9).
They need to be more than bad guys. Darth Wader started as good guy, than became a bad guy, than redeemed himself. Nobody normal has a tattoo of nurse Ratchet.
I mean, spacenoid rights, which is what Zeon Diekun preached, was not the same as the as the Principality of Zeon, which is the Zabi Family dictatorship, and the ones that gassed and dropped a colony.
Dude, Hufflepuffs got it right. "Nobody expects us to achieve anything, so they'll praise us if we just show up". That's a pro level life hack. They are the "take it easy" house. If The Dude was in Hogwarts, he'd be in Hufflepuff. If I was in Hogwarts I'd be in Hufflepuff.
I am quoting the books with cunning and ambitious. It also mentions resourcefulness.
It's just that the author is not that good with her craft and she made them Evil, shallow house in practice.
Or maybe it's the other way, and she did that on purpose, so that the early children book has visible low stake antagonist Malfoy, who does not really matter compared to BBEG.
Yeah the sorting hat sorta tells Harry slitherin folks are destined for big things (not necessarily good, but big) but then there's dumbfucks like crabbe and goyle in there who couldn't accomplish shit.
Joanne Kowling Rowling didn't exactly stay consistent about things in those books.
The most powerful wizard out of the Triwizard tournament. "Background noise". If school houses are groups then the "best" of those school houses should say more than the perspective of a boy bias by being in a different group.
Edit: maybe I shouldnt say most powerful, best rounded? Idk.
Idk I think Malfoy gets it rough, kid was basically raised in and surrounded by a cult 24/7 with the threat of being ostracized by his family, friends and basically everyone he'd ever known if he put a foot out of line. The fact that he got any redemption arc at all even if it was late is more than a lot of indoctrinated people manage IRL.
A stalker who worshipped one woman because she talked to him as a child and he decided to abuse orphaned children caused by the very hate group he was a part of. As Voldemort is supposed to be placed during WW2, snape became a NAZI by choice... Then only decided to oppose them when Hitler decided to kill someone he cared about.
Why he is such an ass to Neville we'll never understand.
I thought he hated Neville because who the chosen one was prophecy described either Harry or Neville, and Voldemort went after Harry, sealing who the prophecy was and sealing Harry's mother's fate, making Snape hate him because Neville's parents could have died instead of a woman that would have never gotten with his shit ass.
Nevilles parents were tortured to insanity by Snapes friend. "Not his friend" walks into his home and he doesn't kill them. How do we know it was done before.... Because they did it before Voldemort died. He was a baby who was orphaned because Snape was and will always be, worse than 99% of NAZI's. His actions after proved it
Edit: ironically, it seems my media literacy could be called into question here too based on the mismatch between the tone of OP meme and the tone of the responses I posted. Context for anybody missing it below.
The punisher is a revenge fantasy carried out on corrupt policemen. The message was basically acab before acab was a thing people said. Policemen, who tend to have IQ that matches their best mile time in minutes, love to plaster his logo all over everything they own.
The bottom photo is Tom Morello of Rage Against The Machine. Rather than summarize his story, I'll share his response when a prominent conservative politician tweeted about RatM being their favorite band. "I wonder what [Paul] Ryan's favorite Rage song is? Is it the one where we condemn the genocide of Native Americans? The one lambasting American imperialism? Our cover of "Fuck the Police"? Or is it the one where we call on the people to seize the means of production? So many excellent choices to jam out to at Young Republican meetings!"
Good lookin out! Voyager is one of the few Trek shows I haven't seen every episode of, I mean I've seen most of Voyager, so I might've seen that one. It just makes sense, Starfleet is the embodiment of leftist socialist idealism, I do love it so
What are you on about? Starfleet is a (at least quasi)military organization with a obvious hierarchical order. The captain tells you to jump? You say how high. There's a lot of discussions, but in the end she/he decides the fate of all aboard.
Now, I love old Trek (up until and including Voyager) - it has a lot of merits - but it's far from how I'd want society to be optimally.
I know the point of Tom Morello being included is because RATM is completely misunderstood by conservatives, but it makes me giggle because he did a song for Final Fantasy XIV because a friend he played D&D with also knew a guy involved and it just happened.
Same with Born in the USA. They hear the chorus and think it's about how America rocks, but it's really about how we traumatize our soldiers and leave our vets out to dry.
Do you just enjoy the feeling of constantly being made a fool? Is that why you think 'woke' is such an insult? Some kind of weird kink about being robbed and abused?
Well fuck me I fell for it. It's real hard to tell these days when someone's being facetious or not on the internet :(
People get used to assuming other people are dumber than them, especially online. So they see an obvious joke and instead if thinking "well obviously they didn't mean the thing they are pointing out, so they are pointing it out to mock that perspective", they just accept it face value, and then when called out on it go "poe's law" or argue that the fact that they didn't understand says a lot about society instead of doing any introspection.
It's a "misunderstood the message" in the opposite direction. He wrote angry songs about how the establishment is evil, and pro-establishment people thought they were angry songs about how people trying to change the establishment were evil.
I remember a classmate of mine thought the "some of those who work forces are the same that burn crosses" lyric was saying "Satanists are infiltrating our pristine and flawless police force!" And of course there's the quintessential "Fuck you I won't do what you tell me!" that all republicans thought meant "Fuck you, I won't do the bare minimum to care about others!"
Oh, they were certainly enraged. Those damn satanists! But yeah, nobody I knew actually knew what the lyrics were - we all just mumbled along incoherently until we yelled out the few parts that everyone knew, so none of us were actually certain that the conservatives were totally misinterpreting what the song was saying.
Right wingers are too dumb to have media literacy and tend to love RATM. I do agree just a photo of him was probably the most confusing way to convey that message though.
Yeah. The leftist in me thinks it goes kinda hard, but the volunteer social worker in me has spent a lot of time and effort making absolutely sure the homeless folk I've interacted with were not armed. I thought it said "arm the hopeless" when I found the picture
Yeah, it hits hard when Lucy Paraons says it because she was widowed for her husband's opposition to the dictatorship of capital. When I was hungry and sleeping in my car I needed secure housing where I could do my homework and consistent access to food, not a gun. And plenty of homeless people would just hurt themselves or each other if armed.
Let every dirty, lousy tramp arm himself with a revolver or a knife, and lay in wait on the steps of the palaces of the rich and stab or shoot the owners as they come out. Let us kill them without mercy, and let it be a war of extermination.
Who (and how did they) misunderstood MGS? Kojima isn't exactly subtle.
And considering that Venom isn't even the real Big Boss, and Big Boss was only a true villain in the original Metal Gear, when he had zero backstory and wasn't even cool enough to get more than a fucking placeholder name, it's weird seeing him up there. 2 and 5 pretty much show his goal was to destroy the illuminati as well as take care of war vets who got fucked over by their government. He's only a villain to the shitty fascist governments controlled by The Patriots. He's way more of an anti-hero than an actual villain.
It's like calling Neo from The Matrix a villain because he killed innocent people who were tools of the enemy without their knowledge.
I think you're misunderstand the meme. I think it's aimed at Dude-bros® who only understand the superficial message which is obviously being disproven by the content. It's making fun of people who have a Fight Club poster on their wall because they think the message is "all men can be hardcore, bare knuckle boxers, if the stop letting a weak social framework tell them what they want." Or watching the film of Starship Troopers and learning "You can overcome any obstacle with enough bravado and testosterone." I'm not as familiar with most of the animes pictured, but I assume the jab is the same.
The one that confuses me is the top roght;: that's Johan liebert from Monster. He's an irredeemable psychopath who kills his parents as a child, and when his sister shoots him in the head to stop him from killing her, he nearly dies. Then a surgeon saves his life, only to later realize that the life he saved is that of the aforementioned irredeemable psychopath. Many years later, Johan returns and thanks the surgeon for saving his life, crediting his noble act with all of the murders he has been committing and plans to commit. The surgeon has to track him down to terminate the horrid life he granted so many years before (largely to clear his own name, because the psychopath kills someone and the cops think the surgeon did it).
Johan liebert isn't even really making a philosophical point. He just needs to kill people. The surgeon's situation (is he culpable for the deaths allowed because he saved a life? Is it morally right to end a life, if by doing so you can preserve many others? Essentially variations on the trolley problem) is the philosophical question, so saying that there is a group of people idolizing Johan Liebert because they misunderstand the meaning is like saying that there are people idolizing the trolley. That's not really missing the point. Those people would just be dangerously mentally unwell.
No he didn't. He rescued child soldiers, and gave them a home. He didn't use them in combat until they were adults who, for obvious reasons, became loyal to him.
Heinlein was suuuuper in favor of a colonial/martial culture. The whole reason he wrote Starship Troopers was because he was disappointed that the US suspended nuclear weapons testing which he saw as further evidence of the decline of martial culture. The book clearly advocates for the promotion of civic duty as a moral imperative as well as for things like corporal punishment. He WANTED the "toxic masculinity" culture, that was his own culture as he perceived it.
The movie is basically the complete opposite, satirically portraying colonial/martial values against the backdrop of an imperial state. It's one of the biggest disparities in intent vs interpretation I have ever seen.
The movie rocks, by the way. Still watch it once a year
Yeah, he's the hardest to pin down of the 20th century masters of sci fi. LeGuinn wears her heart on her sleeve and while she explores ideas, she has a consistent direction. Herbert demands critical thinking (if the entire book is Paul terrified of the evil of him leading the jihad, what does it mean when he leads the jihad at the end). Asimov is out there exploring ideas, but you can figure him out (it's been a long time since I've read him). And Clarke is pretty consistent in his distrust of those who desire power.
Rico is an officer in the war-machinery of one of the more fascist systems imagined in film. After the events of Operation Royalty he sends what basically amounts to child-soldiers to their deaths. He believes only military service should grant citizenship and shows unquestioning loyalty to the Federation.
But I'm sure he only followed orders, that's a perfectly good excuse.
It's the ending scene. "We have new ships, we have new weapons. Now we need soldiers..." they show Carmen as captain of her own ship with a lieutenant that looks like she didn't even finish high school and then Rico as the lieutenant of the roughnecks, their ranks filled with new, younger recruits. "C'mon you apes, you wanna live forever?!"
Well, in the movies alone he's pretty much the same thing: officer of a fascist war machine. And while he is presented as a dumb jock at the beginning, by the end of the movie (movies, too) he's pretty much shown absolutely no character growth, besides being much more pumped about the fascist war machine.
Every time I think about Rico, I remember when he talks about citizenship. First in school, then at the funeral. Same definition, word for word. Just more conviction the second time around.
The only one i have a gripe with is the Brand of Sacrifice. Yes, in the Berserk world, it marks one for sacrifice by the Godhand. But we dont live in the Berserk world. To me, the Brand is a sign of struggle, and a symbol of resisting fate and destiny. It's standing up for yourself, even when the easy thing would be to lay down. It's facing adversity and pain when the world wants to kick you and beat you down. That's what the Brand means to me.
Nah, Griffith was always about that shit that's the point. Griffith was always about himself that was a huge plot point of the story. Given that choice again 10 times out of 10 he would pick it the same choice. He would do anything achieve his goals, he'd probably do worse if he had to.
I mean, he pretty clearly set the record. That irrespective of his appearance, clothing, situation, or anything else, he is a severely homicidal lunatic. One of the more effective scenes. (I liked darth Vader's "nooooo" as well)
Rorschach is basically the Punisher - it's only luck that he likes to kill and torture "bad people", and he shows himself that he's pretty flexible on the definition of "bad".
As a non-Irish-catholic who was not alive in 1940s America, I honestly can't make heads or tails of how conventional or steadfast his morals are, for that crowd. It's a common mistake to reference modern or personally felt sentiments as objective, when they are not. They are exceedingly contemporaneous and location dependent.
But he's a violent, insane, religious man in the 60s, so there's probably something off beyond turning the dial up to 1100
It has been a long time but I remember feeling sad for Rico in the book. I don't know if Heinlein intended it to be seen like this but by the end it felt like there was nothing left of the human being.
