Character created with the purpose of showing how ridiculous and crazy characters that follow black and white moral are

>character created with the purpose of showing how ridiculous and crazy characters that follow black and white moral are
>readers champion him as some golden bastion of morality

What went wrong?

Attached: rorschach.jpg (640x360, 32K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qSdZETnEacA
dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/torture
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mutilation
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/torture
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/torture
law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words
twitter.com/AnonBabble

People are stupid.

People look up to characters like that, the kind that don’t stop, those who don’t really give up

The problem with filling a story with hyperbolic strawmen and then setting those strawmen against each other is readers will tend to side with whoever's least wrong simply by virtue of hating the rest.

If you don't want to promote stupid bullshit, write at least one character that isn't stupid fucking bullshit.

The answer is Watchmen wasn't actually good and there's a reason the guy who wrote it regrets it.

Fuck off contrariantard

readers need to save hex

>there's a reason the guy who wrote it regrets it.
he doesn't, tho

hi

Being fair the actual plot of Watchmen can be covered effectively in like three issues. it's bloated as fuck for what it is.

Black and white morality isn't ridiculous. What's ridiculous about Rorschach? That he has enough conviction to stand up for what he believes? That he doesn't want to let innocent lives go unavenged?

Even if Veidt's crime was less destructive it's still a crime. Let's say he could bring about world peace and only have to kill one innocent man. Doesn't that man have a right to life? Shouldn't this crime of killing be punished? Let's say he didn't even have to kill him, he just had to severely beat someone enough that he's a quadriplegic and lives in constant agony. That shouldn't go unpunished. What if that someone he had to viciously beat was a person you cared about, like your girlfriend, or your mother, or maybe your best buddy? I mean, world peace is nice and all but I'd be pretty sour about Veidt crippling somebody I loved.

Rorshach did nothing wrong. World peace isn't worth it if you have to be a criminal to achieve it.

I mean look at any member of the Justice League or any Avenger, how many of them wouldn’t have done what Rorschach did?

>Black and white morality isn't ridiculous.

>black and white morals
>ridiculous

Pick one. Get it?

Attached: MrA_5691.jpg (331x350, 53K)

Rorschach didn't have any right to tell others about Adrian's plan. He tried to stop Adrian and he failed. He only wanted to ruin Ozymandia's plan out of spite. He didn't think about greater good, he just wanted to fuck over Ozymandias in some way because he was humiliated.

Rorschach was willing to let WW3 happen because his ego was hurt

Attached: 1520370689022.jpg (384x505, 35K)

>That he has enough conviction to stand up for what he believes?
I mean the guy's pretty clearly depicted as being a moral hypocrite at several points.

Same with fucking hitler, and stalin, and mao, and obama, and pol pot, ect

youtube.com/watch?v=qSdZETnEacA

Probably has something to do with the "ferocious integrity" moore talks about here.

>adrian being evil doesn't change the fact that Rorschach was himself a murderous sociopath

The only people Rorschach murders was that child rapist who murdered the little girl after raping her and the people he killed in self defense at the jail. The ones he killed at the jail are 100% justified since they are in self defense.

>who was going to intentionally risk making world war 3 happen

The ends do not justify the means. Adrian deserves to be punished for his crimes

>The only people Rorschach murders
So he's a criminal.

Moore underestimated how stupid comicbook readers are

>WOW IT"S LIKE PEOPLE CAN STILL LIKE CHARACTERS WITHOUT MORALLY AGREEING WITH THEM?!?
Fucking retard

>Rorschach didn't have any right to tell others about Adrian's plan.
Didn't have the right? What the fuck are you talking about?
>He tried to stop Adrian and he failed.
So if the cops fail to stop a killer he doesn't get punished ever and they forget about it?
>He only wanted to ruin Ozymandia's plan out of spite.
Spite? The ends don't justify the means. Adrian was a murderer and deserves to be brought to justice.
>He didn't think about greater good, he just wanted to fuck over Ozymandias in some way because he was humiliated.
The greater good? You justify the mass murder of millions as "the greater good" fuck off with your leftist bullshit. The ends do not justify the means.
>Rorschach was willing to let WW3 happen because his ego was hurt
Rorschach was willing to let WW3 happen because the worst mass murder in the history of the world should be punished for his deads.

its not about liking Rorshach it's about some retard nerds thinking he's right and a moral paragon

Only with the child rapist. The rest of the dudes are self defense.

he regrets people copying the grimness and violence as opposed to further exploring its efforts to grow comics and tell a complex story

Because “the enemy of my enemy...” spiel is overrated and blown out to wishful thinking levels of proportion. There is not one piece of evidence in all of human history where two states, who weren’t already on relatively positive terms, didn’t immediately start fighting again once the bigger threat was gone.

Ozymandius's plan is doomed to failure the second he stops trying to maintain the coverup. There is no fucking way the con lasts more than a decade or 3 past his death and it could be BTFO far sooner than that with the wrong scientific advancement.

thats the thing though people do agree with him

No, you don't put people into concentration camps and systematically try to erase people in the cruelest way possible "for the greater good".

There is no 'only with', Rorschach is a murderer and by his own moral standards is a criminal who should be thrown in jail or killed.

>No, you don't put people into concentration camps and systematically try to erase people in the cruelest way possible "for the greater good".

Well, maybe if Hitler had access to a magical starfish that could wipe out the Jews with a thought, he'd use that.

Hell, we want to talk comic books, at least Hitler identified a group he at least THOUGHT was causing a problem. Ozymandias just indiscriminately slaughtered New York, where all the Jews liv-

Oh my god.

Alan Moore confirmed for BASED and RED-PILLED????

He didn't "stand-up" to Manhattan. He realized the world was too complicated for his black and white morality and essentially begged to be killed. He couldn't live with reality and went out like a coward rather than carry on. It's like you people skipped any of the text in Watchmen that wasn't in a word balloon.

I wonder what it'd be like to read Watchmen in a reality where the USSR still existed as a threat.
I know it's a fictional reality that diverges from our history during Vietnam but I can't help but have my notions be painted by the USSRs collapse.
It's hard to see Ozymandias' point when I can only think of the USSR as doomed to fail. His hastening of Dr Manhattan's exit, forcing the World Power's hands, all seems even more arrogant when I know it's for naught.

You're retarded. Adrian didn't care who was hit. It just had to be prominent. Hitler specifically went after jews way before he started to systematically kill them. There's a huge difference between them.

Not really, once you rape a child you aren't really a person anymore, you've traded your human rights for a moment of child rape, it's okay to kill them because they're not really people.

Of course there will people who will agree with him, he was created to be just like Frank because the comic community was filled (and still is) with people who unironically think that the Punisher is right even though the author himself said that he is a villain. So naturally punisherfags will agree with him.

>Never compromise, always punish criminals, no excuses.
That's Frank

>Black and white morality isn't ridiculous.
the comic directly argues against this by emphasizing the fact that there are no true heroes and villains in watchmen as well as the fact that Rorschach's crime fighting methods only ever amounted to him beating up and mutilating a bunch of petty criminals without ever changing society or saving anyone.
>The only people Rorschach murders was that child rapist who murdered the little girl after raping her and the people he killed in self defense at the jail.
he also killed that one masochist guy who was pretending to be a super villain so he could get beat up. And the text pretty clearly frames Rorschach as someone whose idea of justice is mainly just doing violence against the people he considers evil, just look at issue 2 when he attacked a former villain in his home because he suspected the guy of killing the comedian, or the bar scene where he starts torturing random people for information or even the opening monologue of the comic where he gives a pol tier rant about how much he hates degenerates

You do know that people can like somebody with twisted morals? It's not like Rorshach is going around the streets and murdering hookers and degenerates that he hates.

Veidt's plan was fucking retarded people were going to figure out there weren't any real giant alien monster squids out there, either by the huge amount of loose ends that even an insane hobo like Rorschach could follow or when a couple years passed with no further discovery or incident and people stopped caring as much and got back to eachother's throats. Is Veidt gonna nuke a city with a giant squid every couple years to make sure the shock doesn't wear off? How many mass murders are Ozy apologists willing to justify?

The Comedian was a rapist and a child-killer, yet Rorschach idolized him.

He did stand up to Manhattan. He knew Manhattan wouldn't let him expose Ozy, so he stood up to god and stared him down, without even the mask, knowing there was no way to win.
I mean that literally what all those people I listed claimed to do. Strange they are all leftists, isn't it?
oh no he was a hypocrite about killing a guy who fucking raped, murdered, cannibalized, and fed to his dogs a child.

Why would Adrian being punished necessitate undoing his plan, which was already executed successfully and was quickly resulting in international peace?

More like he realized he was going to spread word of what Ozymandius did if he lived and Manhattan was going to stop him with lethal force because of that and so he demanded he get it over with.

Which is hot trash writing, btw. He should have just shot Ozymandius in the face, spilling the beans has nothing to do with justice. We know he doesn't give a shit about a trial.

Also Manhattan could have just teleported him to Mars or something. The murder was unnecessary.

Foolish for letting you profit off their pain and suffering!

Oh, wait wrong board.

Hitler was a nationalist. What are you talking about.

LOL. Forgot how triggered Yea Forumsmbler gets over this shit. I really ought to storytime all those Mr. A comics.

>he also killed that one masochist guy who was pretending to be a super villain so he could get beat up
The text doesn't explicitly state that. It says Rorschach dropped him down an elevator shaft. Never says a word about if he died or not.
>And the text pretty clearly frames Rorschach as someone whose idea of justice is mainly just doing violence against the people he considers evil, just look at issue 2 when he attacked a former villain in his home because he suspected the guy of killing the comedian, or the bar scene where he starts torturing random people for information or even the opening monologue of the comic where he gives a pol tier rant about how much he hates degenerates
None of that changes the fact he was objectively the only person who was right during the falling action of the story

He cried and screamed like a petulant child as he died. He wanted to die, he stood for nothing but stubbornness in the face of practical reality.

It wasn't though. Manhattan even fucking conforms it was all for nothing and that the peace won't last. And because people deserve to know that it was Adrian who did that evil thing to their loved ones.

>oh no he was a hypocrite about killing a guy who fucking raped, murdered, cannibalized, and fed to his dogs a child.
Three of those actions apply to The Comedian and Rorschach thought he was a moral paragon and personification of American virtue.

Don't be quick to forget the purpose for which you entered this experience. Stop focusing on what other people can do for you, deconstructive thinking, and focus on what you can do for the world. Otherwise, it doesn't matter how circumspect you are. It'll never amount to anything except your own self-ingratiation and it shall be taken from you.

>what went wrong
Moore is a moral subjectivist, Rorschach represents moral objectivists and the mistake Moore made was in portraying both Ozzy and Rorschach as being genuine. He assumed that given an equal deconstruction people would come to the same conclusion about morality that he (and Ozzy) did but in being fair he ended up splitting the audience in the exact same way the two philosophies split in the real world.
If anything it's a success of the literature and while he could have trolled more people and maybe squeezed a couple extra converts to his side if he made Rorschach a hypocritical coward instead of a martyr the balance has helped keep Watchmen relevant by incouraging discussion.
Personally I'm an Objectivist, what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong regardless of profit or circumstance and the problem with the ends justifying the means is that the means always fuck you in the end. Winning isn't enough, you have to win the right way or all you've done is delayed the inevitable at the cost of your honor. "Nothing ever ends"

All headcanon It's made clear that Ozymandias' plan would work in the universe of the comic book, and that's all that matters.

He was going to spread the word, but Manhattan wasn't going to let such a sacrifice go to waste. With his powers Manhattan could have done any number of things to silence Rorschach, he killed him because he so obviously wanted it. Rorschach died a pathetic death.

user, I'm pulling your fucking leg(although, in the end, if Adrian targeted New York he did in fact disproportionately target Jews).

I just don't see how "indiscriminately slaughtering millions to fix all the problems" is somehow morally better than "deliberately slaughtering people you think are the root of the problems."

I suppose the moral thing to do would be NOT to, like, kill all the people, but that's hard, isn't it?

Hitler became a nationalist after a treaty and exterior bureocracy fucked his country.

