>Get job as artist
>be working at company for a few years
>Read lots of new books, especially ones by Ayn Rand
>Become objectivist
>Nothing is fair nor should it be fair and everything is decided on your entrisic value
>new writer comes in
>says he has some great ideas
>starts working on a Justice League rip off
>does well
>Gets asked to do it again
>He asks if I can help
>fuck it
>help him make a comic about some weird spider-man spiderman... not really sure how to spell it...
>it makes bank
>keep helping him make the comics. Even help him make a few more characters.
>spider-man becomes biggest thing in comics, and is worth a lot of money
>I thought most people would recognize my work as the artist and be handing me better paying jobs
>this writer has been doing some serious PR work though and is basically the face of the company
>No one knows who I am or that I designed and drew a majority of the comic
>remember I am an objectivist
>Nothing is fair nor should it be fair and everything is decided on your entrisic value...
>This writer has more value than me...
>...
>goddamnit...
Get job as artist
Other urls found in this thread:
>could be worse...
>could be way... way worse...
>Nothing is fair nor should it be fair and everything is decided on your entrisic value
Off topic, but as someone unfamiliar, this just sounds like a classic edgelord logic. Is that what objectivism is about?
>this just sounds like a classic edgelord logic. Is that what objectivism is about?
A bit, I think. It also allows for slacking off if you can get away with it, which Ditko did a lot of later in life. Cause fuck those guys, the inker can fill in my scribbles and the book will still say "drawn by Steve Ditko".
Pretty much. People who subscribe to objectivism automatically think they are worth more than anyone and everyone. They never stop to think that they are worthless or not worth anything.
Nothing about the essence of objectivism suggests that you should just let corporations and companies butt-fuck you, but in practice it devolves to that end anyway and hardcore uncompromising objectivists like Ditko are the ones who end up suffering the most for their ideology. It's got that in common with communism.
It was created by a total asshole to paint her being an asshole as a good thing.
Yeah, I wish I had thought of it first.
What did Bill do?
it's pretty blackpilled let's just say being a socially avoidant autist who refused all interviews and self promotion being upset at Stan Lee is pretty mild in comparison
Friendly reminder that this sort of "edgelord logic" is merely a term for unadulterated hard facts about life that people pretend are not the case to make themselves feel better.
Sounds interesting is there someplace where i can read more about him?
Created Batman and then got straight cucked by Bob Kane.
>Nothing about the essence of objectivism suggests that you should just let corporations and companies butt-fuck you
Nobody forcefully made Steve Ditko sign a work for hire contract
>Created Batman
>Get cucked out of all credit by Bob Kane
>slave away making uncredited Batman comics until being put away in an old folks home in the late 60s.
Serves him right for following a capitalistcuck philosophy that he got captialism-cucked, I guess.
There's a book AND a movie based on the book called Batman and Bill. I haven't read the book but the documentary is pretty good.
>Nobody forcefully made Steve Ditko sign a work for hire contract
What were his options as a comic artist at the time? Cause I think they were pretty shit options.
Steve was actually pretty weird as an Objectivist anyway, as he believed in HEROES, and I don't think many Objectivists thing about heroes outside of themselves. Apparently he was also a huge fanboy of the police, and wished he could go out and beat up criminals.
Don't forget
>only son is a faggot that will eventually die of AIDS
Poor Bill, I feel really bad for the guy.
None of what you say go particularly against objectivism, and he was an illustrator, not a comic artist. Plenty of people droped the industry and lever looked back after the Kefauver hearings.
You mean the guy who gave him a granddaughter (he didn't know, but still) and defended his name until his strenght allowed him to, which is actually more than your sorry ass will ever do for you or your parents?
I get that, but you can't sign a contract and then get pissed off at the terms of the contract you signed. There was plenty of work for illustrators in the 60s that paid a lot better than comic books. He had options.
Calm down Athena, I'm sorry your father was never there for you, and decided to go to New York to die surrounded by his butt buddies instead of at home with you and your mother.
>and he was an illustrator
>There was plenty of work for illustrators in the 60s that paid a lot better than comic books
Who cares about illustrators from the 60s? Seriously? As a comic creator, making some of the most popular characters, he was having a bigger impact on people than guys making more money than him. Most people who drew comics have better options than comics, but they want to draw comics.
Not exactly, it's just one of the facets of objectivism. It's core value is individualism and not sacrificing the individual for the collective, in terms of both people and rights.
To a point this does mean no one owes you anything, be it success, wealth or recognition. You have to fight for all of those, and if you're not skilled/talented/connected enough, that's it. Some people think they are owed a job or wealth or success, and these people tend to become bitter. They also tend to vote for over-reaching government laws being put into place.