Ya they both wanted the same thing but paul vanhoeven went a more literal path. The book read more like the recounting of a jar heads experience. Implying that despite the future having all these new toys the fasicm and ptsd hasn't change. While PVH wanted to show how seductive and enthralling fascism ACTUALLY is. Most kids were down for genocide without thinking it through. Star ship troops is a propaganda film that seduces its watchers with sex, adventure, and style.
I guess it would have been harder to accomplish commercially a similar feeling that I believe Mass Effect 2 elicited.
Mass Effect 2 major plot point
::: spoiler spoiler
All through one of the three games in the series, you're fighting this intelligent hive species with a central overlord called creatively "The General". Right before the exact moment of defeat, you find out that the General and therefore all of his people, had been under the direct control of the true villain in the story. You realize this as the now normal, non-glowing eyes, General looks around confused and confused. Then they're gone with the blast wave.
:::
Starship troopers unfortunately had a perfect straw man villain with the bugs. It would have been interesting to see something like James Cameron's tall smurf people as the antagonist in the story instead.
Halfway to that and Starship troopers is the game Hell Divers 2 which has you being a literal suicide commando. If you die in the game, you're character is replaced by a new recruit waiting in stasis. If you look and listen, the writers give you horrifying hints of the truth. One example is the intelligent bug species are fighting back because Super Earth had been using them as fuel for their star ships.
That is unfortunately PVH's mistake with Starship Troopers. There is no contrast to show how fucked up things are.
In a similar vein Walter from breaking bad, though that makes less sense. Tony soprano was at least a charismatic sociopath, Walt was just an asshole
Also the classic nerd version, Rick from Rick and Morty. Bojack horseman too, which is extra funny because the show eventually called this out (in a way that almost certainly went over the head of some of the people who idealized him)
Bojack horseman too, which is extra funny because the show eventually called this out (in a way that almost certainly went over the head of some of the people who idealized him)
The thing with Bojack that I think is really poignant, though, is that I think that the people who idolize him don't do so because they see in Bojack somebody they want to be, but because they see somebody they already are. Bojack is a canary in the coal mine to the depressive viewer. "If Bojack can pull through this, maybe I can, too."
As a character, Bojack isn't a goal to achieve; he's a warning. If you treat everyone around you like shit, you're going to find yourself all alone in your darkest moments. Bojack serves as a reminder that sometimes personal redemption has an expiration date; the longer you wait to correct the wrongs of your past, the more Sarah Lynns will come and go through your life. Bojack shows the viewer that it's never too late to change, but that there are consequences to waiting; you can't wallow in pity and self-loathing forever, and you're not the only one who's affected by the way you treat yourself.
I'm sure a lot of people don't make it through the show to really get all that, though. Which is a shame, because I think Bojack tells an incredibly beautiful story that gets missed by many.
Bojack is a great show because it highlights so many forms of depression and destructive behavior. Everyone in that show has problems, even Mr Peanutbutter, who I think importantly shows you can be a flawed person while most people love you and you're usually happy.
Seeing Bojack act out in so many destructive ways gave me an objective view of a lot of behaviors in myself and it led to me getting help for my major depression. I lead a very different life today thanks to the realistic depictions of broken characters in that show.
Bojack isn't just depressed. He's almost certainly got CPTSD, possibly with a personality disorder (HPD feels right but I haven't watched since the finale was new). His life sucks because he keeps giving in to his worse instincts and desires.
Hrs very relatable as someone who struggles with CPTSD, and had to learn how to do healthy and responsible things instead of just whatever my brain says.
But fundamentally as a character he represents the failure state of managing trauma. He keeps trying and he keeps failing harder and harder, but never seeks the real help he needs or learns to have a setback without spiraling out of control and hurting someone else, usually pretty bad. Hell, he keeps thinking that dependants will make him better and then damages them because of course they won't.
Which is a huge shame, because doing what you want without much worry about consequences is actually super doable WHILE still caring about other people
Not if you've been taught that everything is a zero-sum game, which apparently many people believe, especially in the States. If you believe that one person gaining something necessarily means that someone else loses something to an equal or greater degree, caring about other people inherently means having to compromise on your own happiness.
Of course it becomes a lot easier if you believe that it's possible to win together and that giving a little can make a huge difference in someone's day.
Yeah true, and I think that makes him more authentic tbh. When I worked with domestic violence situations the perpetrators often hit the same vibe, super charismatic and many people around would second guess claims against them. but underneath they had serious anger issues that made them increasingly assholes and eventually straight up dangerous during periods of high stress. The charisma is a cloak that takes a lot of effort. That’s what people ignore with the character and irl too, they rationalize it away to try and make sense of caring about a person who is objectively shitty
God I love the sopranos, I wish I had time to rewatch that glorified crew
Maybe I'm media illiterate but when I watched BB I could not follow Walt at all. Like he did the thing, he got the money, then he's like more meth Jesse we need to cooooook out of nowhere. Were there hints that I just missed that he was going down that path? Because every time he tripled down it felt like it was out of nowhere.
Also scenes like when he's ordering his son to drink more just because Hank told him it was a bit much. We're seeing that Walter will hurt anyone, including his family, when his ego feels threatened.
power corrupts. as he amasses more power in the criminal underworld he believes himself to be better than the people around him, that he can change the corrupt system from the inside. it's not until hank dies that he actually realises what he's been doing, but at that point it's already too late.
Walt was on an ego trip the entire time - the money was an excuse but the feeling of being in power and in control was always the real reason for his actions. Remember that he torched some guy's car and turned down a generous job offer for personal, functionally petty reasons before he'd started cooking. You could argue that the offer was patronizing, but if his concern was really about taking care of his family instead of wanting to feel like he was the big guy in charge of things would he really have said no?
Maybe that thing never really needed doing, if it's only means for operation was via evil means. Maybe that whole system just needed to be entirely dismantled.
I don't understand why it's bad to enjoy evil characters. I don't want to just consume Disney forever. I wouldn't say I like Griffith as a person, but he is a very interesting character and crucial to the plot of Berserk. The title makes it sound like there is some alternative version of Berserk where Griffith doesn't exist and it's somehow better. Just because I like these characters doesn't mean I missed any point. I don't think that's the case for most people. These posts are r/iamverysmart material.
If you understand that Griffith is not someone anyone should want to emulate, I don't think this meme is about you anyway.
This meme is about the insecure dudes who are hurt and angry and decide to channel that into some cringe edge-lord 'I want to hurt everyone else and feel nothing but that it is my destiny to be on top' phase.
I have a hard time believing that those people represent a demographic larger than just a few online trolls. I think the meme is really about OP feeling smart
Is this becoming a big thing somewhere? I have somehow managed to avoid those communities apparently. Or is it tied to a certain age group I don't fall into?
I think you are forgetting that we are living in an era where "the internet trolls" are proving to be prevalent or at least highly influential in the real world. The US has elected a complete brat twice, the AFD are threatening a fourth reich, and terms like "looksmaxing" have entered the general lexicon.
No one who watched gamergate occur on in the mid 2010s, and then tried to explain it to normal people who said 'oh that's just niche internet drama', and then watched the rise of the alt-right, is ever going to see dangerous bullshit online and believe it will just stay there ever again.
I was unaware if it was that's why I figured it was worth asking. I don't exactly travel the world and my passport is in fact expired lol. So if it isn't happening locally in my small town I find I may be blind to it
You are missing the point, this post proves it. Nobody said that you can't call characters well written or interesting, where people fall short is when they think these people are anything to aspire to or emulate. If you're doing neither then move on but if you think those guys are worth anything of human value then you'd be severely confused on what humanity is worth.
I don't think anyone is really saying any of those things though beyond obvious trolls. At least for most of the characters in this post. Maybe the fight club guy is an exception. Who is with 100% sincerity saying that Griffith and Johan are in the right? This post is making up problems that don't exist.
I think that the Brotherhood of Steel at least has valid arguments for each side. It's not an inherently evil idea, it's certain individuals that give them a bad name. There are genuinely good people in the BoS.
Yeah the point of them is that they're ultimately grey. They're blocked from doing the most good and to a reasonable degree from doing the most evil. But they're self destructive no matter what and for every group of heroes you get from them, you get similar groups of villains. They're knights in shining armor, some gallant and heroic and others self interested bullies, trying to keep everyone else from returning to an advanced society, but also trying to protect them from the evils of it.
The biggest thing is they can't maintain any moral character from group to group or generation to generation. They're too insulated, too ideologically bound (in a way completely separated from morality), too focused on their goals. They hate the Enclave, sure, but in part because both see themselves as what's left of the government, they hate Caesar, but they also hate other grey factions like the NCR and the institute, and they can't see the good of the railroad.
I don't understand why it's bad to enjoy evil characters.
Just because I like these characters doesn't mean I missed any point.
It's not bad but it's a dangerous line to tread. You may get the nuance but far too many people don't. It's why so many people are enchanted by Tyler Durden and Patrick Bateman. These characters are meant to be vilified, not aspired to. That is why the cults of personality and admiring strongman authoritarians still persist because many people are easily impressed by raw display of power. Yanis Varoufakis mentioned we are all susceptible to it-- and by extension fascism-- in varying degrees and we'd be lying if we don't feel impressed. He's not saying we all secretly admire fascists but that all of us have a dark side and containing it is really the challenge.
I know it's just my personal experience but I see more people saying that people are enchanted by those characters than i've ever seen anyone actually admit to it. Maybe you have, I can't really argue that. I also disagree that it is a dangerous line to tread. Liking evil characters isn't anymore dangerous than liking violent video games like GTA
I see more people saying that people are enchanted by those characters than i've ever seen anyone actually admit to it.
I don't know about you but i see on social media defending and glazing toxic masculine figures such as Tyler Durden and Patrick Bateman. The profile of those admirers are typically lonely and insecure men, which another user has pointed out.
I can agree that there are probably some people who severely misunderstand those two characters. I do find it kinda funny that we both picked completely different people from the post. I firmly believe no one is misunderstanding Griffith and Johan. Any posts you may have seen defending them are 100% trolls
I don't know about Griffith and Johan. I just thought they are of the same level of asshole-ness as Patrick Bateman, Tyler Durden and Joker because they are put together in this post 😅
Any posts you may have seen defending them are 100% trolls
I even met people in real life who hinted they admire toxic male figures although they won't say it out loud. But in social media, they are vocal what they truly believe in. Although many are trolls, some indeed admire toxic masculinity. Social media merely gave these folks a megaphone to proclaim their thoughts.
In short, Griffith turns into a God/Demon by sacrificing all of his friends and followers, then proceeds to rape his best friend's love interest right in front of him. Johan was the product of a Nazi experiment to turn humans into super soldiers from birth.
In all honestly, I likely wouldn't have been so critical of this post had they not been included with the likes of Tyler Durdan, Joker, and Bateman. Lots of users have used the latter 3 as examples that work with what the OP is saying. I just don't believe Griffith and Johan fit here.
Agreed. I love tons of evil characters precisely because they are more interesting or they make the world more interesting. So many have more interesting motivations, more interesting developments, and more interesting dialogue than the hero roles they counter.
There is a difference between enjoying an evil character, and what a lot of people do with these specific evil characters. The ones in this meme are often looked up to by a bunch of people. There are lots of people who believe they are the correct person in the story, or otherwise the one to be idolized.
I can't really counter your argument, I've just never heard of anyone who thinks Griffith, Johan or any of these characters are correct. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I doubt it's anywhere close to being a split position to having.
Well, TBF, you have to get deeper into the weeb side of the black pill movement to understand how many weirdos out their side with grifith's philosophy/the godhead, or Johan from monster. However, you will absolutely see them frequently if you, for some reason, subject yourself to places that have black pillers in larger numbers, twitter, 4chan, facebook... You would probably have to been in conversation space about scifi to really see the people who unironically defend the military government of earth in starship troopers, however its pretty common when the subject comes up.