Dont get me wrong, Hitler was an ass but there is nothing wrong in nationalism, in fact nationalism was Germany counter culture at that time.

If you want to get a mindfuck the current EU bureocracy isn't that different from Hitler original plans with Germania control over its vassal states. Look it up the EU was Hitler wet dream.

What the "right path" is, is hard. Especially for us that can only see the path before us and simply guess at the future.

Manhattan simply says nothing lasts. That doesn't mean his plan is exposed, it means all things eventually end, even the human race Viedt thinks he just saved.

A false peace after a standoff he forced.
His whole scheme was just arrogance.

morality is a spook

Why did Manhattan let a man not in his right state of mind dictate his own suicide?

sadly this, the reason characters who follow black and white morals are popular are because most people follow black and white morals and can handle anything in between, so when they read a character like rorschach their brains just use shortcuts to interpret him as a character with a white or black moral

Because Rorschach is based. Anyone disagrees is a Veidt shill

>he was objectively the only person who was right during the falling action of the story
He didn't kill Ozymandius then and there so even he wasn't right.

Which incidentally is completely out of fucking character.

>interpolating more definition when it literally shows an atom bomb explosion in the panel he says that.

Grade A comedy gold. You couldn't write a script like this.

>t. Veidt

>Implying beating up and mutilating petty criminals is in any way bad
Just because the police aren't doing it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
That's called a character flaw, looking up to the wrong person. It makes your characters more interesting and relatable. Rorschach isn't perfect, but he's a hell of a lot better than literally anyone else in the book.

An arrogant scheme that worked. Rorschach could have tried to punish Viedt without rendering the deaths he caused moot. That he would try to undo something bought at such a high cost speaks to a tremendous arrogance on Rorschach's part as well.

>He assumed that given an equal deconstruction people would come to the same conclusion about morality that he (and Ozzy) did but in being fair he ended up splitting the audience in the exact same way the two philosophies split in the real wor

You're not supposed to think any choice is right, is a superhero comic desconstruction, the ending was desconstructing the idea of "hero side vs villain side", both sides are wrong but you are forced to take one and is impossible to take a "neutral" rote for this reason, Moore intentionally made impossible to do so.

>It's made clear that Ozymandias' plan would work in the universe of the comic book
Nah

Attached: RCO029.jpg (1027x1600, 617K)

>That's called a character flaw, looking up to the wrong person. It makes your characters more interesting and relatable.
It also makes him a hypocrite.

>both sides are wrong but you are forced to take one and is impossible to take a "neutral" rote for this reason
The neutral route is Manhattan drapes his wang across the planet and doesn't let any missiles pass through it.

He was increasingly detached from humanity. Given Rorschach's intent and an apparent low esteem of human life, that's why Manhattan decided to just kill him. Keeping him alive would require Manhattan maintain his life somehow, somewhere and Manhattan wanted to roam the cosmos. Didn't feel like babysitting.

>None of that changes the fact he was objectively the only person who was right during the falling action of the story
No one was completely in the right. that was the entire point of the goddamn comic. But Rorschach was especially wrong because he valued his own hypocritical and retarded system of morality over everything else.
>>Implying beating up and mutilating petty criminals is in any way bad
if your a violence prone nutjob like Rorschach then sure but in real life there's a reason why criminals have rights and torture is illegal

But did it work? If it didn't, arguably making Veidt answer for his crimes and given those killed by his pointless monstrous act is more good than allowing a cheap facade to go on.

>Manhattan wanted to roam the cosmos. Didn't feel like babysitting.
Manhattan literally says he's off to create human life on another planet. That is quite literally going to involve babysitting.

Humanity will die. Viedt put that off for at least a while, possibly a long while. Is there no value in maintaining human life a little longer, even if it dies? I lean towards "yes".

OG Nightowl was a way better dude than Rorschach. Shit, new Nightowl was a better person.

national socialist workers party. Was really big on expanding the welfare state to ethnic germans. was a collectivist. Hell fascism gets its name from the fact it is collectivist. championed animal welfare and environmental laws. Had a major hand in shaping the market. Killed the bankers

dude was a grade A leftist.
He knew he couldn't take down a god. But he stood up to him even though he was afraid and knew he didn't stand a chance. Because it was what was right. Not that a spineless coward like you would understand that.
I don't think Rorschach knew about the rape and he likely saw the Comedian killing criminals as justice being exacted.

Rorschach was Moore's parody of Mr. A/the question, that's why he's a stinky murder hobo incel, that's Moore's critique on Objectivists while Ozzy is a beautiful super chad billionaire solving all the worlds problems. There's nothing 'neutral' about it and it's not impossible to take a side (as evidenced by this thread.) Moore was team Ozzy, we're supposed to be team Ozzy by virtue of Ozzy accomplishing his goals while being held accountable only to his own conscience.
If you're a moral subjectivist Ozzy literally did nothing wrong.

>I don't think Rorschach knew about the rape
He not only knew about it, he excused it and tried to justify it.

True, gave my copy to my niece a couple years ago and didn't have the page for reference, glad somebody posted it. Welp, he clearly didn't care about Rorschach's life. Probably didn't want to babysit someone so petulant.

Yep Nazi literally means National Socialist.

It's funny to think how much he refined Stalin fascist tactics under the left Visage to a point he outgunned the original fascist in both propaganda and public opinion control.

That's not an atom bomb. The shape's nowhere near as defined as a mushroom cloud and it occurs in a diorama of the solar system without even encompassing the earth. It's literally just Manhattan poofing away.

Okay champ, explain to me why it was right? Given the events that had already happened, what benefit would it have provided to mankind to expose Viedt's story? What would be the utility?

>Moore was team Ozzy, we're supposed to be team Ozzy by virtue of Ozzy accomplishing his goals while being held accountable only to his own conscience.
where the hell did you get that from because i doubt Alan Moore of all people would portray a billionaire who kills millions as the good guy

Attached: es454UKh.jpg (768x1024, 110K)

People like characters who know what’s right and confidently act on it. It doesn’t matter if they are lunatics who have a warped sense of right and wrong, so long as they have an ideal and follow it.

Aside from the fact that they might be innocent why shouldn't torture be legal? If someone is evil enough they deserve to be tortured. And if you're absolutely sure they're guilty, it's fine. And why should criminals have rights anyway? They're criminals, if they aren't interested in repenting (and seriously so) they deserve death anyway. Prisons should be 1/2 monastery for the fuckups that want to be good and 1/2 slaughterhouse for the evil cunts that don't regret a thing.

Manhattan literally says that it isn't over and that the peace won't last

Naw, I'm who he was responding to and that's a mushroom cloud. I'm not so sure Ozzy's plan comes to nothing as quickly as others in this thread do, but mankind is fated to die like all living things. The question for me is the value of staving off an inevitable death. I see value in it, but am open to a counter argument.

Standing up to God himself for what you believe in and facing judgment knowing you are going to lose isn't pathetic.

I mean there are people who champion Ozymandias too as well as Doc Manhattan, that's the thing about Watchmen, there wasn't a right or wrong

>character created with the purpose of
Who fucking cares? The audience is what imbues the work with meaning, not the author.

Same reason so many people think Watchmen is this edgy and cynical story. Plebs just see surface level shit and never dig deeper.

People like Rorschach because he stood up for what he believed in even knowing he was going to lose.

He's right in the end.

>He didn't kill Ozymandius then and there so even he wasn't right.
because he couldn't. He physically was not able to. Sometimes you can do everything right and still lose. Rorschach wasn't a god like Ozy or Manhattan. He was a ginger manlet in a fedora. But that doesn't mean he wasn't right.

>Aside from the fact that they might be innocent why shouldn't torture be legal? If someone is evil enough they deserve to be tortured.

Attached: katana edge.jpg (600x450, 30K)

Ozymandias whole name and ending put in question if his plan worked or not, the comic is also not fully clear if doomsday was imminent before him, If Moore really wanted a pure "logic vs morality" then Moore wouldn't put several redflags around it, even Ozy end up questioning if his plan worked at all.

And yes you can choose a side, in fact the comic force you to take one, the problem is that both sides have a lot of problems. Ozy MAYBE saved the world but MAYBE he made things worse as well and by siding with him you hold yourself responsible for anything bad it could happen plus his terrible crimes putting you at a similar position to the ones who sided with commies and nazis.

underrated summary

I don't accept your framing. Rorschach cracked like the Comedian did once faced with the monstrous complexity of reality and the moral decision Veidt had made. He could have sought to punish Veidt discreetly without wasting the sacrifice of all the people who died. That, however would have forced him to accept reality isnt as black and white as he deluded himself into thinking. Instead, he threatened to tear it all down because he couldn't cope. He knew he would be killed for it and he wanted to die because he was faced with how wrong he was. Rorshach died in tears, screaming petulantly. His face wasn't serene or set in determination with the knowledge he was doing the right thing.

A. people deserve to know their loved ones were killed in a terrorist attack by a mass murderer.
B. Rorschach literally couldn't beat Ozy any other way. Ozy may as well have been a god to him. There was no way Rorschach could match him physically or mentally, but that didn't stop Rorschach from doing what was right and that is admirable.

People who champion Veidt are almost as off the mark as people who champion Rorschach.

Rorschach was right though. He stood by his morals in the face of 2 gods knowing he would lose.

That doesn't mean he wasn't right.

>national socialist workers party
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
>Was really big on expanding the welfare state to ethnic germans
So helping a particular favored group instead of all of society. So the opposite of a socialist.
>was a collectivist
Except you literally just said he wasn't
>Hell fascism gets its name from the fact it is collectivist
Actually fascism gets its name from completely unrelated syndicates called fasci. Benito Mussolini was a member of one before founding his fascist ideology. About the only element the two have in common is the idea of strength through unity, an idea known as nationalism when brought into national politics.
>Had a major hand in shaping the market.
All totalitarian governments do this
>Killed the bankers
Switzerland would disagree

Democratic People's Republic of Korea
>It's funny to think how much he refined Stalin fascist tactics
Mussolini was fascist. Stalin was communist.
>he outgunned the original fascist
Again, Mussolini.

Viedt believed in what he was doing so much he murdered millions even though he knew it was a monstrous crime.

He's portrayed as a doomsayer in the book. He was the sailor in Tales of the Black Freighter. It's completely arguable if he delayed or just sped up nuclear war. What would the American government think if a alien squid destroyed New York City and then nothing happened? It'll take a year max before they start thinking that it's the Russians who did it.

>No one was completely in the right. that was the entire point of the goddamn comic. But Rorschach was especially wrong because he valued his own hypocritical and retarded system of morality over everything else.
Rorschach was completely right. What Ozy did was monstrous and the ends did not justify the means. Ozy needed to be brought to justice. And even faced with annihilation and a bully much stronger than him he didn't back down and died standing up for what he believed in.

>because he couldn't.
Why not?
>He physically was not able to.
Why not?

Ozymandius wasn't a god. He bleeds. He can be killed.

I think his plan is a lot more smart than most people give him credit for. Think about how 9/11 effected the world, the Squid was essentially that on steroids. He also planned a lot for the aftermath in order to control the narrative and help maintain the globalist sentiments that he created. It was also an extreme solution for an extreme problem, the Cold War had escalated to the point where nukes would be exchanged at a moment's notice. Ozy's plan probably wouldn't be permanent but at the very least it would keep things stable for another few decades.

What part of the comic does rorschach say he knew about comedian raping?

Ozy was a bad guy and his name literally evokes hubris and the greek myths. Rorschach, for all his faults, has more integrity than any other character in the story, just as Moore thinks Ditko was a man of great integrity (even if Moore personally disagrees)

this aint equivalent. At all

Walter made his choice for himself, as a human, choosing to seek justice for all Adrian had done.

Adrian sacrificed millions for his dream of an utopia. Killed his own followers, draged unwilling people into this scheme and in the end all for nothing. Adrian chose to live as a monster,while Walter died a man

Attached: 1548635904978.gif (250x162, 943K)

He outmatched Nite Owl and Rorshach. He catch a bullet from a magnum. The only person in that room who could kill him was Manhattan but Manhattan was a bitch that can only do what the tachyons tell him to do. Manhattan even said that Veidt was wrong by telling him that nothing ever ends meaning that nuclear war was still on the way.