Ditko didn't market himself because he believed in a day's pay for a day's work. That isn't against objectivist principles, but some objectivists would consider it impractical.
In essence, Ayn Rand is Nietzsche Lite, who in turn was Max Stirner Lite, who in turn could be argued was the anarchist version of Machiavelli.
Can we just agree that Stan did mistakes but he is nothing like Bob Kane.
He should have self published then instead of signing a work for hire contract knowing that the characters he created would never belong to him.
>He should have self published
Oh, spoiled children, thinking a mutha fucker could do that in the 60s!
He did later in life though, but the indie scene didn't take off much until the 70s and after. I mean, I assume he owned Mr. A until his dying day.
At least he had the GOAT spidey character named after him
I think he did, yes.
Do not sully Nietzsche's and Sankt Max's names with retarded "american exceptionalism but this time it's legitimate because that cunt is russian"
What the fuck are you rambling about you fucking spastic, comics were far from respectable, profitable or well-regarded during the time Ditko was writing mainstream stuff.
Stan took 50% of the credit, sometimes questionably so.
Kane arguably did less than Stan ever did, and took 100% credit as often as possible. While ripping off other artists late into his life. So yeah, there is a wide power gap there.
Well I mean, he did create Mr. A in 1967 for an underground comic book, a character he controlled the rights to his entire life.
yeah people really should not keep Squirrel Girl's debut design in mind when drawing her as Ditko was clearly half-assing it
Having lived in Europe all my life, and seeing the shit that happens in the rest of the world, and having talked to Yanks, I can say American Exceptionalism isn't without basis.
Europeans want unlimited rights and freedoms, but not for the other guys, the one's they don't like. They also want an eternal parental figure to dole out justice so the populace doesn't have to think about what's right and wrong. And Asia, Africa, South America and Australia are shitholes to whom man's rights are just words akin to "lustrous pendant".
The nature of capitalist contracts is almost never in favor of the individual and almost always in favor of the company. The idea that "you sign the contract so you consent" is an amendment to objectivism, not the original spirit that drew in people like Ditko. Equal value trade should be a given agreement between both parties, something that is never the case in contracts and is also the first thing that goes out the window when law and regulation are disbanded.
As another user said Ditko was very very big on the nature of the law and justice and how mercy and altruism compromise those, but was - as many objectivists are - blindsided by the fact that no-one would ever acknowledge justice without altruism in the first place.
From the 60s onwards, Lee was at least somewhat partial to creator's rights. Bob Kane literally went out of his way to burn Bill Finger, Jerry Robinson, Joe Siegel and Jerry Shuster
By the point Mr. A was coming out, there was very much at least the beginning of self-publishing and an indie market, but of course he refused to relate to "those people"
Yeah maybe because fucking America has been poisoning the well of human discourse for 50 years with their propaganda at this point. Also, I have to think you're a little biased when you say something like "Europeans want unlimited rights and freedoms, but not for the other guys, the one's they don't like", this is a very american way of framing things. I don't know where you lived in Europe, but there is a very clear hobbesian bent in how they see society as a sum of it's parts in the places I've been to (Spain, France and Portugal), or at least there was up until the 10s when shit began hitting the fan (thanks to american economy, of course).
>They also want an eternal parental figure to dole out justice so the populace doesn't have to think about what's right and wrong.
This is because Europe has existed for thousands of years and have come to accept the possibility that the populace CANNOT think about what's right and wrong. Whereas Americans are the runaway rebel teenagers that ended up adsorbing all of our worst ideas anyway and pretend that they've got moral agency on an individual basis, but take to screeching partisan tribalism whenever anything that they don't like happens.
>The nature of capitalist contracts is almost never in favor of the individual and almost always in favor of the company.
Of course it is, the individual is not the one financing and distributing.
>He's a horrid sub human but at least he isn't Hitler!
>America has been poisoning the well of human discourse for 50 years with their propaganda at this point.
>Muh Murrican Baba Yaga
See, I can use buzzwords too? What do you mean by propaganda? Hollywood movies and TV shows? Those wouldn't be a problem if people turned off their TVs, and even despite the "propaganda", most people I talk to hold some amount of disdain (if not loathing) for America so if there is propaganda, it sure as shit ain't working.
I summed it up as rights and freedoms because I'm typing on my phone and it encapsulates what I mean. Everyone wants to be given rights to things people used to earn (housing, money, food, etc.) and the freedom to do as they wish, so long as their enemy (the conservative, the liberal, the whoever) doesn't get the same right.