However the Joker? you really have never seen people side with the Joker? I actually have a hard time believing you are social media savvy enough to be on Lemmy, and have not experienced the armies of losers that identify with the Joker as a hero. This is like police with punisher skulls level of common. The idolization of Tyler Durden as a working class hero is also quite common.
You're right about Tyler Durdan and Joker. By "these characters" I was referring to the ones I mentioned specifically, Griffith and Johan. Bad choice of words on my part.
Talking about not getting it. The people in this thread bring up points about liking things for reasons that don't mean you agree with the evil character, and think the are to be looked up to, while simultaneously ignoring that there are massive crowds of people out their that do just that, look up to these people like hero's, believe they are the correct ones, etc. and that this is what the meme was addressing, not someone thinking a character was a good character for story writing purposes.
Not everyone participates in reading the deeper meaning of media.
Some people just turn off their brains and watch the magic smiles box and come away liking the characters and movie without thinking any further than what was portrayed on screen.
Half the characters on this list are just really awesome visual/character portrayals.
They didn't misunderstand the message, you misunderstood their intent going into the media.
You watch movies to dissect their meanings, others watch movies to escape reality for a bit.
You watch movies to dissect their meanings, others watch movies to escape reality for a bit.
The dissecting of media (which i do a lot) isn't something i choose - it comes pretty automatically with media literacy. As soon as you develop the skills needed to analyze subtext and themes, and start to take a critical stance regarding video content, you can't really switch it off outside of getting wasted.
So i'd say the difference is simply in media literacy (and more broadly, general education) and level of cognitive impairment.
That's because this is the normal flow of things. Pare the mediums away, and you're left with the same basic core: Stories.
The storyteller always has a reason for telling a story. Even when they are only setting out to entertain.
To be able to separate one's actual feelings, knowledge, and values in order to write a purely entertaining tale, requires that the storyteller be aware of them. At which point they must then take an extra step to insert others.
What stories are, at their heart is the passing of an abstract message or purpose encoded in a surface pattern meant to be cognitively sticky.
The reason might be to teach the young in the tribe the seasonal crop patterns as it was thousands of years ago, as it still is in some places.
Or it could be a commentary on the social state of the times. Or any other thing.
But the other thing a story must be, is engrossing.
A good story must be entertaining or funny or terrifying. It must tug at the emotions of the listener in some way.
That's what makes it stick. That's how stories work.
There is nothing wrong with refusing to dig deeper into the meaning of a tale, especially if it's presented or done poorly. That turns it into a lesson.
But the best stories, it doesn't matter if you seek out the deeper meaning or not.
It'll be there regardless and so will the story, and if and when the listener grows, the meaning will make itself clear on the next recounting.
You're welcome. You can grok it if you read what I replied to, and then use media literacy to examine the negative spaces in my response; namely if all I gave are examples of what a story nee--Wait.
You talk about cognitive impairment of others yet fail to understand the only thing you're doing is imparting your world view and how you navigate it as how everyone else does/should. You have an extremely narrow perception of how the world works because you can only view it through your own lens.
The only one here impaired in their judgement is you.
If you are not able to analyze the subtext of content, repeating motives in it and why someone specifically tells a story, you will always be a fool, because you are not able to discern between people who want to lead you astray and people who are upright in their convictions.
And people who are ok with others being essentially illiterate in these times are enabling liars, abusers, scammers, thieves, fascists and dictators.
I have to add: Media made to just have a laugh are fine! I laughed my ass off over all 6 Sharknado movies. But this doesn't mean i engage uncritically with it - in this case it was obvious that these movies are not taking themselves seriously, and therefore i was also able to go with that.
I was also able to enjoy the Marvel movies somewhat, while having concerns with some underlying themes that are pretty militaristic and disenfranchising of common people. The notion that only "special" people can enact change in a society is a harmful one in my opinion.
Rich frat bros at my college literally started fight clubs thinking it was about getting ripped and dangerous. Then many of them got life-changing injuries and stopped.
Both sides of the equation can be true, yet unequal.
Maybe. The disaffected youth told they would become something special and they never became that? The office workers and service industry people and low-wage workers that were both the fight club and Project Mayhem? That's not them. They're literally the corporate stooges to be that Tyler fought against.
They didn't misunderstand the message, you misunderstood their intent going into the media.
Hahaha no.
Their intent was not to understand the media, but to merely consume it.
... they still in fact did misunderstand it.
Yeah, its true that not everybody approaches a piece of media trying to fully comprehend and appreciate it, yeah its true that it's fine to have media that doesn't require much brain power to comprehend, yeah its fine to lazily enjoy things from time to time.
None of that means these movies and characters are not notorious for being basically 180 degrees misunderstood by people barely paying attention.
They didn't misunderstand the message, you misunderstood their intent going into the media
Imagine saying the equivalent of this to a teacher who failed your creative writing paper because you wrote for a completely different prompt than the one assigned.
This is an asinine thing to say, its a non sequitir.
An explanation for why something happens is not the same as 'that thing didn't happen'.
That was so well-put, thank you. I've never had a tidy, succinct response for this sort of thing and yet you summed it up so well; I don't disagree that many people have definitely misunderstood the character/media/etc, but it's definitely true that some people just enjoy things anyway.
I do both. Doesn't everyone? I love a healthy home cooked meal, a book or article so deep it feels as satisfying as sex, but also can love a bag of french fries or a repeat of Pride & Prejudice or Hot Fuzz.
True, but you can taste the flavors in the fries and you should be consuming them consciously.
Some messages are really obvious and others are kinda subtle. I love Brooklyn 99, but I also acknowledge that it's copaganda and have to watch out that I'm not letting it influence me out of positions I came to by thinking things through. In the same way that when I eat a bag of fries I have to watch out that I'm not eating myself unhealthy.
When I consume something that's largely dumb fun, but has a pretty clear message I pick up the message. Fallout games (except 3) are openly telling you that the brotherhood of steel engage in dangerous ideological and organizational structures that lead to damage. But when my brain is off and I'm playing one of the games it just reads as "these guys have serious issues despite the good they sometimes do".
I think Heath Ledgers version of the Joker was interesting. I didn't really like the other ones.
I would guess that he's actually the "Dark Knight." From the way the movie portrays him, it seems he's a ex-military guy that lost his mind. Technically he does more for the city than Batman by basically pitting criminals against each other and going after corrupt officials. So I did dissect the meanings in that movie, my buddy was really into superhero movies and such but I usually got bored with them; I would say that's the only one I enjoyed.
Rough guess: maybe because it’s a burden on Guts and not something he wanted. His life is basically forfeit and he endangers those he’s around because of it.
You have now been marked with the Brand of Sacrifice. The lives of those who bear the Brand, from the last drop of blood, to the last moment of your agonizing death, will feed life to the new Child of Darkness.
NINJA EDIT: This one is kinda up in the air to me though. You don’t have to necessarily like Guts or any of the characters, but the symbol can represent how one might feel haunted by their past struggles. It can be symbolic of the demons that follow you. How I relate to it: I’ve witnessed every member of my closest immediate family circle pass away from various illnesses over the years, including my brother just recently. So I feel similarly alone like I’m wandering the earth cursed.
Yeah, judging a tattoo without asking about it is often a path toward misunderstanding. A friend of mine has all of their allergies tattooed down their shoulder, but only some are visible when they're wearing a short sleeve shirt. You'd think they were a freed beekeeper based on the feather and bee peeking out. But the list is fully visible and labeled in a tank top
That doesn't make sense though (I get that you're doing your best to explain, not saying what you've come up with is dumb, I just don't see the initial premise). It's like saying you admire Lord of the Rings characters or a WWII hero, and someone asks you if you realize how much these characters suffered. Yeah, no shit?
No worries, I haven’t read Berserk in a while, so I might even be missing a few things. The hell they went through is kind of the point I think. People admire folks and figures that endured through unimaginable traumas, because they try to take strength from it.
I dont get how that one made the list either. As an American, I feel that brand on me whenever I shop and I know my money feeds the machines of giant corporations that want nothing more than to consume me until I die. Even my existing and consuming is feeding those beasts that hurt those around me and destroy the world we live in.
Sure, a bit melodramatic and "I'm 14 and this is deep" but I'm not sure it's so innaccurate.
Sure, a bit melodramatic and "I'm 14 and this is deep" but I'm not sure it's so innaccurate.
No, don't accept that "you're only 14" bullshit. I was fed that garbage and wondered when I would magically understand that the shite state of affairs in our bleak modern "culture" in the USA is OK. It's not ok, and I have never accepted it as inevitable, or "human nature", or any other justification for complacency I was given.
Don't sell your ideals and hopes for a better world short because people that have given up tell you it's not possible.
Was wondering the same thing, I see it as a symbol of constantly enduring a reality of torment and thriving on pure hate. Reminds me of Sisyphus, except that he's also angry at the gods.
Maybe OP didn't get the point either on why people might identify with some of these characters.
is the tattoo of the brand that bad? I mean, as long as they realize what it means.
personally I always wanted one because I felt my life was forfeit to the machine that runs our world and wanted a constant memory to become a stubborn thorn in the side of the ruling class just like Gutz.
A lot of people think it means "i am big strong guts man" just like the punish supposedly means "im a cop who punishes people"
To me, it means constant struggle against a world that has forsaken you. You are a currency to be spent, and the only escape is constant effort to free yourself and your loved ones.
I agree. I interpret it as a form of rebellion against the throes of perdition and fighting demons that plague the human condition like greed, anger, etc. The mark makes him aware of the affliction that some men carry.
In NV they're very problematic. For the big picture fight they're a lesser evil, but when you talk with Veronica and go through her quests and the DLC you see how they're broken and stuck in the past, and they're comfortable really fucking over their people. Veronica sees the greatness and the flaws, and she also sees how deep and damaging the flaws are.
In 3 they're heroes. But I actually kinda like how they're all over the place because it feels realistic. Yeah you will occasionally get the Lyons, out there being knights in shining armor here to protect everyone. And other times you'll get all the other sides you see in different games. All that really matters to them is the isolation of old technology.
FO: London was nice because I didn’t have to remember any of the faction morality because it was all new people.
I will say I was uncomfortably far into the game before I realized that Fifth Column were just straight up fascists. Characters said so, but pretty much everyone is unreliable so I thought they would be exaggerating.
I will say I very much suck at picking up the message in media. Not that I end up agreeing with shitty people, but I’m always wondering like “Wait…is the creator saying this is a good thing?”
The first two are from berserk, the third is from monster.
The first one is a mark for sacrifice, the other two are the perfect psychopath archetype.
I (and someone else here) think the mark doesn't fit because it has a great message about strugging and fighting the greater powers of the world.
I understood the messages perfectly well, I just like the bad guys in this case. If it makes it any better ive also got a Freedom patch from S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and two NCR patches.
I can get behind a brand of sacrifice tattoo, it says 'I too am a struggler' but I agree a lot of people probably don't get that it's literally a mark that you're a human sacrifice that also pulls you and everything and everyone around you half way to hell
To expand on that, it tricks the viewer into getting seduced by that fascism. The main point is to show the viewer that you aren't immune to it. It's much easier to get swept up in the jingoistic hate for the subhuman enemy when said enemy is actually nonhuman. Wisecrack made a good video breakdown of this some years ago.
At the start of the movie you're just in it to avenge Buenos Aires, by the end you're cheering for the guy dressed as a Nazi proclaiming the enemy is afraid.
I might be reading too much into a specific visual choice here, but IIRC even that might've been a false flag operation. The arachnid home planet is shown on a map to be on the other side of the galaxy, so not exactly asteroid throwing distance.
Before the asteroid we get snippets of lore here and there that hint at the fact that humanity intruded into Arachnid space and started the conflict by killing lots of bugs and that the bugs started throwing rocks in response to that.
It's a pity the filmmakers leaved out these details from the book. The bugs not only were capable of sending asteroids through the galaxy, but also made starships to travel to other planets. The humans had power armor and carried a couple of shoulder-mounted atomic bombs each.