>Why not?
Ozzy is charles atlas and Rorschach is a hobo that just broke out of prison.

A. The people whose loved ones died believe they do know how they died. They aren't suffering under the weight of not knowing and Rorschach telling them the truth doesn't bring them back
B. Veidt confirms himself what he did was wrong and is apparently haunted by it in his dreams. I don't find that a fitting enough punishment, but assuming Ozzy ever ventures out in public again Rorschach could have assassinated him without ruining the plan.

Rorschach is Brilliant

Attached: RCO023.jpg (1019x1600, 661K)

>He could have sought to punish Veidt discreetly without wasting the sacrifice of all the people who died.

Dude was long dead. It was his journal, the record of his investigation and Veidt's dirty deeds, that did Veidt in.

Heh. Imagine if Rorschach actually agreed with you and fuccboi's logic, but scrambled in embarassment.

"Oh shit Adrien! You know how you committed those series of other crimes? And how I'm a detective who investigates things like serial murders? Yeah my journal was sent to a news outlet! I'm so sorry bro, I wrote everything under the assumption that "committing serial murder is bad", and that "people would want to know the truth behind a series of serial killings."

Utility? Adrian was the worst mass killer in human history. That cannot go unpunished. If Adrian believed his bullshit for even a second he would be one of the people sacrificed. Evil like that cannot be let free rain no matter what justification it has. People deserve to know the truth even when it is hard.

And failing all that, Rorschach was the only one who didn't back down and stood up for his beliefs against God. And if that alone doesn't make him right I don't know what the fuck is wrong with you.

what are you doing here, steve ditko? you're dead.

Because people he actually cared about and related to just died.
That's the difference between him and Adrian. Despite Adrian and Rorschach's posturing, he actually cared about many people who just died and will never get any justice. He was grey but his realization was more that the people he had contempt for in the beginning were just like him. The story opens up with this very scene, Rorschach sneers down on all the people being washed away by a horrible catastrophe while he sat high and dry and sneered at them. When it actually happens he can't do that, he realizes the horror of that fantasy. He wanted justice for those people.
Also he was kind of betrayed by the only person he trusted, moments after opening up even a little.

>the ends don't justify the means
this is your brain on capeshit

Attached: 1520457583929.jpg (1129x1200, 118K)

Ozzy doing all that doesn't make Rorschach right. They are both arrogant fools.

what country are they in?

He doesn't seem to take a strong position believing the accusation there though.

His choice also likely increase mankind odds at being destroyed.By siding with him you are making everyone lives less safe.

>arrogant fool brings forth doom to everyone in NY

>Insane hobo tries to do the right thing knowing full well he wont make it out alive

Again, you can compare their devotion to their idelogies but the paths they take are very different. Adrian is selfish, Walter is selfless

Your logical fallacy is you assume that question (fatalist in nature) is a valid one. You already defeated the purpose of your argument by weighing this supposition that the greater part of humanity, is teleologically speaking headed in a downward spire. Your philosophy boils down to: if there's hope we should strive for it by any means. That tells me you've forgotten the beauties of life and spiritual aptitude to deep-seated conformity to the cares of the world. And the moment a thread to this bubble arises you'll readily adopt the policies and ideals of any philosopher king who answers your longing for justice, no matter how heinous. The supposition you made is flawed for making assumptions about the adversative. What if I think humanity is already as good as it can be or is on the brink of becoming with the current circumstances? Does Veidt's gambit at peace sate the exploration of agency we need by developing of our own moral constitutiion by a collective struggle and the awareness of each individual being met in that? I think not.

There's questions in life that don't need asking.

But he's all-too-happy to dismiss it as just being a 'moral lapse' and brings up his military service to excuse it, even if it is true.

After reading some responses ITT i side with this user

Saying "You're edgy" doesn't make me not right.

Hot take: You can't say that you ended a person's fucking life with "no ill will"

>Ozy was a bad guy
Says who? Not Moore.
>Moore thinks Ditko was a man of great integrity
Not the issue. We're talking about whether or not morality can be manipulated by circumstance. If you believe it can (and should) be then 'integrity' can be as much of a vice as a virtue which is how it's portrayed in reference to Rorschach, his integrity ends up destroying him while Ozzy gets to shape the future.
Just look at the asshat in the thread trying to prove Rorschach was suicidal instead of brave, he can't do it but Moore gave him ample ammunition to make the argument on purpose.

Standing up against someone you disagree with does not make you inherently right, it doesnt matter if they're powerful. And Manhattan is not "God", he is an exceptionally powerful being. You keep talking about people deserving this and that. There is no such thing as deserving. There is only what happens. Following your logic, people deserve to live without world super powers killing them in a nuclear war. Neither veidt or Rorschach should be admired.

>Adrian is selfish, Walter is selfless
Rorschach didn't want to expose adrian for selfless reasons at all. what part of the comic gave you that impression?

The discussion isnt about his journal, it's his actions at Ozzy's base. At the base, he voices his intention to go tell everyone what he knows. The journal is an interesting wrinkle though, that's for sure.

Less safe than a world where a man can murder a city of 8 Million people in cold blood and still walk free?

I just think murdering innocents is bad.
Rorschach was a nut and Ozymandias was a terrorist. Both were bad in their own way, but damn if Ozy wasn't a fucking monster and the idea of just letting him go because he maybe stalled a potential war for a few years by massacring millions doesn't sit right with me.

Nice projecting brainlet. The problem with an "ends justify the means" type argument, or, a consequentialist view of morality, is that literally anything can be justified. ANYTHING. Any crime no matter how vile or depraved is permissible as long as the benefits from the outcome is PERCEIVED to outweigh the bad of the means. Another obvious problem is how and who decides just exactly what is justified. Two wolves might justify eating a sheep based on the ends of that arrangement but the sheep will surely beg to differ.

Based Radical Centrist and frequent nibbler Nite Owl isn't a strawman and no one likes him.

What did he do that was ridiculous and crazy? He said a lot of crazy shit but everything he actually did in the story was heroic. Show, don't tell. Don't tell people how they're supposed to react to your character because you told them he's crazy and dumb, show him being fucking crazy and dumb so they automatically react the way to him that you think they should. Fucking hack.

>everything he actually did in the story was heroic
He beat up an old man with terminal cancer.

>I don't accept your framing. Rorschach cracked like the Comedian did once faced with the monstrous complexity of reality and the moral decision Veidt had made.
Rorschach and the Comedian are nothing alike with how they responded to Ozy. Comedian gave up and was fine with letting Ozy do what he wanted. He could have told Manhattan, or the news, or anyone. But he gave up. Rorschach didn't give up even when looking God himself in the face.
>He could have sought to punish Veidt discreetly without wasting the sacrifice of all the people who died.
PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW OF THE WORST MURDER THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN. Their sacrifice was based on a lie and it was not justified. And there was no way Rorschach could beat Ozy by himself. Ozy was too strong and too smart for Rorschach.
>That, however would have forced him to accept reality isnt as black and white as he deluded himself into thinking. Instead, he threatened to tear it all down because he couldn't cope.
He wanted to tear it down because it was wrong and it was evil and went against everything he stood for as a person.
>He knew he would be killed for it and he wanted to die because he was faced with how wrong he was. Rorshach died in tears, screaming petulantly. His face wasn't serene or set in determination with the knowledge he was doing the right thing.
He didn't want to die, he just knew he was going to when Manhattan stopped him.

He was a man standing up to 2 gods. He was scared. He was human. Him crying doesn't make him standing up to Manhattan any less courageous. Courage isn't about not being afraid. It is about standing up for what you believe in even when you are afraid.

He doesn't have a warped sense of right and wrong though? He kills a serial killer and defends himself in prison, then tries to stop a supervillain's plot. That's all he does in the entire story.

That's an interesting reading user, I never got the impression Rorschach really cared much about other people. I got the impression he was a suppressed homosexual with a crush on Nightowl, so I can see how you framed him as feeling betrayed at Ozzy's base.

is Zack Snyder here? holy shit this is too much Rorschach defending.

After barely dipping my feet into philosophy as a subject its so hard to not cringe at text like these. Surely such a supreme being would think about how even though the bodies contained the same amount of particles there was still some difference between the two irreducible to the physical world. Or how immaterial things like thoughts still affect the physical world or even basic thoughts like wtf is consciousness and not handwaving as oh its just an emergent property. Like some fedora tipping edgy teen's point of view who thinks science is everything

>Democratic People's Republic of Korea
not the same as this example.
>So helping a particular favored group instead of all of society. So the opposite of a socialist.
No, that is pretty much what socialists literally always do. See Stalin starving the Slavs and FDR throwing the japs in concentration camps. That shit is literally a core tenant in socialism.
>Except you literally just said he wasn't
ethnic germans
not a collective group
pick one you fucking brainlet
>Actually fascism gets its name from completely unrelated syndicates called fasci. Benito Mussolini was a member of one before founding his fascist ideology. About the only element the two have in common is the idea of strength through unity, an idea known as nationalism when brought into national politics.
Strength through unity? Isn't there another name for unity? I think it is called "collective"
>All totalitarian governments do this
totalitarianism is a core tenet of socialism
>Switzerland would disagree
kek. And no, he really killed the bankers as Jews at the time (as always) were major players in the financial industry due to the religious laws placed upon christians and muslims in regards to loans

That is not the same at all. Adrian sacrificed others, giving up nothing himself. Rorschach sacrificed himself to do the right thing

I agree with your last sentence completely. For the record, I do NOT think Ozzy was right in what he did. My position is that given he has already sacrificed those lives for his plan and it appears to be working (for now), it is wrong to waste those lives sacrificed by exposing the plan now. Rorschach and Nightowl were doing the "right thing" when they were trying to stop the plan before they knew it had been executed. Once it was done, things change for me.

Your points on protecting humanity at all cost are valid and I agree. That's why I would have tried to stop the plan before its completion, but gone along with it once completed.

he thinks the comedian is a good guy despite being a rapist who killed JFK just because he's a hero and a patriot. Meanwhile he also thinks that all criminals are scum beyond redemption because the incident with the dogs broke him psychologically.

Because he's literally right. There's no point to anything Ozy did if you spill the beans right away. Let everyone get bamboozled for world peace. Its not like the truth wouldn't have come out eventually. Rorschach was trying to put the whole world back into peril.

Ozy is the smartest and strongest man on the Earth. Rorschach was a sub 90 iq ginger manlet. He could not compete with Ozy mentally or physically. Ozy fucking caught a bullet.

They gave the worst character the best design.

Attached: 1553200198663.png (275x280, 69K)

user. Adrian failed. Nothing Ever Ends, remember?

THIS! Nightowl does what I would have done. Tries to stop the plan before it's executed, decides to live with the consequences when it happens anyway.

In that case, maybe he wasn't as emotional as you thought.

Maybe he was acting because he knew his journal would get out. Or not even just 'acting', he was being as angry as he actually was but allowing that emotion to also be a theaterical display to throw Manhatten and Ozy off his scent.

People are complicated. But I would never give someone shit for facing down death, serenely or with tears in their eyes.

>generation of people raised on black and white morality
>surprised when they have a black and white perspective

>A. The people whose loved ones died believe they do know how they died. They aren't suffering under the weight of not knowing and Rorschach telling them the truth doesn't bring them back
the hard truth is better than the comforting lie.
>B. Veidt confirms himself what he did was wrong and is apparently haunted by it in his dreams. I don't find that a fitting enough punishment, but assuming Ozzy ever ventures out in public again Rorschach could have assassinated him without ruining the plan.
How? Ozy was significantly smarter, stronger, and can literally catch a bullet.

What makes you think that he was supposed to be such a supremely wiser being when he spend the whole comic trying to analize his emotions and thoughts due to losing his phisical body and chemical reactions? He's clearly confused.

Rorschach was fine with sacrifices being based on a lie when an American President did it. He was not standing up for his morals.