While they do see society as a sum of its parts, they also view society as above the individuals who make it up, as if society can function without taking care not to ill-treat the individual.
>He's a horrid sub human
He's not though, he has always given his co creators credit.
That's irrelevant. The individual is an end unto himself and compromising that is unacceptable to most classic liberal mindsets, not just objectivism. It's only nowadays that people consider the world to divide into those who kowtow to corporations and those who bend over for governments, things used to be more optimistic.
The populace DOESN'T WANT to think about what's right and wrong and take the responsibility such thoughts bring. It's a way of life that rewards apathy passing the buck in the face of personal challenges.
If you can finance and distribute it yourself, go for it.
>If you can finance and distribute it yourself, go for it.
Yeah, I don't know what other user is going on about "nowadays". As far as self publishing, we have options and chances that Ditko didn't get to see for decades. Despite all the doom and gloom people try to sell, if you are decent and can market yourself, you can probably get a modest crowdfunding to get a book off the ground. A book you own.
And it's a way of life that has kept Europeans sane throughout most of history, with brief lapses of judgement that were mostly corrected by having a few wars and epidemics. The issue is democracy. Instead of having a professional leader in charge, the population is asked to delegate their decision-making to a government. This is literally a paradox because this delegation reveals the population as incapable of making decisions for the state, so it makes no sense for them to choose the leadership as that in of itself is a decision for the state.
There's a lull in the trend right now but check in 6-7 years from now and those options will be shut down by big business.
Sure, whatever bullshit you think, brah.
Okay now I know you're being facetious. You're advocating for life in safe servitude as opposed to dangerous freedom. At that point, you're unintentionally advocating for stagnation because anything that'll threaten the sensitive Shipwreck Kellys in power will be nixed. What threatens them the most? The independence of the people from them. Today's world has more independent people than ever before and the ones in power would not only take that away, you wish to facilitate it because the horses in the stables are safer than the wild bucking broncos.
>but they want to draw comics.
Well then you either self publish or take whatever shitty hand your dealt. Im not saying it didn't suck but we all worked shitty jobs so he's no special because he gets to live his dream one for a career.
The Mouse are buying their own film tickets to boost sales, you think they're not working on a plan to crack down on all independent media avenues in the world?
He aint monster like you think he is. He never stole anything and always was credited as co-creator. Only outside media were making him the only creator of these characters. Also Kirby and Ditko assholes too. Don't you remember when later in his life Kirby said how he invented Spider man and idea of Hulk transforming when it is night?
>At that point, you're unintentionally advocating for stagnation because anything that'll threaten the sensitive Shipwreck Kellys in power will be nixed.
Yeah Europe has gotten along fine without becoming stagnant despite this "safe servitude". The trick lies in giving people individual freedoms to live their lives and pursue progress, but without the expense of giving them a voice in politics. That's how things should work in life, change is performed by individuals by their own sweat or by the state under strong leadership, not by a rough compromise between enabled individuals backing a weak leadership.
The false dichotomy that people are slaves if they have no say in politics or are free if they get to vote every 2 years is the sort of thing only Americans or their stooges believe.
Also,
>Today's world has more independent people than ever before
Is false. Today's western world has record high numbers of people who live off debt to corporations or welfare from the state. This isn't independence at all.
Ditko was introduced to Objectivism after creating Spiderman. By Stan Lee.
Kirby didn't want to give Ditko any credit for Spider-Man's creation. You can't say that about Stan Lee.
Oh, you're an actual retard. Sorry, I wasn't aware.
It's ok, I understand you have to keep your family safe, I would say the same thing if I were you.
>Yeah Europe has gotten along fine without becoming stagnant despite this "safe servitude".
Only during the Roman and Greek eras and those were exceptions to the rule that were quickly stamped out thanks to indolence.
>The trick lies in giving people individual freedoms to live their lives and pursue progress, but without the expense of giving them a voice in politics.
And at that point, those in politics are free to take away individual rights as they see fit, because the people have no say in their eventual fate. You want a society of privileges that are gifted and stripped away, not rights that are fought for and earned.
>That's how things should work in life, change is performed by individuals by their own sweat or by the state under strong leadership, not by a rough compromise between enabled individuals backing a weak leadership.
When one does something with the backing of the state they become indebted TO the state, and if that becomes the norm, you become an indebtured servant. A contract between individuals is more effective, than an unspecified debt/duty to a nebulous thing that changes size, power and cultural values as the ruling elite see fit.
>The false dichotomy that people are slaves if they have no say in politics or are free if they get to vote every 2 years is the sort of thing only Americans or their stooges believe.
If you have no say in the laws that will affect you, your livelyhood or your future, and still talk about individual rights, you become the stooge of those who hold the reigns and make the laws.