While fascism has only ever been observed with a dictator, due to its fundamental nature of consolidating power and national identity, in theory a very tight oligarchy could be fascist.
Dictatorship isn't so much a mandatory component of fascism as it is a logical conclusion of the ideology in practice
So we come to my second point. There was only one Nazism. We cannot label Franco’s hyper-Catholic Falangism as Nazism, since Nazism is fundamentally pagan, polytheistic, and anti-Christian. But the fascist game can be played in many forms, and the name of the game does not change. The notion of fascism is not unlike Wittgenstein’s notion of a game. A game can be either competitive or not, it can require some special skill or none, it can or cannot involve money. Games are different activities that display only some “family resemblance,” as Wittgenstein put it. Consider the following sequence:
1___2___3___4
abc bcd cde def
Suppose there is a series of political groups in which group one is characterized by the features abc, group two by the features bcd, and so on. Group two is similar to group one since they have two features in common; for the same reasons three is similar to two and four is similar to three. Notice that three is also similar to one (they have in common the feature c). The most curious case is presented by four, obviously similar to three and two, but with no feature in common with one. However, owing to the uninterrupted series of decreasing similarities between one and four, there remains, by a sort of illusory transitivity, a family resemblance between four and one.
Fascism became an all-purpose term because one can eliminate from a fascist regime one or more features, and it will still be recognizable as fascist. Take away imperialism from fascism and you still have Franco and Salazar. Take away colonialism and you still have the Balkan fascism of the Ustashes. Add to the Italian fascism a radical anti-capitalism (which never much fascinated Mussolini) and you have Ezra Pound. Add a cult of Celtic mythology and the Grail mysticism (completely alien to official fascism) and you have one of the most respected fascist gurus, Julius Evola.
It's so obvious that Eco is biased when it comes to religion.
Nazism is fundamentally pagan, polytheistic, and anti-Christian
After reading "Belief or Nonbelief?" I continue to find little hints about how Eco, even as an agnostic, really struggles with leaving his catholic indoctrination behind.
The Lemmy has decided that it is about facism so it is about facism, just like you might think the matrix is a fun sci-fi future tech action movie but it's not, it's actually about the experiences of transgenders
You see when you spend as much time online as the chronically online, you come to learn that if you overthink enough you can find problems with everything
The Lemmy has decided that it is about facism so it is about facism
Well, so did films creators. Though as with all art of course you don't have to view it the same way its creator did. But there's no need to be an ass about it.
I think the SS uniforms, the eagles in the flag and the emblems, the social darwinist attitudes, passionate hate towards the bugs (a disgusting subhuman enemy which needs to be genocided for a final solution) and dismissals of logic in favor of propagandistic appeals to emotion are much more apparent examples. Also the fact that all the actors got cast for their looks in true propaganda movie fashion.
The protagonists home could've been anywhere for the same plot, so my interpretation was that the city was named just to drive home the point that there's only one global state.
Having never been to Buenos Aires, I expected to see brown people when I looked up Buenos Aires. But no, their demographics are majority non-native. Colonialism and immigration hit them like a train. To be clear, I don't mean a mechanical locomotive.
Neil Patrick Harris is dressed in a blatant SS look alike uniform at the end and Switch exists in the Matrix movie. Matrix was more overtly about the illusions of a constructed soceity but I feel like the trans allegory was always there. Isn’t the red pill a HRT reference since estrogen pills were red in the 90s?
::: spoiler Switch
Switch was originally meant to change genders upon entering the Matrix, which coined their name "Switch". In the real world, Switch would be male, and in the Matrix, Switch would be female - a very clever and critical point of the 'residual self-image' idea. When actress Belinda McClory auditioned for the role, she was going for only half the role - Switch's Matrix form.
Warner Brothers made the decision to cut this and give Switch one form for both environments.
:::
Religious Extremist Settler Colonialism just ends up destroying your society as well as the colonized.
The entire situation with the bugs was caused by Mormon Extremist settlers, who literally started the entire interplanetary war by settling on territory illegally.
A relative minor detail in the movie, but maybe perhaps relevant to current events, human history broadly.
Regardless of speculation about the movies universe the point is the movie is a satire of facism, as that’s how the director interpreted the book (that is, fascist in nature). A lot of people missed this about the movie. If the arming of kids and sending them off to war, the slogans, the service guaranteeing citizenship and as I mentioned in another comment, the SS uniforms, don’t convince you. Maybe the directors own words will:
Although some contemporary critics and audiences considered Starship Troopers to be an endorsement of fascism, Verhoeven said, "whenever you see something that you think is fascist, you should know that the filmmakers agree with your opinion"
Edit: check out the wiki if you’d like to know more.
Don't you think a non-militarized society would probably have not started a war in the first place? The bugs were minding their own business before humans showed up looking to shoot shit and steal other shit.
The voice over puts this on "Mormon Extremist Settlers", yes.
The problems with that is:
Those are still humans settling in bug space
Can we believe the propaganda voice over?
Mormon extremists?
The propaganda machinery of the Federation would never take responsibility, it's all about keeping the populace in a constant state of fear, anger and hyperpatriotic, unthinking loyalty.
We keep hearing about the "Arachnid exclusion zone" and "quarantined bug space" which implies that the Federation has been trying to restrict the bugs from leaving their space, while the map of the galaxy, showing where earth is and where bug space is located makes it pretty clear that the Federation of Citizens has expanded aaaaaaall the way across the galaxy. Knowing how imperialist settler colonialism works, it's easy to see how the Federation is either
a) sending settlers into bug space to expand their own territory, or
b) engineering conflict with the bugs in order to keep the militarist machinery rolling, or
c) most likely, doing both.
So basically we can’t like Berserk? I don’t like Griffith, I don’t have a BoS tattoo, but I don’t think getting one is “missing the point.” A lot of people have been through fucked up shit, they feel haunted by it, and they relate to that message of soldiering on.
For a brief moment I thought this was telling me my Mechanicus special interest was invalid, and then I processed the 'ad victoriam' and realized it was fallout.
That, and I dunno. The older I get the more I start to agree that maybe lots of motherfuckers really shouldn't be trusted with technology.
The Brotherhood's original intentions were more or less sound, it's just that like with all religious and quasi-religious organizations the internal power structure and rituals eventually became more important than the mission, and as everyone kind of went whackadoodle as a result the whole thing rather went off the rails.
I think part of the problem is that Bethesda doesn't really seem to have a good critical understanding. They like the superficial stuff, like children. Like this meme, I guess.
That's Marriage material. If you aspire to the Mojave chapter you probably already have a bunker and enough stored resources to survive the fall of America twice over.
God dammit didn’t even realise. Dunno why this is being downvoted? Yet another baby account with hundreds of posts and seemingly copying them from reddit. This is like the 4th I’ve seen a couple weeks. The one before this had 588 post and comments in the same time span.
316 replies
Berserk doesn't really belong here. Nobody likes Griffith because they think he's aspirational
Taxi Driver as well
I still like naked snake, big boss and venom snake and understood the messenge
Don't get the MGS on the list. I, frankly, haven't played all of them. Only TPP. And in there you are it even playing as solid snake. And, say, we consider this Pic as a Venom snake, so how exactly is he a bad guy? The whole point of the game is to peacefully remove arms from an enemy, nukes included. I mean, ofc you can go full Rambo and kill everyone and build nukes. But then youd be evil for doing so. Real game is to go pacifist and save everyone. How is this "I misunderstood the message"?
Again want to mention thatI have no idea about the rest of the series. I would like an explanation.
Damn, some of y'all just suck all the fun out of tv and movies huh
40k Space Marines
I once came across a system in No Man's Sky with planets named "Griffith did nothing wrong" and "casca enjoyed it". Truly a wild system.
My exwife has a large slytherin tattoo. That house in pottery is just “the bad guys”. There’s not charecter arch or deeper meaning, no complexity in writing.
They are just the bad guys, who are evil and mean. That’s it. She loves em.
A lot of people have Empire tattoos, Decepticon tattoos, and so on. Fictional bad guys are just cool.
There are cool fictional bad guys and annoying fictional bad guys like prince Joffrey (GoT), king Einon (Dragonheart), Dolores Umbridge (Harry Potter), Winn Adami (DS9).
Warhammer 40k Chaos is also cool.
They need to be more than bad guys. Darth Wader started as good guy, than became a bad guy, than redeemed himself. Nobody normal has a tattoo of nurse Ratchet.
I love Zeon/Neo Zeon mobile suits. Don't agree with the views, but damn do they have some cool designs.
I mean, spacenoid rights, which is what Zeon Diekun preached, was not the same as the as the Principality of Zeon, which is the Zabi Family dictatorship, and the ones that gassed and dropped a colony.
At last, a true Zeonic! 🫡
Consider the alternatives:
Suicidal, stupid, trouble causing and seeking, bullying "brave" Griffindors.
Bookworm "smart", swot grinders Ravenclaws.
Sly and cunning, "ambitious" Slytherins.
Neither brave, smart or sly, menial workers Hufflepuffs.
Idk about you, but out of those options to me speaks the most "neither", but if I have to sleep somewhere, I'd wear green.
Dude, Hufflepuffs got it right. "Nobody expects us to achieve anything, so they'll praise us if we just show up". That's a pro level life hack. They are the "take it easy" house. If The Dude was in Hogwarts, he'd be in Hufflepuff. If I was in Hogwarts I'd be in Hufflepuff.
hufflepuff definitely the stoner house. Entrance even located right by the kitchen
Their house teacher is the herbology teacher, definitely the stoner house.
They weren’t particularly sly cunning or smart. Ambitious I’ll give you.
The book sets it up like slytherin and gryfindor are basically the same except one is evil.
I am quoting the books with cunning and ambitious. It also mentions resourcefulness.
It's just that the author is not that good with her craft and she made them Evil, shallow house in practice.
Or maybe it's the other way, and she did that on purpose, so that the early children book has visible low stake antagonist Malfoy, who does not really matter compared to BBEG.
I understand what you mean. They are said to be those traits but that is absolutely not portrayed in the book.
So if you’re reading the books or watching the movie and thinking “I relate to those guys” all there is to relate to is being “bad”
They don’t have anything else going for them in the story.
Yeah the sorting hat sorta tells Harry slitherin folks are destined for big things (not necessarily good, but big) but then there's dumbfucks like crabbe and goyle in there who couldn't accomplish shit.
Joanne Kowling Rowling didn't exactly stay consistent about things in those books.
Dude, the Hufflepuffs' dorms are described as cozy and are located near the kitchen, that's objectivelly the best place to sleep in.
I thought about it. But low ceiling and the fact they are described as basically background noise made me uninterested ultimately. :-)
The most powerful wizard out of the Triwizard tournament. "Background noise". If school houses are groups then the "best" of those school houses should say more than the perspective of a boy bias by being in a different group.
Edit: maybe I shouldnt say most powerful, best rounded? Idk.
Not because of the Snape "redemption" at the end of the movie?
She doesn’t have a snape tattoo. She has slytherin and deatheater tattoos.
Might as well get a swastika tattoo.
Yeah, that's why I mentioned the only notable character with positive attributes.
Idk I think Malfoy gets it rough, kid was basically raised in and surrounded by a cult 24/7 with the threat of being ostracized by his family, friends and basically everyone he'd ever known if he put a foot out of line. The fact that he got any redemption arc at all even if it was late is more than a lot of indoctrinated people manage IRL.
A stalker who worshipped one woman because she talked to him as a child and he decided to abuse orphaned children caused by the very hate group he was a part of. As Voldemort is supposed to be placed during WW2, snape became a NAZI by choice... Then only decided to oppose them when Hitler decided to kill someone he cared about.
Why he is such an ass to Neville we'll never understand.
I thought he hated Neville because who the chosen one was prophecy described either Harry or Neville, and Voldemort went after Harry, sealing who the prophecy was and sealing Harry's mother's fate, making Snape hate him because Neville's parents could have died instead of a woman that would have never gotten with his shit ass.