Rorschach clearly doesn't believe it happened as he is blinded by hero warship.

humanity

If you're talking about the Nukes the United states goverment was pretty clear about how they just dropped 2 bombs and how they would drop 9 more.

Agreed. Clearly believing in something a whole bunch doesn't make you right. Again, neither are right.

>666
>supports murder
Hmm...

It might have worked if a sufficient amount of time had passed, say, one hundred years or more, so as to let old wounds scab over slightly before the deception was revealed.
keyword being "might"

as shown in the epilogue, there seems to be only token attempts at cultural exchange and cooperation (burgers and borscht, even though it seems to be the most ubiquitous fast food chain, looks more like a tongue in cheek jab at russia more than a staple of american food).

Justify your first statement with an argument. You came make a declaration as the sum total of your argument. High powered rifle at a distance. He caught a bullet when he expected the attack.

>he thinks I haven't just been hiding to lure stan lee out

>doing terrible things is fine

His last sentence was basically an admission that he's got nothing to actually counter Mason's accusations. If he did, then he would've just called Mason a liar and moved on rather than try to come up with excuses for The Comedian being a rapist.

Not doing bad things is good even if it means worse things happen

Why don't you just put stalingrad in a bottle, superman?

>Ozymandius's plan is doomed to failure the second he stops trying to maintain the coverup. There is no fucking way the con lasts more than a decade or 3 past his death and it could be BTFO far sooner than that with the wrong scientific advancement.
Time heals all wounds; he could outright admit his plan after a certain amount of time and people would probably shrug it off.

Hypothetical example: If you found out tomorrow through a whistleblower or some kind of damning piece of evidence that, incontrovertibly proved that the white house and george bush junior were both involved in planning and executing 9/11, what do you think would happen?
Would America collectively lose its shit and lose all faith in the system and march on Washington?
Or do you think a couple people would get indicted for obstruction of justice, maybe one or two people go to jail, and then the American public would be completely satisfied that it would never happen again?
the government and its agencies have proven time and again that as long as there's enough time between what happens and the truth being disseminated, you can basically do anything you like and the public will completely forget everything that happened.

>not the same as this example.
Similar enough to be a counterexample. Names mean jack and shit in totalitarian regimes where the government can say black is white for political reasons.
>That shit is literally a core tenant in socialism.
It's tenet. And it isn't.
>not a collective group
Not the collective group the German government governed
>Strength through unity? Isn't there another name for unity? I think it is called "collective"
Are you now claiming that socialism is inherently nationalistic?
>totalitarianism is a core tenet of socialism
Which is why libertarian socialist communes are a thing.
>Jews
Weren't killed for being bankers and hardly constituted all the bankers.

Get several clues. You seem to be of the opinion that "everything bad is socialism" no matter how it goes together or how little it actually has to do with socialism.

>guys I've figured out how to run a stealth /pol/ thread without the janny noticing

>Time heals all wounds; he could outright admit his plan after a certain amount of time and people would probably shrug it off.
How many times were you dropped on your head as a child?

then what was his selfish reason? Rorschach plainly says that the people need to know when Nite Owl tries to talk him out of it
>inb4 "Never compromise"
he was putting what he thought was right to the test. A selfish man wouldn't risk what Rorschach did if he knew he was going to die. He was selfless, but to a very self-destructive extent which plays a part in his black and white way of thinking

Attached: 3atman.jpg (333x420, 138K)

MK Ultra, Waco, Ruby Ridge, and watergate are all examples of this happening in real life.

>A selfish man wouldn't risk what Rorschach did if he knew he was going to die
He literally begs Manhattan to kill him after Manhattan tells him he knows Manhattan won't let him spill the beans.

>nothing ever ends
What did he mean by that? For me and the other brainlets in the audience.

The fallout to Watergate was the biggest political blowout in modern US history.

>Says who? Not Moore.
Says the fact he murdered millions.
>Not the issue. We're talking about whether or not morality can be manipulated by circumstance. If you believe it can (and should) be then 'integrity' can be as much of a vice as a virtue which is how it's portrayed in reference to Rorschach, his integrity ends up destroying him while Ozzy gets to shape the future.
Better to die like Rorschach did than live as a monster like Ozzy or a limp dicked, spineless cur like Dan and Lourie

I agree with MK Ultra, Waco and ruby ridge, but I think watergate is still widely thought of as a "very bad thing" that a lot of people know about.

>then what was his selfish reason?
He placed loyalty to his own moral code over world peace.
>A selfish man wouldn't risk what Rorschach did if he knew he was going to die.
Rorschach wasn't risking anything and his death was completely selfish. He knew he was going to die because he would rather be killed by Manhattan then admit his own worldview is flawed.

And what happened to olliver north and reagan?

Manhattan was every bit God to Rorschach in that moment. If we aren't willing to stand up for what is right, than there is no value to being

What selfish reason did Rorschach have? He did what he did because it was right

What is it like being a limp dicked swine? Dan is literally the worst. At least Rorschach and Ozy have agency

Irrelevant. A shitton of people had their careers ended from that and several ended up in jail. Nixon became so irrelevant you couldn't even find his year of death in encyclopedias published well after he died. Fucker was utterly shunned into obscurity from the most powerful position in the world.

You are talking about a character who is both metaphorically and literally a cuck And who represents you in the story.

Brain dead retards who are both too stupid to read any deeper than skin level meaning to realize their moral champion is a stinking lunatic bum who lives a horrible life and wants nuclear destruction more than anything because he thinks it'll be good for humanity. Also as a side, I've noticed a very disturbing trend where the majority of Rorschach fanboys also can't get enough of the shitty movie adaptation which makes a little bit more sense because the evil Manhattan plot is really fucking stupid.

also this He has a cool design so smooth brains who can't read naturally gravitate towards him and make up all sorts of reasons why they'll support a literal lunatic that wants nothing but death, mostly building their arguments through confirmation bias bringing in unrelated, usually political, bullshit, or the few Moral Objectivists that can be found in threads like these.

If jews were supposedly systematically killed then why was the jewish population in europe higher post-ww2 than it was beforehand

Compared to what the penalty for high treason is?
I'd say that's getting off lightly - particularly since ollie north was every bit as guilty as nixon was and still continues to get gainful and high paying work.
How many people are upset right now that a literal traitor to the united states escaped justice and continues to have gainful employment?
Shouldn't such a crime have people enraged to the point that the public demand the heads of the traitor(s) until they're brought to justice?
And even conceding that point, there's still the matter of MK Ultra, Waco and Ruby Ridge.

>championed animal welfare and environmental laws. Had a major hand in shaping the market. Killed the bankers

Attached: v.png (523x595, 93K)

I call it Joker's Law.
>Any character, no matter how psychotic, malicious, or detached from reality, will always garner a following of people who believe him to be right as long as he's also nihilistic.

>Compared to what the penalty for high treason is?
Nixon didn't commit treason. Also he was pardoned for his crimes so there was no penalty to be had within the law.

Okay, user.

>Nixon didn't commit treason
Fuck me you're right I was thinking iran-contra not water gate. I'm sorry user that was foolish of me.

Here's the difference, North was actively supporting the military industrial complex, Nixion just wanted to get re-elected and didn't even need Watergate to do it because the Democratic Party gutted itself, check out Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, you'll always see people, illegally, supporting American intervention slapped on the wrist while people advancing their careers get strung out.

>Nixon didn't commit treason
he did, just not during watergate. sabotaging peace negotiations in Vietnam just to get elected sounds treasonous to me.

Moore made him too cool.
>awesome mask
>only person who bothers investigating extremely suspicious murder
>can break into offices and a government facility no sweat
>waits in people’s fridges to bust out of nowhere and spook them
>resourceful fighter who’s interesting to watch because you have no idea what he’ll do next
>only one with the balls to call out Veidt’s bullshit
If you read it surface level or when you’re young, Rorschach is so cool you naturally gravitate to him. Obviously he’s got flaws and isn’t perfect, but he’s the one most first time readers will probably latch onto.

Attached: E5525503-929F-4017-8FB9-FFFFBF8500E6.jpg (850x464, 262K)

dont forget

> eats a lotta beans

Waco and Ruby Ridge were still horrible events that deeply scar the public's trust in the FBI, you're just never going to hear about it on TV without the normal lies about child abuse added in.

well, who did he expect people to identify with, the fat guy with impotence? no one's gonna admit that.

>Waco and Ruby Ridge were still horrible events that deeply scar the public's trust in the FBI
But it didn't fucker because no one besides you and three other people still give a fuck about that

Adrian and rorschach were my favorite charcters, both did nothing wrong, it's just with Rorschach, he had a code he lived by and even though in the comic he breaks that code with his landlord because even though she lied to the reporters, he didnt wasn't about to go beating on some woman in front of her kids.

Though, at the end, he refuses to back down which would only result in his death, this is perhaps because the world didnt need someone like him anymore and he didnt want to live the rest of his life in a lie.

Maybe its because I related to these two characters that helps me understand their motives but I always thought he was cool.

But Carl is my fucking spirit animal

Attached: e2a.jpg (720x405, 17K)

>scar the public's trust in the FBI,
What scaring the public loves the FBI

Yeah, Twin Peaks makes us view the FBI as good guys.

In fact in fiction in general FBI good CIA bad

Or shitty cults and outlaws ignoring a warrant don't draw sympathy

That's kind of similar to the scenario I described back in this post:
The central point here is that if there's enough time after major government corruption, the public loses interest at an exponential rate. The more amount of time that has elapsed between what's happened and what the response is from the public, the more likely it is to go from outrage, to distrust, to - if long enough - outright apathy.
Tying this back to the topic, veidt would just need to keep the public from knowing about it until either the next big scandal or just after a couple decades and people would still be going along with his ruse. The fact that even among readers it's debated whether or not what veidt did was good or not means that if something similar happened in real life, we'd have the same debate and the public wouldn't be unilaterally demanding veidt be punished. There's people in this thread who would argue emphatically that his lie was for a better good, so even after hearing about it, veidt's plan would still work in the end.

And Bush and Obama did even worse in their terms, Nixon just made the mistake of doing dirty when the people still cared about that kind of thing.

>using incel unironically

Attached: You+need+to+go+back+to+reddit+and+circle+jerk+_1465c3320759b1cb9cbbce1e79436f0b.jpg (712x1024, 211K)

Bush and Obama didn't do anything tantamount to spying on political enemies. No one cares about the drones obama did because it didn't affect american lives and any spying he did here didn't happen to specific members of the republican party.

I don't think it's a matter of the era being why people are apathetic, I think it's just the public's attention span is just short. If it's a long enough time between when it happened and when the public finds out about it, the reaction is going to be that much less extreme.

/thread

only because he knew he wouldn't get out of there alive, which is why he sent his journal to the news outlet before they went there
again if Rorschach as truly selfish he never would have let Jon kill him, he would've just done what he did the whole book and try to justify why he did what he did or why they're wrong to do nothing and why he's right
But he doesn't. He admits in his own way that things got too complicated and he realized he was done and couldn't do anything about it. Hell I'm sure he didn't even think his notebook will really fix anything just that in his own way it was the right thing to do and accepted defeat regardless.
One of the points of the last part of the book is Rorschach realizing how his way of doing things wasn't completely effective and he tries (and fails) to do things differently starting with apologizing to Dan for how he was. True when he was busting heads and being violent to get solutions he was being selfish in why he was doing it. He was reckless and didn't seem to care what happened to himself. Hell you could argue him exposing Veidt and still willing to let himself die is the closet he's ever going to get to making a morally grey decision albeit very slightly.

tl:dr Rorschach was willing to be selfless and tried (and possibly failed based on what happens after the end) to make a decision that wasn't completely black and white by sacrificing himself for the sake of everyone's safety

>ruby ridge
You're comparing 3 people dying to 9/11? You're a fucking moron if you're doing that seriously.

Because he was the only sane man in a clown world. When everyone is degenerate filth to one degree or another, the moral and outraged man is the 'other'.

Attached: Brightburneyes.jpg (1591x1128, 1.34M)

Don't underestimate that he's an atheist, specifically the proactive type that imprints his own meaning onto a cold, indifferent universe. I'm sure that really connected with a lot of Watchmen's new audience.