>live off debt to corporations or welfare from the state. This isn't independence at all.
Welfare is voluntary, as is getting into debt to a corp. I have no debts nor do I rely on welfare, yet I'm far from middle class by western standards.
>Only during the Roman and Greek eras and those were exceptions to the rule that were quickly stamped out thanks to indolence.
Yeah, you've officially outed yourself as ignorant of European history.
>And at that point, those in politics are free to take away individual rights as they see fit, because the people have no say in their eventual fate.
This isn't true. Napoleon wasn't democratically elected but instituted the most amount of civic rights and legal systems in Europe despite being a dictator. This is essentially because having a free people given a sense of justice is directly beneficial to the leader as it provides him with a powerful empire to work with.
>When one does something with the backing of the state they become indebted TO the state, and if that becomes the norm, you become an indebtured servant.
Every citizen is as a norm indebted to the civilization they are part of. This is a norm that has not been revoked in any society, including America. There is no debt to the state in your scenario as the state and the individual come to the conclusion of what is best for their civilization.
>If you have no say in the laws that will affect you, your livelyhood or your future, and still talk about individual rights, you become the stooge of those who hold the reigns and make the laws.
This is the natural rebellious anguish of a libertarian made manifest. It is fundamentally inappropriate that any one individual can affect the lives of not only the people around them, but the lives of every individual in the future, through a process as worthless and effortless as voting.
>Welfare is voluntary, as is getting into debt to a corp.
No, they're not. Welfare as its proper term is everything provided by the state. Education, public healthcare, city maintenance, et cetera. And debt is the natural state of things in a red economy. If you've somehow avoided relying on either of those things, you are not the norm of a modern citizen.
That's the whole point of objectivism.
>my dad pays for everything so I'm successful and people who don't have their dads pay for everything are welfare parasites and should just die, it's survival of the fittest bro
What the hell I thought you guys told me Kirby was based, why would he claim to have created Spider-Man?
Because he was a bitter asshole who burned bridges everywhere he worked. Hell of a talent though.
That's a shopped Ant-Man.
To be fair a lot of Jack Kirby's later life craziness came from his wife's insistence.
>women ruin everything
Dave Sim was right again.
Moral of the story: Objectivism is fine while I'm on top. Otherwise, I become a whiny bitch.
youtu.be
Jack Kirby talking mad shit about Stan Lee in a radio interview until Stan calls in. Then all of a sudden he wants to be polite.
Kirby, like many others, started asking for their "rights" years after their characters were created, and only made a fuss about popular characters. At which point, they conveniently forgot the role that others played in that popularity. The X-Men owe as much, if not more, to Claremont, Cockrum and Byrne than Lee and Kirby, but you never hear about that. It's all "I created a basic backstory to these characters 50 years ago. You guys owe me money". And lest we forget, all of them were work for hire. Cry me a fucking river. Stan Lee conned all of you before you could con others. Good for him.
Objectivism and libertarianism is being a gambler in a game where the odd tend to favor you in the first place and you don't gave a fuck for the people for which the odds are bad.
>Stan Lee conned all of you before you could con others
Well, Stan never made royalties either, he just stayed with the company long enough to become EiC and pretty much Marvel's public face.
And that was a shitty thing for him to do. Why should he be allowed to be successful? He should give his money to Steve Ditko instead, Steve Ditko is a genius who did everything on his own! A self made man!
>the odd tend to favor you in the first place
>source: my ass
Case in point, who has ever gotten the rights to their creations given back from Marvel or DC?
kek, when Ditko started working in the business Lee was already an industry veteran.
t. edgelord
Considering Stan was worth $50 to $70 million at the time of his death, I´d say he did pretty well, all things considered. I don't think Buscema or Romita Sr can say that. Not to mention that for the majority of casuals, Lee basically created Marvel.
There's also another book called "Bill the Boy Wonder"
Both Kirby and Ditko are great artists but not so great writers.
Yep. And Stan Lee also came up with the word Mjolnir and helped create Captain America.
Oh, that's it then, this movie turned into a book named Batman and Bill.
Also, yeah, there is already a Jerry & the Joker but I haven't read it yet
I'm not talking about movies and tv shows, I'm talking about how in 2009 no one even thought of the word "libertarian" in the retarded sense ONLY americans use, but once my country started getting buddy buddy with china, suddenly there were thousands of translations of Sowell, Ayn Rand, youtubers, "alternative history" books and a very vague and, honestly, americanish critique of social democracy.
>Make a funny copypasta
>coming back in the morning to see this post
>mfw
He's a Jew. It's what they do.