But it's been ages since I've read the books.
Nevilles parents were tortured to insanity by Snapes friend. "Not his friend" walks into his home and he doesn't kill them. How do we know it was done before.... Because they did it before Voldemort died. He was a baby who was orphaned because Snape was and will always be, worse than 99% of NAZI's. His actions after proved it
Two more for the pile
Edit: ironically, it seems my media literacy could be called into question here too based on the mismatch between the tone of OP meme and the tone of the responses I posted. Context for anybody missing it below.
The punisher is a revenge fantasy carried out on corrupt policemen. The message was basically acab before acab was a thing people said. Policemen, who tend to have IQ that matches their best mile time in minutes, love to plaster his logo all over everything they own.
The bottom photo is Tom Morello of Rage Against The Machine. Rather than summarize his story, I'll share his response when a prominent conservative politician tweeted about RatM being their favorite band. "I wonder what [Paul] Ryan's favorite Rage song is? Is it the one where we condemn the genocide of Native Americans? The one lambasting American imperialism? Our cover of "Fuck the Police"? Or is it the one where we call on the people to seize the means of production? So many excellent choices to jam out to at Young Republican meetings!"
Morello was in a Voyager episode?!?!? I don't even really like RATM, but holy fuckin BASED
‘Good Shepherd’ S06E20, it’s just a cameo appearance though.
Good lookin out! Voyager is one of the few Trek shows I haven't seen every episode of, I mean I've seen most of Voyager, so I might've seen that one. It just makes sense, Starfleet is the embodiment of leftist socialist idealism, I do love it so
What are you on about? Starfleet is a (at least quasi)military organization with a obvious hierarchical order. The captain tells you to jump? You say how high. There's a lot of discussions, but in the end she/he decides the fate of all aboard.
Now, I love old Trek (up until and including Voyager) - it has a lot of merits - but it's far from how I'd want society to be optimally.
moth can't think of any examples of socialist nations with a rigid military hierarchy in the entire human history. no, none at all. can you?
moth tries to troll. Or moth has very different understanding of "leftist socialist idealism". But what do I know, very little.
RATM at least described themselves as anarchist/socialist if I remember correctly.
I know the point of Tom Morello being included is because RATM is completely misunderstood by conservatives, but it makes me giggle because he did a song for Final Fantasy XIV because a friend he played D&D with also knew a guy involved and it just happened.
But progressives can have hobbies. It's fine. Lol
Who's the dude in the bottom picture?
Tom Morello
What’s Tom doing in that list? From everything I’ve heard about him he seems like a great guy
I wonder if the message is about Rage Against the Machine and how conservatives always misunderstand the lyrics because they have zero media literacy.
Same with Born in the USA. They hear the chorus and think it's about how America rocks, but it's really about how we traumatize our soldiers and leave our vets out to dry.
Fortunate Son too
When did rage against the machine go woke?
Edit: Damn. It's funny how much you all suck.
Before they formed as a band.
Lol.
Upvoted because I caught the sarcasm lmao.
Holy wooosh
Doyoueverconsiderwhybeingawareofandagainsthorriblethingshappeningtoinnocentpeople,awareofthepeopleinchargescammingandlaughingatyouwhileyouscrabblearoundinthedirtblamingotherpeoplebeingscammedjustlikeyouisconsideredaninsultbyyourkind?Do you just enjoy the feeling of constantly being made a fool? Is that why you think 'woke' is such an insult? Some kind of weird kink about being robbed and abused?Well fuck me I fell for it. It's real hard to tell these days when someone's being facetious or not on the internet :(
It's all good. Here I was thinking I was laying it on pretty thick given the context, but here we are. 🤷
It turns out Lemmy is full of humorless morons.
Rage against the machine going woke is a very common joke on the internet. XD
People get used to assuming other people are dumber than them, especially online. So they see an obvious joke and instead if thinking "well obviously they didn't mean the thing they are pointing out, so they are pointing it out to mock that perspective", they just accept it face value, and then when called out on it go "poe's law" or argue that the fact that they didn't understand says a lot about society instead of doing any introspection.
The Machine: Love this shit USA FTW
RATM: …
It's a "misunderstood the message" in the opposite direction. He wrote angry songs about how the establishment is evil, and pro-establishment people thought they were angry songs about how people trying to change the establishment were evil.
Given there lyrics that's less of a misunderstanding and more illiteracy. The lyrics themselves were pretty damn clear.
I remember a classmate of mine thought the "some of those who work forces are the same that burn crosses" lyric was saying "Satanists are infiltrating our pristine and flawless police force!" And of course there's the quintessential "Fuck you I won't do what you tell me!" that all republicans thought meant "Fuck you, I won't do the bare minimum to care about others!"
Sure, but in the former case that takes some extreme cognitive dissonance. Rage wasn't ever really hiding things in their lyrics.
Oh, they were certainly enraged. Those damn satanists! But yeah, nobody I knew actually knew what the lyrics were - we all just mumbled along incoherently until we yelled out the few parts that everyone knew, so none of us were actually certain that the conservatives were totally misinterpreting what the song was saying.
Right wingers are too dumb to have media literacy and tend to love RATM. I do agree just a photo of him was probably the most confusing way to convey that message though.
The photo includes a message on his guitar, "arm the homeless", should have been a good indicator they weren't right wing.
But, But, he is saying more guns! I want more guns, and I identify as conservative, and republican!
Ahhhh yeah that makes sense, I think I was just under caffeinated. Thanks
https://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=7794
Guitar strings.
Damn, “Arm the homeless” is a hell of a take.
Yeah. The leftist in me thinks it goes kinda hard, but the volunteer social worker in me has spent a lot of time and effort making absolutely sure the homeless folk I've interacted with were not armed. I thought it said "arm the hopeless" when I found the picture
I mean, that's often the same thing.
Yeah, it hits hard when Lucy Paraons says it because she was widowed for her husband's opposition to the dictatorship of capital. When I was hungry and sleeping in my car I needed secure housing where I could do my homework and consistent access to food, not a gun. And plenty of homeless people would just hurt themselves or each other if armed.
Who (and how did they) misunderstood MGS? Kojima isn't exactly subtle.
And considering that Venom isn't even the real Big Boss, and Big Boss was only a true villain in the original Metal Gear, when he had zero backstory and wasn't even cool enough to get more than a fucking placeholder name, it's weird seeing him up there. 2 and 5 pretty much show his goal was to destroy the illuminati as well as take care of war vets who got fucked over by their government. He's only a villain to the shitty fascist governments controlled by The Patriots. He's way more of an anti-hero than an actual villain.
It's like calling Neo from The Matrix a villain because he killed innocent people who were tools of the enemy without their knowledge.
I think you're misunderstand the meme. I think it's aimed at Dude-bros® who only understand the superficial message which is obviously being disproven by the content. It's making fun of people who have a Fight Club poster on their wall because they think the message is "all men can be hardcore, bare knuckle boxers, if the stop letting a weak social framework tell them what they want." Or watching the film of Starship Troopers and learning "You can overcome any obstacle with enough bravado and testosterone." I'm not as familiar with most of the animes pictured, but I assume the jab is the same.
The message I got was "exercise, make friends, and blow shit up"
For all of em? I can see it...
The one that confuses me is the top roght;: that's Johan liebert from Monster. He's an irredeemable psychopath who kills his parents as a child, and when his sister shoots him in the head to stop him from killing her, he nearly dies. Then a surgeon saves his life, only to later realize that the life he saved is that of the aforementioned irredeemable psychopath. Many years later, Johan returns and thanks the surgeon for saving his life, crediting his noble act with all of the murders he has been committing and plans to commit. The surgeon has to track him down to terminate the horrid life he granted so many years before (largely to clear his own name, because the psychopath kills someone and the cops think the surgeon did it).
Johan liebert isn't even really making a philosophical point. He just needs to kill people. The surgeon's situation (is he culpable for the deaths allowed because he saved a life? Is it morally right to end a life, if by doing so you can preserve many others? Essentially variations on the trolley problem) is the philosophical question, so saying that there is a group of people idolizing Johan Liebert because they misunderstand the meaning is like saying that there are people idolizing the trolley. That's not really missing the point. Those people would just be dangerously mentally unwell.
Noone hears the word, they say. Has the memory gone, are you feeling numb? We've all be-come in-viisible
I need to mod V to blast that from the chopper instead of Fortunate Son.
Big Boss used child soldiers though.
No he didn't. He rescued child soldiers, and gave them a home. He didn't use them in combat until they were adults who, for obvious reasons, became loyal to him.
Author: Satirizes toxic masculinity via cartoonishly terrible male characters
A concerningly significant portion of men: basedbasedbasedbasedbased
Heinlein was suuuuper in favor of a colonial/martial culture. The whole reason he wrote Starship Troopers was because he was disappointed that the US suspended nuclear weapons testing which he saw as further evidence of the decline of martial culture. The book clearly advocates for the promotion of civic duty as a moral imperative as well as for things like corporal punishment. He WANTED the "toxic masculinity" culture, that was his own culture as he perceived it.
The movie is basically the complete opposite, satirically portraying colonial/martial values against the backdrop of an imperial state. It's one of the biggest disparities in intent vs interpretation I have ever seen.
The movie rocks, by the way. Still watch it once a year
I vaguely heard that Heinlein engaged with a whole bunch of different ideologies for different books.
I believe it was Clarke that mentioned that Heinlein's political beliefs depended on who he was having sex with that month.
Yeah, he's the hardest to pin down of the 20th century masters of sci fi. LeGuinn wears her heart on her sleeve and while she explores ideas, she has a consistent direction. Herbert demands critical thinking (if the entire book is Paul terrified of the evil of him leading the jihad, what does it mean when he leads the jihad at the end). Asimov is out there exploring ideas, but you can figure him out (it's been a long time since I've read him). And Clarke is pretty consistent in his distrust of those who desire power.
Based? Based on what?
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=based
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/based-on-what-slang-misinterpretation
Rico wasn't a terrible person. But he really is the exception in the list.
Rico is an officer in the war-machinery of one of the more fascist systems imagined in film. After the events of Operation Royalty he sends what basically amounts to child-soldiers to their deaths. He believes only military service should grant citizenship and shows unquestioning loyalty to the Federation.
But I'm sure he only followed orders, that's a perfectly good excuse.
He also had his family killed in Buenos Aires.
Oh, I only saw the movies.
All that is from the movie.
I don't remember him becoming an officer. Guess I'm just going senile. My b.
It's the ending scene. "We have new ships, we have new weapons. Now we need soldiers..." they show Carmen as captain of her own ship with a lieutenant that looks like she didn't even finish high school and then Rico as the lieutenant of the roughnecks, their ranks filled with new, younger recruits. "C'mon you apes, you wanna live forever?!"
Right! I'm going to have to rewatch it here sometime soon.
Well, in the movies alone he's pretty much the same thing: officer of a fascist war machine. And while he is presented as a dumb jock at the beginning, by the end of the movie (movies, too) he's pretty much shown absolutely no character growth, besides being much more pumped about the fascist war machine.
Every time I think about Rico, I remember when he talks about citizenship. First in school, then at the funeral. Same definition, word for word. Just more conviction the second time around.
When did he become an NCO? I remember the movie ending with him as a boot.
He becomes an NCO after he kills the first tank bug and becomes a full officer after the funeral.
Rico was a terrible person, but through experience and hardship learned the weight of being an adult comes with a high price.
The only one i have a gripe with is the Brand of Sacrifice. Yes, in the Berserk world, it marks one for sacrifice by the Godhand. But we dont live in the Berserk world. To me, the Brand is a sign of struggle, and a symbol of resisting fate and destiny. It's standing up for yourself, even when the easy thing would be to lay down. It's facing adversity and pain when the world wants to kick you and beat you down. That's what the Brand means to me.
But fuck Griffith, i want that twink obliterated.