The writer failed to realize morality is black and white 99% of the time. Like all post modernists, he's stupid.

Listing examples of a behavior or phenomenon is not necessarily a comparison.
I see this far too often to not say anything about it, but if someone mentions two things, they are not necessarily being compared.
More the point:
Events and phenomenon that are different in scope and breadth can in fact, be fairly compared and similarities explained from that comparison.

user you unironically have Rorschach's black and white mentality

>again if Rorschach as truly selfish he never would have let Jon kill him,
You keep asserting shit as fact without proving it. Moore clearly intended for Rorschach's refusal to compromise to be a negative character trait as indicated by the comic constantly emphasizing that the world is a morally grey place. Him being killed by Manhattan was him being selfish, he wanted to die because he couldn't deal with a world of moral ambiguity. In no way is a person deciding that they would rather risk starting a nuclear war than admit their worldview is flawed a selfless person.

>He placed loyalty to his own moral code over world peace
Yes user, you should place good before some kind of warped lie. Are you unironically suggesting killing millions of people becomes ok if people are all peaceful afterwards?

>millions today or all tomorrow
Your choice. It's a shitty horrible choice with maybe no right answer but at least make it.

Rorschach was a tragic character, and he never even acts that ridiculous or crazy, just brutal and mean.
Its just that people liked Rorschach more than Moore wanted so he went full contrarian old man claiming Rorschach is totally, like the worst dude ever and everyone is an idiot. And then brainlets trying to look smart just follow along with that.
>Morality isn't black and white, wow deep
>Also, Rorscach is 100% unambiguously wrong and evil in trying to tell the world about the massacre
Bravo brainlets

>but in real life there's a reason why criminals have rights and torture is illegal
Because we don't know they're guilty, so we make laws against it because we don't want it to happen to innocent people. If it actually happens to criminals who actually cares? If we both watched a man kill a child, and you grabbed him and brutally tortured him, how many people do you actually think wouldn't support you?
>otherwise it would turn into Snyder movie.
That's a good thing

He did make a choice though. Rorschach's choice wasnt even that ridiculous, plenty of people, and plenty of really smart people, would make the same choice.

>Aside from the fact that they might be innocent why shouldn't torture be legal?

You answered your own question.

All tomorrow. You or I have no right to trade their lives away.

>Heh

Attached: 1528685169005.jpg (520x600, 97K)

It doesn't matter If it's ridiculous or not. Both choices would kill millions. Asking which is right or wrong is pointless cause they end the same.

Point to anywhere in the comic that suggest Rorshach actually tortured or brutalized anyone who was innocent.

Ahem

Attached: badfinger.jpg (780x437, 92K)

The gamers rose up.

I agree to an extent. But then how is Rorschach evil or crazy for making that decision?

Oh God, hes evil! He broke some punk's finger! Is Batman also evil? If that's the best you can do for proof that Rorschach is meant to be a bad guy, that's pathetic.

One killed millions, the other one would have eradicate the whole humanity.

>Innocent
Context

Attached: WTCHMN001-017.jpg (1680x2636, 1.85M)

Nope. Rorschach's choice would just ruin Ozymandia's plan. Ozymandias' plan isn't guaranteed to work, and neither is nuclear annihilation guaranteed if it gets ruined.

>Point to anywhere in the comic that suggest Rorshach actually tortured or brutalized anyone who was innocent
>I do it.
>user acts like a sperg.
I`m not trying to prove he is a bad guy, just that he's an hypocrite.
>Make a joke
>Well, time to break his fingers
What did you tried to prove?

>Its just that people liked Rorschach more than Moore wanted so he went full contrarian old man claiming Rorschach is totally, like the worst dude ever and everyone is an idiot. And then brainlets trying to look smart just follow along with that.
1000% this. They then fail to see their own blatant hypocrisy

If snide comments are proof of guilt and deserving of torture or corporal punishment then both you, I and everyone on the internet would probably all have busted up hands all the time.

Not that guy, but that whole scene just gave us a slice of life from him. He left the bar thinking "I left them to their child pornography". If you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, he will torture you thinking you're a monster.

>Ozymandias plan isn't guaranteed to work
Exept Rorschach believe it worked.
>And neither is nuclear annihilation guaranteed if it gets ruined
Rorschach thought the armagedon was inevitable.

Superheroes do shit like this all the time and people love it. He's also a criminal and deserved it.
>m-muh rights
The whole point of being a vigilante is doing what the police can't/won't. Criminal scum deserve everything they get.

Attached: 1446011466869.jpg (515x1295, 122K)

He broke a guy's finger for shittalking him, then justified it in his head.
That's hardly 'torturing an innocent', and hardly worse than the edgier Batman depictions.
Rorschach never did that much to justify the view that he's this terrible evil guy, its just word of god twenty fucking years later.

Didn't that used to be Yea Forums? Like ten years ago, Yea Forums was pro-moralfag and the edgelords on Yea Forums were anti-moralfag. There was a circulating screencap of someone posting Dante eating pizza saying "what's wrong with being a moral faggot?" and Yea Forums was responding with "they're short sighted" and "self-righteous douchebags" and other fedoracore responses.

To be fair
When one's sins are regular murders and sieges/gunfights while the other's are selling drugs to americans and weapons to foreign insurrectionists to fund their own interests, knowingly sending doctors to their deaths to 'study' a disease they're not prepared for, and all sorts of other horrific shit the latter makes itself the much better villain.

>everyone on the internet would probably all have busted up hands all the time.
If the world wouldn't be modestly better for it

>He's also a criminal and deserved it.
Making shit up because can't prove me wrong.
>That's hardly 'torturing an innocent'
>Breaking severa fingers to a guy that just made a joke is "hardly torturing an innocent" lmao.

His whole introduction has him fantasizing about the world going to shit and people asking him for help so he can whisper "no". He sees everyone as rapists and child pornographers and treats them as such. He's fucked in the head.

Rorshach wouldn't have eradicated anybody. Literally only one person was planning genocide.

If I see someone about to shoot someone, and I don't stop them, I haven't killed anyone.
If someone tells me to do X or they will kill someone, and I don't do it, I haven't killed anyone
If I kill someone, i killed someone. There is no in between.

And that even fucking assumes Veidt's retarded plan would work, which it absolutely never fucking would. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend, no one decides foreign policy like this, war is fought on multiple fronts all the time, and everyone would get real fucking paranoid when an American experiment starts murdering people en masse. Not to mention what fucking happens in a few years when everyone stops caring. What happens to the peace he's building on the blooded bodies of millions of innocent people with families, friends, pets, jobs, and futures when it all just comes back years from now.

The truth is the only way Veidt's plan would ever actually fucking work is if everyone was in a fantasy world where everyone responds exactly the way he desires because the creator of the universe wants to believe he created something complex so he made a world where people would never reach peace of their own accord like they've continually proven to do in the real world.
>Exept Rorschach believe it worked
Prove this statement

I'm quite certain this would include you.
I guess the next question is, do you believe you deserve to have your own hands and fingers broken or your body physically tortured in some fashion?

a broken finger isn't torture and the guy was an asshole picking fights in a bar and Rorshach obliged

Probably. I just see it on Yea Forums mostly.

Anyone who whines about criminals getting their shit kicked in or pedos getting killed is a massive pussy.

Because he's cool

He is fucked in the head. So is Ozymandias. So is Dr Manhattan. People still like all of those characters, yet Rorschach gets singled out as some sort of obviously evil person that no one should like, when the text doesn't support this.

Rorscach did nothing wrong

>a broken finger isn't torture
user specifically said:
>Point to anywhere in the comic that suggest Rorshach actually tortured or brutalized anyone who was innocent in this post:
Nevertheless, it fits the definition of torture anyway. As a verb:
"to cause great physical or mental pain to someone" dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/torture

>the guy was an asshole
Correct. Do you believe being an asshole is justification to torture someone?
>picking fights in a bar and Rorshach obliged
Do you think being surprised that someone who is unpleasant smelling (the comic makes the point that Rorschach smells awful quite often) has friends is picking a fight?

Seriously. It heals after a few weeks. It's not like he chopped the guy up or peeled his skin off. Meanwhile the "hero" of this story murders millions of innocents for nothing

this.

Torture
noun
1.
the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain.
sinónimos: infliction of pain, abuse, torment; Más
verb
1.
inflict severe pain on
How the fuck is not torture you retard?
>and the guy was an asshole picking fights in a bar and Rorshach obliged
We went from
>Guy is a criminal
to
>H-e was an asshole.
Kek.

Moore never state that Ozy is a hero.

That's what's implied by the story though. That he has made a tremendous sacrifice for the sake of humanity. Sounds heroic to me.

You have a real loose definition of great and severe
>>Guy is a criminal
Literally never said that, I said innocent.

>Correct. Do you believe being an asshole is justification to torture someone?
Not torture, but yeah, it does justify breaking a finger.

>Prove this statement
He said to Manhattan that his death was neccesary to protect Ozy utopia.

No, you have a loose definition of what is torture.

Did you ever paid attention to the Tales of the Black Freighter comic? What the hell did you think it mean?

>You have a real loose definition of great and severe
Generally, it's hard to define when, where and what is severe pain. But of the few things that are understood to be severe pain in the most objective of circumstances, broken bones tends to be squarely and firmly in the "severe" category of pain - in as much as you can be objective with such things.

Nevertheless, more trenchant to the argument:
Who decides when someone is being an asshole? The person being offended?

>Not torture, but yeah, it does justify breaking a finger.

Oh. This is autism, like actual autism. He wasn't being literal user. "Of course, one more body amongst foundations make's little difference" He was calling them out for how many people they were willing to sacrifice for Veidt's plan, that killing another person meant nothing to them. He wasn't fucking saying he believed in Veidt's plan, he wouldn't have needed to die if he did, literally how could have reached this conclusion sort of not understanding cues

>for nothing
The survival of humanity?

That's what happens to ground breaking media

>people STILL defend veidt

Attached: 616.jpg (1224x1591, 1.31M)

By this logic football or MMA are torture. You're being completely fucking dishonest.
>Who decides when someone is being an asshole
There is no decision, they are or they aren't

All the other heroes in the setting were much, much worse.

>they are or they aren't
Says who?

>he wouldn't have needed to die if he did.
Exept he said not even in the face of armagedon he would compromise.

*Stalin

You have no idea if it works. If real life is any reference he shouldn't have done shit. MAD doctrine worked out well enough in the end.

Rorschach believed he was the one who defended truth.
However, truth doesn't anyone to defend it. Adrian would fall for its own weight evetually... Rorschach died by his vanity.

Yeah? And? He didn't. Evil must be punished. He died not compromising.

The text literally supports this. We get an in-depth look into his psyche and he tells us he sees people as evil and expresses no remorse over torturing someone who hasn't committed a crime because he literally sees everyone as as criminals.

No. Holy shit.

I'd say you people are trolling if these weren't common misconceptions.

Break someone's fingers tomorrow and see how well that holds up in court lol.

The thing is... WWIII would happen eventually, without Adrian or without him.

>without Adrian or without him.
Redundant.

Didn't say it wasn't illegal but it's not torture to break someone's finger in a fight. It's a very serious injury.

>he sees people as evil
There were a lot of evil people in the city
>no remorse over torturing someone who hasn't committed a crime
Never happened
You'd be tried for assault, not torture. Try to make this a torture charge and see how well that holds up.

*It's not a very serious injury

>if you're scared a war might happen genocide is ok
Please never gain political power

People identify with a strong moral compass. Say what you will about Rorschack, he's the only one thats not a milquetoast piece of shit acting like moonlighting as a superhero is a viable hobby and just embraces it as a lifestyle to live out his ideals. that and the fact he's the only one thats not retarded enough to go along with ozymandias' plan.

Yes, there are a lot of evil people in the city, but he was paranoid schizophrenic, so much to the point that he "knows" the specific evil of everyone in a bar.

>Adrian deserves to be punished for his crimes
That's a childish point of view. Even if he deserves or not a punishment, is not responsibility of anyone to come with that punishment. Who is a human being to judge the acts of another human being. If what Adrian did was a mistake or not... only time will tell. Universe cause-effect mechanism will make Adrian pay if he deserves something... not human beings.

>if your genius analysis shows beyond a any reasonable doubt that an apocalyptic loss of life will occur if you do not act

By your own admission it wasn't a fight. The guy did nothing worse than make a rude comment.

He did it specifically to coerce the rest of the bar to give him information, that sounds like torture to me lol.

He could be tried for torture. Hell, he even set fire to a pollice officer.

>By this logic football or MMA are torture. You're being completely fucking dishonest.
I'm trying to accommodate you with the most objective answer I can. You don't like the definition, you can take it up with Cambridge. Or merriam-webster's. Or oxford. Or any english dictionary. They all have the same definition in them for torture.
Again though, this is entirely besides the point when you're skirting answering the question when you say,
>There is no decision, they are or they aren't
Again, how is this determined? Or defined?
When someone declares someone to be an asshole, what is the criteria used: Their own opinion?

>A super duper smart guy is totally sure it's going to happen so it's cool if he kills millions of innocent people.
Dear god, please, never gain political power

Moore may strongly disagree with Ditko but he also adores him as an artist, so he couldn't help but make Nite Owl, Roarsach, and Manhattan likable to a degree.

Sure, there are people who would not care about something like that... but I'm sure there are people like me who can't stand being fooled. I don't want a life builded around lies like that... because that would mean people is not good because they want it... they've been good because of fear. That's sick. I would preffer the world to end naturally, fighting with each other because of a real objective or a real reason to live.

fpbp, i don't even have to read this thread to know it gets real autistic

With or without. Sorry.

why is this thread still up?

>Hypothetical example: If you found out tomorrow through a whistleblower or some kind of damning piece of evidence that, incontrovertibly proved that the white house and george bush junior were both involved in planning and executing 9/11, what do you think would happen?
Nigga that shit would be viable to start the second civil war. There's already a great big ol' chunk of the american populace wary of the government and dreaming of an excuse to shit righteous fury down the necks of the feds, not to mention how many people in the internal political structure that would be jumping over each other to be the first to virtue signal and get those responsible thrown under the bus as soon as possible.
you bet your fucking as there'd be hell to fucking pay and some shitty show-trial aint going to be going down without some good old fashioned street justice before and after.
But whatever m8. if you want to believe your narrative that everythings under control go ahead.

/pol/ figured out how to make threads without getting banned.

>You'd be tried for assault, not torture.
No, you would be tried for assault AND BATTERY.
Which would fit the definition of
brutalize, leading us back to:

lindelof was right. people would definitely form a rorschach cult or whatever

Wow it's almost like people interpret things differently than the writer/artist/designer/etc intended.

It's almost like it doesn't matter if the writer/artist/etc intended it to be a mockery or not if people still approve of it anyway.
Rorschach is shit tier though

>I'm trying to accommodate you with the most objective answer I can
That's not an objective answer. Severe and Great are very specifically subjective terms, one you have a very loose definition of, considering it's an injury that doesn't even require a hospital visit.
>He could be tried for torture
Not for the finger thing, if you think it would be you're delusional and there's nothing else to this discussion.
There's literally nothing /pol/ in this thread, everyone on all sides, are literally only discussing things specifically pertaining to the actual subject matter of the comic. If this thread is /pol/ so is any discussion or mention of Watchmen.

Do you know what battery means? If anything assault is closer to brutalize, and they're still not the same thing. And the guy is still not innocent. He picked a fight, he got one. Plain and simple

>Nigga that shit would be viable to start the second civil war
Waco didn't. 26 children died and were intentionally burned alive by the ATF.
>There's already a great big ol' chunk of the american populace wary of the government and dreaming of an excuse to shit righteous fury down the necks of the feds
They've been given excuses and justified reasons for years. Hasn't happened yet.
>you bet your fucking as there'd be hell to fucking pay and some shitty show-trial aint going to be going down without some good old fashioned street justice before and after.
Again, it's happened time and again with little to show for it.
> if you want to believe your narrative that everythings under control go ahead.
The takeaway isn't that everything's under control. It's that the government is out of control and they can do what they want, and the public continues to sit and let them get away with it.

>Waco didn't
Because who gives a shit about a crazy polygamist cult
>burned alive by the ATF.
That was the cult that started the fire

>If you found out tomorrow through a whistleblower or some kind of damning piece of evidence that, incontrovertibly proved that the white house and george bush junior were both involved in planning and executing 9/11, what do you think would happen?
Bush, and those in his administration with proven connections would be tried as traitors, if not complete war criminals and summarily executed.
And it would have been completely justified whether it happened today or 10 years from now.
Americans as a whole would reexamine policy made based upon the attack, and in a decade or so social attitudes relating to the issue would be completely different

I'd hate to imagine how much worse it would be IF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THE US ALSO DIED they'd fucking nuke us into oblivion, we'd fire back, and we'd all be fucking glass. Instead of just, waiting for the war to end like it realistically would. Because holy shit people don't want WW3, they don't it's been 80 years, no one but the most minuscule fringe of people would ever actually support anything even comparable to it.
>Would America collectively lose its shit and lose all faith in the system and march on Washington?
Yes, exactly that.

>considering it's an injury that doesn't even require a hospital visit.
Requiring a hospital visit, stay or even medical treatment is not a requisite for severe or great pain. Kidney stones can and are passed frequently and safely at home with no medical treatment, to use an example. Nevertheless, a broken finger may actually require medical treatment or a hospital visit. Particularly in setting the bone. Sometimes surgery is required as well as sedation.

>Do you know what battery means?
We're talking legal charges here. Assault is not striking, hurting, or physically harming someone. Battery is. You can, legally, be charged with assault without ever touching a person. Battery however is a charge that follows assault when there's violent physical contact.

>And the guy is still not innocent.
Making a joke, whether he's being an asshoel or not is not a crime.

>and the guy is still not innocent. He picked a fight, he got one
He didn't pick a fight you retard.

>That was the cult that started the fire
It was, emphatically, the ATF who intentionally used teargas in an enclosed area (indoors) with full knowledge that it was flammable. It's in fact so flammable and dangerous inside that the term they use and used DURING the siege was "burners." Tear gas is only safe outside in areas without a lot to start on fire because of how incredibly flammable it is. Again, the ATF is well aware of this.

You're the retard, retard.

The fire happened an hour after the gas and even independent experts along with survivors said they started the fires with surveillance having audio of them talking about fuel

>What is ridiculous about Rorschach?
The fact that he decided a man was evil in the moment based on his actions instead of writing a 50-page essay weighing all of the details, pros and cons, and implications of what he was doing and then deciding he was evil.

>different ends

They both wanted to improve life for the people they deemed worth living (read: themselves).

Well this is going in circles.
>Kidney stones
But you wouldn't call it torture now would you? You wouldn't compare it to being waterboarded, or mutilated. To having different parts of your body removed as you were forced to retain consciousness?
The absolute difference in scale here is fucking astounding

>not a crime
Neither is starting a war, but as it turns out the law has nothing to do with what is or is not right, wrong, rude, or polite.
Only what is or isn't illegal. Something that's completely irrelevant here.

I mean I feel as though we're all leaving out the fact that he was breaking the guy's fingers with the clear pupose of trying to intimidate the other bar patrons in to giving him the information he wanted, with the rude comment just being a convenient pretense to use that particular patron. He stops and leaves once it's made clear that nobody knows anything. That sound like torture to me.

Ends are completely irrelevant. Ends justifying means is a joke. They did the same thing, or actually Veidt probably killed more people.

No one was arguing that he wasn't doing it for information. Only whether breaking a finger is torture, which it isn't. And whether or not the guy was innocent, which he isn't.

Take a look at the Globe that's in front of Jon as he disappears.

>Rorschach didn't have any right to tell others about Adrian's plan
user, please
If you see something
Say something
You have the right to tell the authorities when something illegal, immoral, and moral disgusting has occured. It is, in fact, your civil duty to due so. And see that evil is punished

He's the only character who stayed true to himself.

Granted, he was a rather shitty example of a hero, but he was still the only one to stay true to himself..

Jesus Christ, what a shitty thread.

But it is, and he is.

>But you wouldn't call it torture now would you? You wouldn't compare it to being waterboarded, or mutilated. To having different parts of your body removed as you were forced to retain consciousness?
>The absolute difference in scale here is fucking astounding
We're talking about fingers being broken being torture. I explained to you in detail how the pain can be great and severe. I also explained how it CAN be severe enough to require medical treatment, even surgery.
Explain in detail how it isn't torture, please.

>Neither is starting a war, but as it turns out the law has nothing to do with what is or is not right, wrong, rude, or polite.
>Only what is or isn't illegal. Something that's completely irrelevant here.
It is entirely relevant and the definition of innocent. A person who is innocent is: "(of a person) not guilty of a particular crime"
By definition.
You're saying he's not innocent when he fits the very definition.

>people discussing media in a more substantive manner than big tiddy waifu edit and "it's shit" "no it's kino"
>shitty thread
Imagine being this guy

>No one was arguing that he wasn't doing it for information.
dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/torture

Okay apparently you have no comprehension skills so i'll fix this to make it more clear

>broken finger
But you wouldn't call it torture now would you? You wouldn't compare it to being waterboarded, or mutilated. To having different parts of your body removed as you were forced to retain consciousness?
The absolute difference in scale here is fucking astounding

>But you wouldn't call it torture now would you?
The dictionary would and does.

Rorshcach is inlicting severe pain on someone as a psychological scare tactic in order to extract information from a third party. How is this not torture?

>severe pain

I repeat; how is this not torture?

>autists arguing about whether a broken finger counts as torture for 200 posts

Yeah, quality thread my man

>or mutilated
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mutilation

We've been through this

only about 60, it spiraled sure, but still a step above

No, you've dodged the question by trying to downplaying the severity of it. What Rorschach is doing falls under most legal and literal definitions of torture, I want you to explain how it isn't.

Would the movie ending have worked?

>Severe
If you're going to keep pretending then there's not much left to talk about on this line of discussion

We've already established that a broken finger can and does cause extreme pain. Do we have to go over why and how again?
You claimed that extreme pain cannot come from injuries which do not require hospital care and attention. This is false and there are several examples of instances where no medical care is necessary (and sometimes, unavailable) for great and severe pain caused by various means including instances where there is no injury at all.
You also claimed that a broken finger does not require hospital care. When in fact there are several procedures that are sometimes necessary to treat a broken finger, up to and including surgery.

The movie was superior in every distinguishable way. Including and especially the ending

"Severe" pain is not necessary to satisfy the definition of torture.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/torture
dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/torture
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/torture
Affording you every opportunity however:
Explain how and why you believe a broken bone cannot cause severe or great pain

Whatever you say Satan.

Except when you consider that Dr. Manhattan would be considered an American asset by the rest of the world. One that just bombed every country, including Russia, who were expecting an american attack at some point and were literally prepared to retaliate.

Ozy is not smart, he is insanely lucky.

Attached: pepedontpanic.png (270x284, 110K)

Lol all you do is dodge.

This isn't dodging at this point.
It's getting smacked in the face with something and then denying it happened outright.

>Yeah sorry our omnipotent superman got went rogue and nuked your cities, if it makes you feel better he nuked some of ours too, so we're all cool now right? Group hug?

You know for years I've seen people complain about the film adaptation but never seen anyone make this very succinct point quite like this before.
I do like the film a great deal, but the ending never bothered me until now for some reason. Kudos to you user for putting that so well.

Synder apologist btfo!!!