Came here to say this, the brand of sacrifice is symbolic of mankinds eternal struggle to live. I think that message is pretty clear.
"I want that Twink obliterated". I mean so do the people that like him.
I mean, right before he did the, uh, stuff he kinda was. A whole buncha torture stuff happened to him before he did the things.
Nah, Griffith was always about that shit that's the point. Griffith was always about himself that was a huge plot point of the story. Given that choice again 10 times out of 10 he would pick it the same choice. He would do anything achieve his goals, he'd probably do worse if he had to.
I have just the doujins for you.
Rorshach not being on there is disappointing.
We can’t fit all of the Watchmen cast, can we?
I'm not locked in here with you! You're locked in here with me! Melts someone's face with fryer oil. Cringe line.....but kinda funny at the same time.
I mean, he pretty clearly set the record. That irrespective of his appearance, clothing, situation, or anything else, he is a severely homicidal lunatic. One of the more effective scenes. (I liked darth Vader's "nooooo" as well)
Rorschach is basically the Punisher - it's only luck that he likes to kill and torture "bad people", and he shows himself that he's pretty flexible on the definition of "bad".
As a non-Irish-catholic who was not alive in 1940s America, I honestly can't make heads or tails of how conventional or steadfast his morals are, for that crowd. It's a common mistake to reference modern or personally felt sentiments as objective, when they are not. They are exceedingly contemporaneous and location dependent.
But he's a violent, insane, religious man in the 60s, so there's probably something off beyond turning the dial up to 1100
It has been a long time but I remember feeling sad for Rico in the book. I don't know if Heinlein intended it to be seen like this but by the end it felt like there was nothing left of the human being.
Ya they both wanted the same thing but paul vanhoeven went a more literal path. The book read more like the recounting of a jar heads experience. Implying that despite the future having all these new toys the fasicm and ptsd hasn't change. While PVH wanted to show how seductive and enthralling fascism ACTUALLY is. Most kids were down for genocide without thinking it through. Star ship troops is a propaganda film that seduces its watchers with sex, adventure, and style.
I guess it would have been harder to accomplish commercially a similar feeling that I believe Mass Effect 2 elicited.
Mass Effect 2 major plot point ::: spoiler spoiler All through one of the three games in the series, you're fighting this intelligent hive species with a central overlord called creatively "The General". Right before the exact moment of defeat, you find out that the General and therefore all of his people, had been under the direct control of the true villain in the story. You realize this as the now normal, non-glowing eyes, General looks around confused and confused. Then they're gone with the blast wave. :::
Starship troopers unfortunately had a perfect straw man villain with the bugs. It would have been interesting to see something like James Cameron's tall smurf people as the antagonist in the story instead.
Halfway to that and Starship troopers is the game Hell Divers 2 which has you being a literal suicide commando. If you die in the game, you're character is replaced by a new recruit waiting in stasis. If you look and listen, the writers give you horrifying hints of the truth. One example is the intelligent bug species are fighting back because Super Earth had been using them as fuel for their star ships.
That is unfortunately PVH's mistake with Starship Troopers. There is no contrast to show how fucked up things are.
Why would there be contrast? It's a propaganda film.
I have noticed a few people are a bit slow on the uptake and or struggling with critical thinking.
Though perhaps it's best not. For example so many people feel Pearl Jam's song Alive uplifting or inspiring. Ignorance is bliss.
Yeah, the DVD has a great commentary by Verhoeven where he is quite explicit about his intentions of showing what fascism really is in that film.
Fascism is seductive, that's the biggest problem.
Which is why everyone is turned off by Trump and the MAGA-ts
Don’t forget this one
In a similar vein Walter from breaking bad, though that makes less sense. Tony soprano was at least a charismatic sociopath, Walt was just an asshole
Also the classic nerd version, Rick from Rick and Morty. Bojack horseman too, which is extra funny because the show eventually called this out (in a way that almost certainly went over the head of some of the people who idealized him)
The thing with Bojack that I think is really poignant, though, is that I think that the people who idolize him don't do so because they see in Bojack somebody they want to be, but because they see somebody they already are. Bojack is a canary in the coal mine to the depressive viewer. "If Bojack can pull through this, maybe I can, too."
As a character, Bojack isn't a goal to achieve; he's a warning. If you treat everyone around you like shit, you're going to find yourself all alone in your darkest moments. Bojack serves as a reminder that sometimes personal redemption has an expiration date; the longer you wait to correct the wrongs of your past, the more Sarah Lynns will come and go through your life. Bojack shows the viewer that it's never too late to change, but that there are consequences to waiting; you can't wallow in pity and self-loathing forever, and you're not the only one who's affected by the way you treat yourself.
I'm sure a lot of people don't make it through the show to really get all that, though. Which is a shame, because I think Bojack tells an incredibly beautiful story that gets missed by many.
Bojack is a great show because it highlights so many forms of depression and destructive behavior. Everyone in that show has problems, even Mr Peanutbutter, who I think importantly shows you can be a flawed person while most people love you and you're usually happy.
Seeing Bojack act out in so many destructive ways gave me an objective view of a lot of behaviors in myself and it led to me getting help for my major depression. I lead a very different life today thanks to the realistic depictions of broken characters in that show.
Bojack is relatable. He's just super duper depressed.
Bojack isn't just depressed. He's almost certainly got CPTSD, possibly with a personality disorder (HPD feels right but I haven't watched since the finale was new). His life sucks because he keeps giving in to his worse instincts and desires.
Hrs very relatable as someone who struggles with CPTSD, and had to learn how to do healthy and responsible things instead of just whatever my brain says.
But fundamentally as a character he represents the failure state of managing trauma. He keeps trying and he keeps failing harder and harder, but never seeks the real help he needs or learns to have a setback without spiraling out of control and hurting someone else, usually pretty bad. Hell, he keeps thinking that dependants will make him better and then damages them because of course they won't.
I'm distressed by the fact that I guessed what ‘H’ means in that abbreviation — despite English not being my native language.
I think that people may admire/covet the super-power of doing what you want without caring about other people or being afraid of consequences.
Which is a huge shame, because doing what you want without much worry about consequences is actually super doable WHILE still caring about other people
Not if you've been taught that everything is a zero-sum game, which apparently many people believe, especially in the States. If you believe that one person gaining something necessarily means that someone else loses something to an equal or greater degree, caring about other people inherently means having to compromise on your own happiness.
Of course it becomes a lot easier if you believe that it's possible to win together and that giving a little can make a huge difference in someone's day.
siiigh the ' "prisoner's dillema" being taught in elementary schools needs to be a thing everywhere' thing again?... TT
Only if you're not a sociopath whose wants to directly against the well-being of others
Agree with your points but I will say that Tony’s charisma seems to wane by the end of the series. Seasons 1-3 Tony 100% charismatic sociopath.
Yeah true, and I think that makes him more authentic tbh. When I worked with domestic violence situations the perpetrators often hit the same vibe, super charismatic and many people around would second guess claims against them. but underneath they had serious anger issues that made them increasingly assholes and eventually straight up dangerous during periods of high stress. The charisma is a cloak that takes a lot of effort. That’s what people ignore with the character and irl too, they rationalize it away to try and make sense of caring about a person who is objectively shitty
God I love the sopranos, I wish I had time to rewatch that glorified crew
The show also goes out of its way to show you how phony the gangsters are. Especially in concerns to them being Italian.
Maybe I'm media illiterate but when I watched BB I could not follow Walt at all. Like he did the thing, he got the money, then he's like more meth Jesse we need to cooooook out of nowhere. Were there hints that I just missed that he was going down that path? Because every time he tripled down it felt like it was out of nowhere.
White's whole thing was that he wanted power, not just money.
Also scenes like when he's ordering his son to drink more just because Hank told him it was a bit much. We're seeing that Walter will hurt anyone, including his family, when his ego feels threatened.
power corrupts. as he amasses more power in the criminal underworld he believes himself to be better than the people around him, that he can change the corrupt system from the inside. it's not until hank dies that he actually realises what he's been doing, but at that point it's already too late.
...and then the season 6 finale ruined the point.
Walt was on an ego trip the entire time - the money was an excuse but the feeling of being in power and in control was always the real reason for his actions. Remember that he torched some guy's car and turned down a generous job offer for personal, functionally petty reasons before he'd started cooking. You could argue that the offer was patronizing, but if his concern was really about taking care of his family instead of wanting to feel like he was the big guy in charge of things would he really have said no?
There were several hints, but they weren't super obvious and I don't think I caught many of them until rewatching the show.
Who is top right? Which anime?
The best example of this was all the people who liked the boys, but didn't get it was taking the piss out of them.
sometimes good men have to play the devil just to get anything done.
doesn't justify shit, but it certainly is effective.
Maybe that thing never really needed doing, if it's only means for operation was via evil means. Maybe that whole system just needed to be entirely dismantled.
I don't understand why it's bad to enjoy evil characters. I don't want to just consume Disney forever. I wouldn't say I like Griffith as a person, but he is a very interesting character and crucial to the plot of Berserk. The title makes it sound like there is some alternative version of Berserk where Griffith doesn't exist and it's somehow better. Just because I like these characters doesn't mean I missed any point. I don't think that's the case for most people. These posts are r/iamverysmart material.
If you understand that Griffith is not someone anyone should want to emulate, I don't think this meme is about you anyway.
This meme is about the insecure dudes who are hurt and angry and decide to channel that into some cringe edge-lord 'I want to hurt everyone else and feel nothing but that it is my destiny to be on top' phase.
I have a hard time believing that those people represent a demographic larger than just a few online trolls. I think the meme is really about OP feeling smart
You cannot draw a visible Venn diagram of the coincidence of sociopathy and poor media literacy.
Is this becoming a big thing somewhere? I have somehow managed to avoid those communities apparently. Or is it tied to a certain age group I don't fall into?
Becoming? It's not new. Plenty of people have seen Scarface as a self-made badass instead of the pathetic, neurotic mess of a man he collapses into.
This is the part I'm stuck on too lol. People see a couple of trolls online and believe there is a whole community of Griffith worshipers
I think you are forgetting that we are living in an era where "the internet trolls" are proving to be prevalent or at least highly influential in the real world. The US has elected a complete brat twice, the AFD are threatening a fourth reich, and terms like "looksmaxing" have entered the general lexicon.
No one who watched gamergate occur on in the mid 2010s, and then tried to explain it to normal people who said 'oh that's just niche internet drama', and then watched the rise of the alt-right, is ever going to see dangerous bullshit online and believe it will just stay there ever again.
I was unaware if it was that's why I figured it was worth asking. I don't exactly travel the world and my passport is in fact expired lol. So if it isn't happening locally in my small town I find I may be blind to it
You are missing the point, this post proves it. Nobody said that you can't call characters well written or interesting, where people fall short is when they think these people are anything to aspire to or emulate. If you're doing neither then move on but if you think those guys are worth anything of human value then you'd be severely confused on what humanity is worth.
I don't think anyone is really saying any of those things though beyond obvious trolls. At least for most of the characters in this post. Maybe the fight club guy is an exception. Who is with 100% sincerity saying that Griffith and Johan are in the right? This post is making up problems that don't exist.
People absolutely pull that shit with the brotherhood of steel
I think that the Brotherhood of Steel at least has valid arguments for each side. It's not an inherently evil idea, it's certain individuals that give them a bad name. There are genuinely good people in the BoS.
Yeah the point of them is that they're ultimately grey. They're blocked from doing the most good and to a reasonable degree from doing the most evil. But they're self destructive no matter what and for every group of heroes you get from them, you get similar groups of villains. They're knights in shining armor, some gallant and heroic and others self interested bullies, trying to keep everyone else from returning to an advanced society, but also trying to protect them from the evils of it.
The biggest thing is they can't maintain any moral character from group to group or generation to generation. They're too insulated, too ideologically bound (in a way completely separated from morality), too focused on their goals. They hate the Enclave, sure, but in part because both see themselves as what's left of the government, they hate Caesar, but they also hate other grey factions like the NCR and the institute, and they can't see the good of the railroad.