>insanely lucky
Not lucky, the comic was just written to give him the win and the movie stayed faithful to the level of absolute retardation necessary for his braindead plan to work, if you honestly believe a bunch of squids turning people insane is going to be better for the world than Manhattan you'd have to be stupid. There was never going to be kumbaya at the end of all this. The comic gives you a load of bullshit and expects you to buy it when everyone starts declaring world peace in an hour, and you do, because it's fiction. The movie doesn't ask you to swallow anything bigger, uniting against rogue manhattan sounds more reasonable than uniting over a bunch of unidentified monsters in the streets executing people. The very fact no one immediately tried to nuke them is more contrived.
>A brilliant start to war, they nuked us and themselves but pretended not to nuke us
>they did it for the laughs, to mock us, look at the tactical advantage they gained from nuking themselves

Moore wrote him to be a kind of a pitiful lunatic. He's ugly, he smells and has views which are intended to horrify (or disturb) the average reader. If you knew him in real life you'd probably end up despising him.

But most of that doesnt get reinforced through the story. He wears a mask for most of it so you don't see his face, we can't actively smell him so it's not at the forefront of our minds. And the people he's up against - child molestors, mobsters and a guy who commits genocide make him look pretty good by comparison. Even if you disagree with his final stand at the end, it's easy to admire that. Kind of like how even some Southerners were impressed by the way John Brown went to the gallows.

If the comic was a slice of life and he was just needlessly violent to petty crooks (while being a criminal himself) and we saw more of how his day to day life was then he'd be a lot less admirable.

Bit of a tangent but it's kinda like how Taxi Driver inadverdently made Travis a lot more sympathetic by removing or toning down a lot of his more overtly unsympathetic traits from the original screenplay, like his extreme racism.

>if you honestly believe a bunch of squids turning people insane is going to be better for the world than Manhattan you'd have to be stupid.
You're not wrong. But Ozymandias' plan was long term. He wanted humanity united as one, with all the gears moving in the same direction. His view of humanity was a machine capable of great things with all its gears moving in different directions, often opposite of each other.
He viewed the sacrifice as removing a few small components that would be, in his opinion, much easier to replace than the damage done to the core mechanism.
Again, you're illustrating a good point that his plan that for all its machinations, had all the subtlety of a brick to the face. To use another poor analogy, he was amputating a hand for an infected cut on a fingertip. Ozzy thought that if humanity united as one they'd see once and for all the true greatness it could accomplish and move together, as one, from that day forward, into perpetuity.

Knocking holes in that logic is simple when you start asking questions that are never posed to him. Important questions like, "What happens when humanity starts fighting itself again?"
Do you just keep smiting humanity collectively, across the world every time they start to bicker? Eventually that bickering is going to grow into fighting. Fighting into warring. Otherwise the solution is to perpetually throw humanity a catastrophe every time there's a disagreement, since inevitably it will always lead to more disagreement.

And to the story's credit, the ending depicts things as improved "for now." But even as a long term solution, you're meant to question how long it can last.

Another tangent, and I'm not blaming Moore here for not being psychic, but plenty of people pointed out how DNA testing technology was on the rise a bit after Watchmen wrapped up and now if it'd been written just a year or two later a big glaring hole in the story would be how even rudimentary DNA testing on the giant squid would expose it as a fake.

Waco had the unfortunate factor that the innocents were proven religious weirdos. When you have whats essentially a cult with a random fuck declaring himself jesus in a nation thats still majority christian leaning, not many people are going to care when they get perforated. on top of a fantastic smokescreen by the government and the waco folks reacting poorly.
>hasnt happened yet
There hasnt been a big enough reason for anything to happen yet. but shits getting to a mild boil even now. people were rioting over trump winning the election by all measures as squarely as the modern political process allows.
I think you underestimate how big of a deal 9/11 was for the political landscape of america and the fucking world.

I suppose you might squeak by with the argument that Veidt's technology was decades ahead of the curve; enough that he could, from a genetic standpoint, create something alien.
Unless I'm mis-remembering the comic, and forgetting them explicitly explaining how he made it through a method that would be obvious to genetic testing.

he was too related

Attached: larry_clarence00.png (198x215, 46K)

>He wanted humanity united as one
That's the thing though, what are they uniting for here? What do they gain by working together in this instance? Can they kill the monsters? If they can why do they need the others to do it? If they can't why wouldn't anyone just use the opportunity to take a strike against someone else while they're severely weakened or unorganized? And assuming the problem is isolated (as to not kill billions instead of millions) why wouldn't they keep fighting unperturbed, trying to capture territory they lost, trying to regain resources that were destroyed.
Yes, knocking holes in the logic is simple, but that's my point. You can do that for the comic ending just as easily as you could for the movie ending.
What would realistically happen is completely irrelevant when we know exactly what realistically happens if Veidt would have sat in his chair and did nothing. Nothing would happen, we'd live fine for at least 80 years after the end of the war. So it's a completely moot point as a criticism of the movie, because just like the comic it asks us to buy that the war doesn't end for some reason, and it ask us to buy that Veidt's plan works at least temporarily. So yeah, I can buy the movie's ending in so far as I can buy the comic's ending.

>I think you underestimate how big of a deal 9/11 was for the political landscape of america and the fucking world.
You may be right.
That not withstanding, I think the reaction to learning that the US government had numerous warnings and reasons to believe the threat was credible before the events happened. From a historical standpoint, the WTC was attacked years before and, unless I'm wrong (I very well could be) they had vowed to attack again.

The issue is in the past air plane hijackings weren't so threatening, most of the time they were done just for ransom

What the hell I thought I was on Yea Forums and got confused at all the pedantic faggots flocking to this thread.

I guess I had an incomplete thought there, sorry.
I mean the reaction to learning that the government knew about the credibility of an attack on american soil. The government knew an attack was not only possible, but there was credible evidence to believe that someone was planning an attack. There was a lot of reason to believe that something would happen before 9/11 happened.
And when it was revealed that the government knew all this, the public was upset, sure. But people didn't do a lot about it. They voiced their concern but didn't do anything so severe as say, rioting or burning buildings. And in fairness I don't think that rioting would have been an appropriate response either, but I thought that more people would be upset to the point of violence and that there would be violence against the government.
Maybe I'm biased, but I don't seem to remember any kind of reaction like that.

Probably because there is always someone planning an attack on the US, not saying them letting one slip by is forgivable but we have our dicks in so many areas of the world there will always be some credible threat. It's like Pearl Harbor we knew something might happen but hard to do anything more than prepare when you have no major clue of what exactly the attack will be just that it may happen

>And when it was revealed that the government knew all this, the public was upset, sure. But people didn't do a lot about it.
Years later, we shot the guy who masterminded it in the face.

You're not wrong. It's one of the reasons the government gave for not acting.
But, some skepticism is natural, when it's understandable the government would try to limit its own culpability, so there may be some stretching of the truth. The thought occurs for sure that they knew enough that they had reason to believe they should act.
But at this point, it's all hindsight.

The point I'm driving at was there may have been some negligence in acting before it happened. And nobody was too upset that the government was negligent in acting before, not after. Even when there may have been sufficient evidence to give them reason to.

Honestly using the past records I would have expected another attempted bombing attack rather than you know a fucking plane

>as the fact that Rorschach's crime fighting methods only ever amounted to him beating up and mutilating a bunch of petty criminals without ever changing society or saving anyone.
Stopping criminals IS saving people.

shhh they could have been scientists or doctors.

How is Rorschach a coward?

Do we blame the president, country or citizens of that country every time a individual soldier commits a war crime against orders?

Where does the buck stop

Attached: 16-truman.w710.h473.2x[1].jpg (1420x946, 114K)

Because Alan Moore has no idea what morality really is, so his skewed perception has him writing heroes where he intends a villain.

Didn't Roashach win???

They'll find his journal, exploit Adrian and all those lives will be in vain.

An ultra right-wing fringe newspaper found the diary of a deranged schizophrenic. If you look at it objectively it's not enough on its own to prove anything. At the same time it doesn't really need to prove anything, just sow enough doubts for things to fall apart.

Rorschach did nothing wrong!

Nationalism is why Einstien fled Germany, allowing America to develop nuclear arsenal that would used agaist germany if it didn't loose earlier.

Notice how the movie loses the "rape is a moral lapse line" and just has manhattan teleport rorschach out because he feels like it

snyder deliberately made him look more heroic.

I never read watchman, but isn't this whole debate boils down to this?

Attached: Trolley_problem.png (220x75, 4K)

Kind of, except there's also another large crowd of people behind the tracks of that single guy.
Come on, no one is going to buy the bullshit movie monster alien story forever.
It wouldn't survive the proliferation of the internet, we'd meme the shit out it.

May as well have just asked Big Blue to fly around the world, disintegrating WMD stockpiles and giving the politicians and generals of any country that tries to make one a very firm spanking.

In Russia there is own version of "bush did 9/11" and one bombing was accidentaly prevented, with goverment officials claiming that explosives were actualy just bags of sugar. Nobody besides few fags cares.

Go ahead and break your own finger, then.

What?!? A reasonable answer?? Where am I?

Ditko was right

Attached: 1528179621055.jpg (459x597, 81K)

Rorschach was right and he was the more entertaining character, too. Fuck Alan Moore and his pozzed "opinion"

No I think the Nazi overtones of the Aryan supergod might be deliberate just like how Rorschach is far right Irish trash.

hello friend

Rorshach pretended to be a cold and calculating force of justice but really was just human all along.
Veidt larped as a generous philanthropist but his cold moral calculus portrays a vicious monster.
Of the two Rorschach is the lesser evil.

Rorschach wasn't going to stop with a single finger and it's made explicit that he's done worse in the past as indicated by the bartender having to beg him not to kill anybody.
how are you this bad at reading media.

>make him the main narrator, the most interesting character, the most morally respectable character, the most sympathetic character and the only character who actually had a sack and stood up to Veidt at the end

Yeah nah Moore really dropped the ball on that one. Sorry, making him smelly and weird isn't going to make me like him less than nihilistic blue penis man or Nite Owl aka the useless boring fuck who was getting laid while his crime fighting partner of years got blown to bits.

>dropped the ball
Moore openly wanted to reader to admire his conviction just like Moore admired Steve Dikto even though he disagreed with him.

Rorschach had a good dynamic with Silk Spectre and Nite Owl to make him seem like an anti-hero. They keep him grounded in reality, while Dr. Manhattan and Ozymandias are both delusional.

Ditko's brand of Objectivism makes sense though. It was based on morality, not that pretentious Randian Objectivism.

That's just it though. Reducing millions of living, breathing human beings with names and families and thoughts and dreams down to a simplistic ends-justify-the-means calculus where they become "necessary casualties"?

Yeah, that's pretty fucking evil.

>all the people ITT who think Adrian was right

The reason he's called Ozymandias is because his great works don't last. The fact a crackpot conspiracy magazine with a crazy vigilante's journal is implied to have the power to topple what he did is enough to show that what he did was ultimately wrong.

Attached: watchmen figures.jpg (500x750, 141K)

Because there no gray in morality. Only white that not enough clean.

Take your logical arguments and cohesive analysis of a fiction elsewhere, you don't belong here

Daily reminder that Adrianfags are working under the assumption that he was right about nuclear fallout being inevitable (which he wasn't, as proven by real life) and that his way was the only one. Rorschach, though mentally and morally in question, is right. Comedian's nihilistic philosophy infected Adrian's initial benevolence and corrupted him. Guys like that see death as an endgame instead of as a part to an even greater picture: life. Rorschach chose life when he thought that people died in vein, and did more for the development of the species as a whole by ratting out Adrian. Now nobody else is ever gonna try that shit again, and the world got the villain they were looking for: not in an alien or Manhattan, but in Adrian.

>Daily reminder that Adrianfags are working under the assumption that he was right about nuclear fallout being inevitable (which he wasn't, as proven by real life)
But in the comic Manhattan showed it was inevitable. You could argue the only thing Adriand did is borrow humanity some minutes.

Because morality is black and white. The parody is more morally upright than the people covering up genocide

You have no fucking right to push that lever, no matter what track it's going down

Yes. You are complicit, you fund global terrorism, as children in countries you nor I could point at on a map are drone striked, it's because we collectively did nothing. We're talking about Watchmen instead of marching on Washington and destroying the institutions responsible.

Every death is on us, and it hurts, it really does user, to be responsible for evil but the truth is so much more important to know.

What does that have to do with what that user was saying?

Who the fuck are you to tell me what I have the right to do or not do?