Again, you're missing the point.
It's not bad but it's a dangerous line to tread. You may get the nuance but far too many people don't. It's why so many people are enchanted by Tyler Durden and Patrick Bateman. These characters are meant to be vilified, not aspired to. That is why the cults of personality and admiring strongman authoritarians still persist because many people are easily impressed by raw display of power. Yanis Varoufakis mentioned we are all susceptible to it-- and by extension fascism-- in varying degrees and we'd be lying if we don't feel impressed. He's not saying we all secretly admire fascists but that all of us have a dark side and containing it is really the challenge.
I know it's just my personal experience but I see more people saying that people are enchanted by those characters than i've ever seen anyone actually admit to it. Maybe you have, I can't really argue that. I also disagree that it is a dangerous line to tread. Liking evil characters isn't anymore dangerous than liking violent video games like GTA
I don't know about you but i see on social media defending and glazing toxic masculine figures such as Tyler Durden and Patrick Bateman. The profile of those admirers are typically lonely and insecure men, which another user has pointed out.
I can agree that there are probably some people who severely misunderstand those two characters. I do find it kinda funny that we both picked completely different people from the post. I firmly believe no one is misunderstanding Griffith and Johan. Any posts you may have seen defending them are 100% trolls
I don't know about Griffith and Johan. I just thought they are of the same level of asshole-ness as Patrick Bateman, Tyler Durden and Joker because they are put together in this post 😅
I even met people in real life who hinted they admire toxic male figures although they won't say it out loud. But in social media, they are vocal what they truly believe in. Although many are trolls, some indeed admire toxic masculinity. Social media merely gave these folks a megaphone to proclaim their thoughts.
In short, Griffith turns into a God/Demon by sacrificing all of his friends and followers, then proceeds to rape his best friend's love interest right in front of him. Johan was the product of a Nazi experiment to turn humans into super soldiers from birth.
In all honestly, I likely wouldn't have been so critical of this post had they not been included with the likes of Tyler Durdan, Joker, and Bateman. Lots of users have used the latter 3 as examples that work with what the OP is saying. I just don't believe Griffith and Johan fit here.
So the Nazi experiment was eugenics, so natural birth. I totally forgot about the Nazi character. I had to go check what you were talking about.
Agreed. I love tons of evil characters precisely because they are more interesting or they make the world more interesting. So many have more interesting motivations, more interesting developments, and more interesting dialogue than the hero roles they counter.
There is a difference between enjoying an evil character, and what a lot of people do with these specific evil characters. The ones in this meme are often looked up to by a bunch of people. There are lots of people who believe they are the correct person in the story, or otherwise the one to be idolized.
I can't really counter your argument, I've just never heard of anyone who thinks Griffith, Johan or any of these characters are correct. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I doubt it's anywhere close to being a split position to having.
Lucky you then. Theres tons of dudes with bad media literacy and awful role models out there
Well, TBF, you have to get deeper into the weeb side of the black pill movement to understand how many weirdos out their side with grifith's philosophy/the godhead, or Johan from monster. However, you will absolutely see them frequently if you, for some reason, subject yourself to places that have black pillers in larger numbers, twitter, 4chan, facebook... You would probably have to been in conversation space about scifi to really see the people who unironically defend the military government of earth in starship troopers, however its pretty common when the subject comes up.
However the Joker? you really have never seen people side with the Joker? I actually have a hard time believing you are social media savvy enough to be on Lemmy, and have not experienced the armies of losers that identify with the Joker as a hero. This is like police with punisher skulls level of common. The idolization of Tyler Durden as a working class hero is also quite common.
You're right about Tyler Durdan and Joker. By "these characters" I was referring to the ones I mentioned specifically, Griffith and Johan. Bad choice of words on my part.
In Bloom by Nirvana
Every Breath You Take by The Police.
Talking about not getting it. The people in this thread bring up points about liking things for reasons that don't mean you agree with the evil character, and think the are to be looked up to, while simultaneously ignoring that there are massive crowds of people out their that do just that, look up to these people like hero's, believe they are the correct ones, etc. and that this is what the meme was addressing, not someone thinking a character was a good character for story writing purposes.
I did like griffith a lot as teen (the physics book ofc)
Not everyone participates in reading the deeper meaning of media.
Some people just turn off their brains and watch the magic smiles box and come away liking the characters and movie without thinking any further than what was portrayed on screen.
Half the characters on this list are just really awesome visual/character portrayals.
They didn't misunderstand the message, you misunderstood their intent going into the media.
You watch movies to dissect their meanings, others watch movies to escape reality for a bit.
I wish these media tourists took to simple messaging like Indie’s “I punch Nazis”.
They do, but they hear I punch “bad guys”.
The dissecting of media (which i do a lot) isn't something i choose - it comes pretty automatically with media literacy. As soon as you develop the skills needed to analyze subtext and themes, and start to take a critical stance regarding video content, you can't really switch it off outside of getting wasted.
So i'd say the difference is simply in media literacy (and more broadly, general education) and level of cognitive impairment.
That's because this is the normal flow of things. Pare the mediums away, and you're left with the same basic core: Stories.
The storyteller always has a reason for telling a story. Even when they are only setting out to entertain.
To be able to separate one's actual feelings, knowledge, and values in order to write a purely entertaining tale, requires that the storyteller be aware of them. At which point they must then take an extra step to insert others.
What stories are, at their heart is the passing of an abstract message or purpose encoded in a surface pattern meant to be cognitively sticky.
The reason might be to teach the young in the tribe the seasonal crop patterns as it was thousands of years ago, as it still is in some places.
Or it could be a commentary on the social state of the times. Or any other thing.
But the other thing a story must be, is engrossing.
A good story must be entertaining or funny or terrifying. It must tug at the emotions of the listener in some way.
That's what makes it stick. That's how stories work.
There is nothing wrong with refusing to dig deeper into the meaning of a tale, especially if it's presented or done poorly. That turns it into a lesson.
But the best stories, it doesn't matter if you seek out the deeper meaning or not.
It'll be there regardless and so will the story, and if and when the listener grows, the meaning will make itself clear on the next recounting.
Thank you BBC for the one-sentence-a-paragraph formatting. But none of that explains why people fail to grok the message of the media.
You're welcome. You can grok it if you read what I replied to, and then use media literacy to examine the negative spaces in my response; namely if all I gave are examples of what a story nee--Wait.
You're not being genuine, are you?
You talk about cognitive impairment of others yet fail to understand the only thing you're doing is imparting your world view and how you navigate it as how everyone else does/should. You have an extremely narrow perception of how the world works because you can only view it through your own lens.
The only one here impaired in their judgement is you.
My judgement is as follows:
If you are not able to analyze the subtext of content, repeating motives in it and why someone specifically tells a story, you will always be a fool, because you are not able to discern between people who want to lead you astray and people who are upright in their convictions.
And people who are ok with others being essentially illiterate in these times are enabling liars, abusers, scammers, thieves, fascists and dictators.
I have to add: Media made to just have a laugh are fine! I laughed my ass off over all 6 Sharknado movies. But this doesn't mean i engage uncritically with it - in this case it was obvious that these movies are not taking themselves seriously, and therefore i was also able to go with that.
I was also able to enjoy the Marvel movies somewhat, while having concerns with some underlying themes that are pretty militaristic and disenfranchising of common people. The notion that only "special" people can enact change in a society is a harmful one in my opinion.
Rich frat bros at my college literally started fight clubs thinking it was about getting ripped and dangerous. Then many of them got life-changing injuries and stopped.
Both sides of the equation can be true, yet unequal.
Tyler would approve. In-fact, pretty sure that Angel Face (played by Letto) was a rich frat boy.
Maybe. The disaffected youth told they would become something special and they never became that? The office workers and service industry people and low-wage workers that were both the fight club and Project Mayhem? That's not them. They're literally the corporate stooges to be that Tyler fought against.
Hahaha no.
Their intent was not to understand the media, but to merely consume it.
... they still in fact did misunderstand it.
Yeah, its true that not everybody approaches a piece of media trying to fully comprehend and appreciate it, yeah its true that it's fine to have media that doesn't require much brain power to comprehend, yeah its fine to lazily enjoy things from time to time.
None of that means these movies and characters are not notorious for being basically 180 degrees misunderstood by people barely paying attention.
Imagine saying the equivalent of this to a teacher who failed your creative writing paper because you wrote for a completely different prompt than the one assigned.
This is an asinine thing to say, its a non sequitir.
An explanation for why something happens is not the same as 'that thing didn't happen'.
That was so well-put, thank you. I've never had a tidy, succinct response for this sort of thing and yet you summed it up so well; I don't disagree that many people have definitely misunderstood the character/media/etc, but it's definitely true that some people just enjoy things anyway.
I feel like people can think the characters are enjoyable as characters and still recognize they're bad.
I do both. Doesn't everyone? I love a healthy home cooked meal, a book or article so deep it feels as satisfying as sex, but also can love a bag of french fries or a repeat of Pride & Prejudice or Hot Fuzz.
Sometimes it's relaxing to be shallow for a bit.
True, but you can taste the flavors in the fries and you should be consuming them consciously.
Some messages are really obvious and others are kinda subtle. I love Brooklyn 99, but I also acknowledge that it's copaganda and have to watch out that I'm not letting it influence me out of positions I came to by thinking things through. In the same way that when I eat a bag of fries I have to watch out that I'm not eating myself unhealthy.
When I consume something that's largely dumb fun, but has a pretty clear message I pick up the message. Fallout games (except 3) are openly telling you that the brotherhood of steel engage in dangerous ideological and organizational structures that lead to damage. But when my brain is off and I'm playing one of the games it just reads as "these guys have serious issues despite the good they sometimes do".
I think Heath Ledgers version of the Joker was interesting. I didn't really like the other ones.
I would guess that he's actually the "Dark Knight." From the way the movie portrays him, it seems he's a ex-military guy that lost his mind. Technically he does more for the city than Batman by basically pitting criminals against each other and going after corrupt officials. So I did dissect the meanings in that movie, my buddy was really into superhero movies and such but I usually got bored with them; I would say that's the only one I enjoyed.
How is getting the Brand of Sacrifice tattooed missing the point?
Rough guess: maybe because it’s a burden on Guts and not something he wanted. His life is basically forfeit and he endangers those he’s around because of it.
NINJA EDIT: This one is kinda up in the air to me though. You don’t have to necessarily like Guts or any of the characters, but the symbol can represent how one might feel haunted by their past struggles. It can be symbolic of the demons that follow you. How I relate to it: I’ve witnessed every member of my closest immediate family circle pass away from various illnesses over the years, including my brother just recently. So I feel similarly alone like I’m wandering the earth cursed.
Yeah, judging a tattoo without asking about it is often a path toward misunderstanding. A friend of mine has all of their allergies tattooed down their shoulder, but only some are visible when they're wearing a short sleeve shirt. You'd think they were a freed beekeeper based on the feather and bee peeking out. But the list is fully visible and labeled in a tank top
That doesn't make sense though (I get that you're doing your best to explain, not saying what you've come up with is dumb, I just don't see the initial premise). It's like saying you admire Lord of the Rings characters or a WWII hero, and someone asks you if you realize how much these characters suffered. Yeah, no shit?
No worries, I haven’t read Berserk in a while, so I might even be missing a few things. The hell they went through is kind of the point I think. People admire folks and figures that endured through unimaginable traumas, because they try to take strength from it.
I dont get how that one made the list either. As an American, I feel that brand on me whenever I shop and I know my money feeds the machines of giant corporations that want nothing more than to consume me until I die. Even my existing and consuming is feeding those beasts that hurt those around me and destroy the world we live in.
Sure, a bit melodramatic and "I'm 14 and this is deep" but I'm not sure it's so innaccurate.
No, don't accept that "you're only 14" bullshit. I was fed that garbage and wondered when I would magically understand that the shite state of affairs in our bleak modern "culture" in the USA is OK. It's not ok, and I have never accepted it as inevitable, or "human nature", or any other justification for complacency I was given.
Don't sell your ideals and hopes for a better world short because people that have given up tell you it's not possible.
based tbh
Was wondering the same thing, I see it as a symbol of constantly enduring a reality of torment and thriving on pure hate. Reminds me of Sisyphus, except that he's also angry at the gods.
Maybe OP didn't get the point either on why people might identify with some of these characters.
Who is top middle?
Griffith from Berserk.
Tyler Durden.
Above him. Middle of the top row.
I'm stupid. Also idk.
Lol no worries
Why did you post pictures of me? Those are all literally me, I am the alpha male they're based on
is the tattoo of the brand that bad? I mean, as long as they realize what it means.
personally I always wanted one because I felt my life was forfeit to the machine that runs our world and wanted a constant memory to become a stubborn thorn in the side of the ruling class just like Gutz.
A lot of people think it means "i am big strong guts man" just like the punish supposedly means "im a cop who punishes people"
To me, it means constant struggle against a world that has forsaken you. You are a currency to be spent, and the only escape is constant effort to free yourself and your loved ones.
I love berserk.
I agree. I interpret it as a form of rebellion against the throes of perdition and fighting demons that plague the human condition like greed, anger, etc. The mark makes him aware of the affliction that some men carry.
I think id be more concerned about an enclave tattoo or a caesars legion one honestly. BoS across the franchise is morally all over the place.
Its considerably less all over the place when you realize Bethesda doesn't know how to write them, Interplay/Obsidian does.
I grant you that for sure.
FO3/NV seem alright (somewhat) FO4 seems problematic. I really need to play 1 and 2....
In NV they're very problematic. For the big picture fight they're a lesser evil, but when you talk with Veronica and go through her quests and the DLC you see how they're broken and stuck in the past, and they're comfortable really fucking over their people. Veronica sees the greatness and the flaws, and she also sees how deep and damaging the flaws are.
In 3 they're heroes. But I actually kinda like how they're all over the place because it feels realistic. Yeah you will occasionally get the Lyons, out there being knights in shining armor here to protect everyone. And other times you'll get all the other sides you see in different games. All that really matters to them is the isolation of old technology.
FO: London was nice because I didn’t have to remember any of the faction morality because it was all new people.
I will say I was uncomfortably far into the game before I realized that Fifth Column were just straight up fascists. Characters said so, but pretty much everyone is unreliable so I thought they would be exaggerating.
I will say I very much suck at picking up the message in media. Not that I end up agreeing with shitty people, but I’m always wondering like “Wait…is the creator saying this is a good thing?”
Can anyone fill me in about the top three?
The first two are from berserk, the third is from monster. The first one is a mark for sacrifice, the other two are the perfect psychopath archetype. I (and someone else here) think the mark doesn't fit because it has a great message about strugging and fighting the greater powers of the world.
Looks at Enclave patches on my jacket
I understood the messages perfectly well, I just like the bad guys in this case. If it makes it any better ive also got a Freedom patch from S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and two NCR patches.
Well it's more people who think ideologically similar or missed the message. Like BOS is just techno-feudilism.
I can get behind a brand of sacrifice tattoo, it says 'I too am a struggler' but I agree a lot of people probably don't get that it's literally a mark that you're a human sacrifice that also pulls you and everything and everyone around you half way to hell
What's the message in Starship Troopers?
It satirizes facism, its a facist dystopia
To expand on that, it tricks the viewer into getting seduced by that fascism. The main point is to show the viewer that you aren't immune to it. It's much easier to get swept up in the jingoistic hate for the subhuman enemy when said enemy is actually nonhuman. Wisecrack made a good video breakdown of this some years ago.
At the start of the movie you're just in it to avenge Buenos Aires, by the end you're cheering for the guy dressed as a Nazi proclaiming the enemy is afraid.
I might be reading too much into a specific visual choice here, but IIRC even that might've been a false flag operation. The arachnid home planet is shown on a map to be on the other side of the galaxy, so not exactly asteroid throwing distance.
Before the asteroid we get snippets of lore here and there that hint at the fact that humanity intruded into Arachnid space and started the conflict by killing lots of bugs and that the bugs started throwing rocks in response to that.
I watched the film recently and completely missed that subtext. Could you please point me to where those hints are?
It's a pity the filmmakers leaved out these details from the book. The bugs not only were capable of sending asteroids through the galaxy, but also made starships to travel to other planets. The humans had power armor and carried a couple of shoulder-mounted atomic bombs each.
Read the book not realizing the film satirizes the book and kept waiting for some kind of punchline. Finished thinking "wait, the author was serious?"
Not exactly. It was supposed to be a cautionary tale, a sort of instruction manual on what to look for.
Fwiw, he likes the movie more.
Who likes the movie more? Robert Heinlein died 9 years before the Starship Troopers movie came out.
Doesn't fascism need a dictatorial leader? I don't remember one, at least in the movie.
While fascism has only ever been observed with a dictator, due to its fundamental nature of consolidating power and national identity, in theory a very tight oligarchy could be fascist.
Dictatorship isn't so much a mandatory component of fascism as it is a logical conclusion of the ideology in practice
Well, there was in fact a dictator in the story: the brain-bug that controlled the swarm.
If you haven't read Eco's essay on ur-fascism, it's a good read: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism
It's so obvious that Eco is biased when it comes to religion.
After reading "Belief or Nonbelief?" I continue to find little hints about how Eco, even as an agnostic, really struggles with leaving his catholic indoctrination behind.
The Lemmy has decided that it is about facism so it is about facism, just like you might think the matrix is a fun sci-fi future tech action movie but it's not, it's actually about the experiences of transgenders
You see when you spend as much time online as the chronically online, you come to learn that if you overthink enough you can find problems with everything
Well, so did films creators. Though as with all art of course you don't have to view it the same way its creator did. But there's no need to be an ass about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(film)
It's satire. For goodness' sake, the plot begins in Buenos Aires in a majority white school.
I think the SS uniforms, the eagles in the flag and the emblems, the social darwinist attitudes, passionate hate towards the bugs (a disgusting subhuman enemy which needs to be genocided for a final solution) and dismissals of logic in favor of propagandistic appeals to emotion are much more apparent examples. Also the fact that all the actors got cast for their looks in true propaganda movie fashion.
The protagonists home could've been anywhere for the same plot, so my interpretation was that the city was named just to drive home the point that there's only one global state.
That's the actual demographic in Buenos Aires today.
Having never been to Buenos Aires, I expected to see brown people when I looked up Buenos Aires. But no, their demographics are majority non-native. Colonialism and immigration hit them like a train. To be clear, I don't mean a mechanical locomotive.
Neil Patrick Harris is dressed in a blatant SS look alike uniform at the end and Switch exists in the Matrix movie. Matrix was more overtly about the illusions of a constructed soceity but I feel like the trans allegory was always there. Isn’t the red pill a HRT reference since estrogen pills were red in the 90s?
::: spoiler Switch Switch was originally meant to change genders upon entering the Matrix, which coined their name "Switch". In the real world, Switch would be male, and in the Matrix, Switch would be female - a very clever and critical point of the 'residual self-image' idea. When actress Belinda McClory auditioned for the role, she was going for only half the role - Switch's Matrix form. Warner Brothers made the decision to cut this and give Switch one form for both environments. :::
Yeah premarin is red and was what was used in the 90s
Service guarantees citizenship.
Do you want to know more?
Religious Extremist Settler Colonialism just ends up destroying your society as well as the colonized.
The entire situation with the bugs was caused by Mormon Extremist settlers, who literally started the entire interplanetary war by settling on territory illegally.
A relative minor detail in the movie, but maybe perhaps relevant to current events, human history broadly.
Oooh I didn't remember that one, thanks!
The message: "Look at this heavily militarized society, absurd huh?" But some people: "Looks fine to me"
But would a non-militarized society survive in a conflict against the bugs?
A non-militarized society likely wouldn't get into a conflict with the bugs. We encroached on their land and bothered them
Regardless of speculation about the movies universe the point is the movie is a satire of facism, as that’s how the director interpreted the book (that is, fascist in nature). A lot of people missed this about the movie. If the arming of kids and sending them off to war, the slogans, the service guaranteeing citizenship and as I mentioned in another comment, the SS uniforms, don’t convince you. Maybe the directors own words will:
Edit: check out the wiki if you’d like to know more.
I see what you did there :D
Don't you think a non-militarized society would probably have not started a war in the first place? The bugs were minding their own business before humans showed up looking to shoot shit and steal other shit.
I don't remember that part in the movie, sorry.
There are hints throughout. For example:
https://youtu.be/J206CKoG1R0
Weren't these religious settlers? It says so in the voice over...
The voice over puts this on "Mormon Extremist Settlers", yes.
The problems with that is:
The propaganda machinery of the Federation would never take responsibility, it's all about keeping the populace in a constant state of fear, anger and hyperpatriotic, unthinking loyalty. We keep hearing about the "Arachnid exclusion zone" and "quarantined bug space" which implies that the Federation has been trying to restrict the bugs from leaving their space, while the map of the galaxy, showing where earth is and where bug space is located makes it pretty clear that the Federation of Citizens has expanded aaaaaaall the way across the galaxy. Knowing how imperialist settler colonialism works, it's easy to see how the Federation is either
a) sending settlers into bug space to expand their own territory, or
b) engineering conflict with the bugs in order to keep the militarist machinery rolling, or
c) most likely, doing both.
Does anyone know how to bypass the age gate without signing into youtube? I tried proxies but they didn’t work out.
war is fun, and it's cool when the enemy is scared of you
Also, big-butt-bugs 🐜
What about The Wolf of Wall Street?
is he not a true American hero?
His actions got him sex time with Margot Robbie. Everything is justified and understand.
So basically we can’t like Berserk? I don’t like Griffith, I don’t have a BoS tattoo, but I don’t think getting one is “missing the point.” A lot of people have been through fucked up shit, they feel haunted by it, and they relate to that message of soldiering on.
The only Lemmy-approved character you're allowed to like is Puck. Sorry you had to find out this way.
One of the four great spirits Puck? The beast of the end Puck? This Puck?
Nono, this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reynolds-Puck.JPG
This one is even worse.
The 4 great spirits of Puck:
For a brief moment I thought this was telling me my Mechanicus special interest was invalid, and then I processed the 'ad victoriam' and realized it was fallout.
I think my BoS Tattoo looks better than the one in the picture.
That, and I dunno. The older I get the more I start to agree that maybe lots of motherfuckers really shouldn't be trusted with technology.
The Brotherhood's original intentions were more or less sound, it's just that like with all religious and quasi-religious organizations the internal power structure and rituals eventually became more important than the mission, and as everyone kind of went whackadoodle as a result the whole thing rather went off the rails.
I think part of the problem is that Bethesda doesn't really seem to have a good critical understanding. They like the superficial stuff, like children. Like this meme, I guess.
I think it depends on your BOS chapter. Fallout 3? Okey dokey. Fallout 4? You're gonna need some rad-x.
New Vegas somewhat inbetween? Not as fanatical as FO4 though.
That's Marriage material. If you aspire to the Mojave chapter you probably already have a bunker and enough stored resources to survive the fall of America twice over.
God dammit didn’t even realise. Dunno why this is being downvoted? Yet another baby account with hundreds of posts and seemingly copying them from reddit. This is like the 4th I’ve seen a couple weeks. The one before this had 588 post and comments in the same time span.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/lemmy-deep-lighthouse/
Does it matter? The post is here. It's being interacted with. It spawned discussion. Why stress over it also being on Reddit?
Shouldn’t matter if I point out accounts that are dedicated to reposting Reddit content either.
I mean, I agree that it doesn't matter. That's why I'm curious as to why you'd take the time to flag it.
Because I think it’s pretty toxic to the fediverse.
Anyone else expecting Maxwell's equations there?
I'm ngl I still don't understand the ending of Monster
Uhh don't save kids.