>Because morality is black and white.
t. Javert

If someone brutally murdered your mom, to use her organs to save another 6 people. Would it be incorrect of you to want this person to face legal repercussions, justice?

Alan Moore and the rise of edginess in comics are perfect examples of liberal deconstructionism ruining a genre/medium.

Leftist hate reality/nature so when they gain control of fiction they subvert the main themes that made the genre successful in the first place. Superheros go from being about altruism and making sacrifices to help others to be a scowling hatefilled thug. Alterantive music went from being about fun and having a good time to wanting to kill yourself and be an outcast. Fantasy goes from being about comadre and different cultures uniting for a common goal to polical back-stabbing.

And once the subversion of these genres becomes a cultural opus they fall apart. Superheros comics in the mid-90s collapsed and survives off of cartoons and movies. After a decade of grunge/industrial/nu-metal/emo Rock and roll was dethroned by rap. I suspect the fantasy shows following game of thrones will downplay the fantasy elements in favor of banal polical intrigue that will amount to the West wing with elves. They unlike the former will likely drop this trope once it starts to loose money because movies and tv shows are a bigger financial investment.

Before something is subverted or deconstructed inquiry should be done about whether this is smart. A pillar holds up a house.

He means well. That goes a long way in the Watchmen universe.
He, and to a lesser extent Dan, actually behave like superheroes. They best up bad guys, solve mysteries and set out to save the world. Dan even has a rebirth “Niteowl No More” arc.
It’s hard fir me to dislike them.

Oxyfags are great:
>Rorschach TORTURES some EVIL people to stop BAD SHIT therefore he is BAD
>Ozy KILLS some INNOCENT people to stop BAD SHIT therefore he is GOOD
You're all a bunch of sheltered first world edgy fat crybabies.

The problem was that Moore is full of shit and doesn't understand why people agree with black and white morality.

He fundamentally doesn't get the appeal, and it's lost on him why anyone would look up to his designated "haha insane" character.

I really don't give a fuck about some losers getting killed half a world away.

I almost don't care about the plot. It's everything else I care about and love from this book. The movie is an irredeemable piece of shit in part because of the plot focus.

Maybe Snyder's adaptation glorifies him more than his comics counterpart.

what else is there? The art really isn't good

>actually it's not torture because I don't think it's that bad

why do people even bother saying this? why would the person trying to force info out of the subject even do it then if it's not a bad thing to happen to them? as a wacky prank?

Veidt shills BTFO.

What's the matter? Is art too hard to understand for you?

What are you talking about? The art is great, not the best, but still great. And there's a lot more to the comic than art and plot. The little details, the recurring motifs, the atmosphere, the archetypal nature of the characters, the construction of chapters four and five, the historical references, etc. Too much to remember.

Attached: 1.jpg (448x699, 164K)

That's not really proving that Rorschach didn't torture the schmuck, and it doesn't prove the schmuck did anything to deserve it other than be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

based, what are you doing this weekend anons?

Only if you consider child murderers/rapists to be human user.
Personally I consider the guy he murdered to have been kicked out the human race for disorderly conduct.

They're still human dude. Stop acting like a deranged nazi.

>child rapist
>human
Why are you lying on the internet?

They're human and no amount of moral posturing on your part will change that.

Tell that to girl eaten by dogs. No kind of edgelord relativist bullshit will change the fact that's evil far beyond what could be considered human

>they things i consider bad so they can't be human
Okay Hitler. No more (You)'s for your stupid ass.

>I consider bad
Are you fucking defending child rape

i was arguing that he did torture the guy and replied to the wrong post without realizing it

Why the fuck are we getting two different sequels to Watchmen

Attached: watchmen-tv-series-teasers-hbo-1160074-1280x0.jpg (1280x718, 81K)

Watchmen mocked superheroes so subtly that people cite it as support for superheroes being serious literature.

If there is an unkown threat able to destroy big cities easily of course countries would agree to stop fighting until they can figure what the fuck is going on.

But he doesn’t
Strange right

This isn't some little scandal. He was doing something worse than 9/11, worse than the fucking holocaust.

So you are saying Rorschach to normies is the Naruto of Watchmen?

I never saw him as the perfect hero.

I felt like each member of the Watchman cast sort of had one trait that a hero needs... But that's highly outweighed by their flaws.

Manhattan how the powers to be a hero, but was ultimately too passive to try to change anything (did he ever try, or did he always just assume?)

Rorschach had the determination to follow on his beliefs against all odds. But was a goddamn nut job.

Nightowl has the mortality to be a hero and thought about helping people. But he lacked the drive and was too timid.

Ozy had the brilliance a hero would need and saw the bigger picture, but he became too self-absorbed in this own scheme as the be all end all.

Sally actually remembered there's a damn life outside of being a hero and it was important to maintain that. But ultimately was probably onloy interested in being a hero for thrills and because her mom made her.

>Oh fuck, oh god! This guy's gonna kill his whole family because he's panicked about nuclear war!

> Oh, what? He already killed his whole family? Guess I'll have to live with it and just give up on punishing him for it!

What's your take on the Comedian?

Oh, ok.
I should've realized.

Not when the end isn't even guaranteed.

>He placed loyalty to his own moral code over world peace.
A world peace that won't be achieved once the truth comes out.

Just as I hit 'enter' I had remembered I had utterly forgotten about him despite his importance to the plot.

I'm having honest trouble thinking of one, but I think if I had to assign something to him, Comedian's best ability was adapting and changing.

He went from a molester, an asshole, and not a terribly pleasant person into someone able to let go of the past, undo damage done, and make the most of his changing circumstances by the end of things.

wasn't the number 50 million?

law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words

If he's able to hide the truth until the cold war ends it will

>people think some fanfic a manchild with no original ideas of his own has any bearing on the original story

We're talking whole cities being leveled in the blink of an eye being orchestrated by as far as anyone else knows is a known American asset at the boiling point of the Cold War where the people in charge already have their finger over the button to unleash nuclear Armageddon at a moment's notice. The Russians are not going to wait to hear from the Americans that Manhattan had gone rogue or that the US had their cities hit too, there would be immediate retaliation.

AUTISM IS WHAT HAPPENED

>if you honestly believe a bunch of squids turning people insane is going to be better for the world than Manhattan you'd have to be stupid
And you're mentally deficient if you think switching out the Squid with Manhattan is an improvement. The Squid works for numerous reasons:
1. It's foreshadowed heavily and there is enough complexity to it to require a conspiracy to cover it up
2. The Squid is an alien threat, it holds no ties to any nation or known faction
3. The psychic backlash from its death is what traumatized people the most, not the death toll. With the survivors near ground zero and the people throughout the world that had the image of a horrifying alien squid beamed directly to their brains there's less reason to question its existence since most people would react emotionally rather than logically.

Moore didn't understand watchmen

This is a reasonable explanation. Humanity will always prefer the immediate. Being able to streamline right and wrong and act solely based on your own moral compass in an unquestionable and authoritarian way is a brainlet's wet dream.

Attached: 1410200013349.png (333x266, 99K)

>oy vey settle down with the truth talk, its ok to be a little degenerate
OP do you not understand the concept of "justice is blind"?

I don't buy that Moore wanted people to hate Rorschach, or to pity him, or anything like that.

I think the story presents him, along with other characters, in a neutral light, which is the whole point.

Rorschach is the Ditko model of hero, who Moore has said he thinks is the quintessential superhero writer. Rorschach sees it as the responsibility of a good man to fight evil, and that to do the right thing always requires sacrifice, just like Spider-Man.
Moore simply takes that to the logical extreme where Rorschach has sacrificed his personal life and all his relationships, like if Spider-Man lost all his friends and family due to Spider-Man taking up all his time and just became Spider-Man permanently.

I think Moore intended this to be really ugly and unglamorous in comparison to Ditko's clean-cut heroes, I think he intended for people to question the sanity of a man who would sacrifice everything to wage an unwinnable battle, particularly of vengeance/righting wrongs rather than preventing them. But I don't think he intended, or expected, that NOBODY find anything admirable in Rorschach, particularly considering this was aimed at an audience that also holds Spider-Man, especially Ditko's version, as one of the defining works of the entire genre.

I mean, tl;dr, as literally everyone has said a million times since Watchmen came out, it's ambiguous. You're supposed to draw your own conclusion from what you see. Moore's problem is more people who see Rorshach as the hero without even noticing any of the nuance to his story, or who get mad because they think Moore is personally attacking them with the character.

Attached: The Amazing Spider-Man V1963 #50 - Spider-Man No More! (1967_7) - Page 9.jpg (2013x3056, 882K)

Comedian was competent and confident but his obvious flaw was that he was sadistic, unless you also consider the plot driving mental breakdown

>don't have to
That's not morality then. There is no lesson. Nothing is taught or learned. No knowledge gained.
You're confusing morals with ignorance / immorality. "(some)People like being immoral because they don't have to think."
The difference between being able to question something and not is the difference between morality and subjugation.
>reasonable
Its not. Its false premise. Just like your image.
No matter how much we question the image, we'll never get an answer it would ruin the (allegedly harmless) deception.
If fear of the truth doing more harm than the lie is that great, you're being subjugated (whether it be by yourself or someone else).
>your own moral
>unquestionable
We live in a world where people are too scared to admit mistakes because noone will forgive them, or they don't want to learn from their mistakes because they're too scared of being wrong.
A world dominate by those that want to feel empowered to be wrong. It should be ok to make mistakes and right yourself, but instead its frowned upon. You're expected to accept and cherish being wrong. "Wrong-think". "Its ok to be wrong".
Knowledge is burden.
Ignorance is bliss.

Watchmen, provoking nerd rage for discerning intellectuals since 1985.

He's not as black and white as he'd have us believe though. He let that former villain keep those illegal quack meds because he had cancer, remember?

I think trying so hard to put them into tiny boxes is a disservice to the characters.
You can say Rorschach and Ozymandias weren't confident and competent as well.
I tried to make Rorschach and Ozymandias reflections/opposites that painted Ozy as the Macro and Rorscach as the micro giving them totally different perspectives but they have a lot of overlap when I tried so it felt futile.

>OP has never liked a character he didn't agree with

thread

People can't comprehend nuance. Rorschach does not have to be right for Adrian to be wrong.

>1. It's foreshadowed heavily and there is enough complexity to it to require a conspiracy to cover it up
Being foreshadowed doesn't make it good, and complexity is the enemy of a decent lie.
>2. The Squid is an alien threat, it holds no ties to any nation or known faction
Exactly the reason it'd have no discernible effect on geopolitics for anything more than a month
>3. The psychic backlash from its death is what traumatized people the most, not the death toll. With the survivors near ground zero and the people throughout the world that had the image of a horrifying alien squid beamed directly to their brains there's less reason to question its existence since most people would react emotionally rather than logically.
Traumatizing a planet literally only compounds the evils of Veidt
>most people would react emotionally rather than logically
Wow a bunch of scared angry people with no clear idea what's going on with multiple enemies dealing with a massive crisis. Recipe for good decisions in unstable political circumstances

I yeah both Rorschach and ozy were confident and competent but for thr comedian it was his hallmark, he was the archetypical alpha badass, Rorschach was successful the way a beta is, by being clever and plucky/resourceful.

Yeah putting them in boxes does a disservice to their character I suppose, but I don't think he's wrong to insinuate Moore was making some sort of meta commentary on "superheroes" by his choice of flaws.

Ultimately watchmen boils down to age old question of , utilitarianism vs deontological ethics. Do the ends justify the means. Greater good vs. Principles. Libshits are incorrect because they presuppose their way of thinking will actually bring about a greater good but they're always wrong. Just my opinion

Imagine being this much of a faggot

>Exactly the reason it'd have no discernible effect on geopolitics for anything more than a month
Heck no, one month is not enough to make everyone low their guard, unless they can find exatcly who caused the attack it would take years for them to focus on each other again.

And even if they find out who caused the attack Ozymandias could simply declare himself a supervillain wanting to take over the world to keep them busy for while and hide his real reasons.

>unless they can find exatcly who caused the attack it would take years for them to focus on each other again.
This is delusional, if you think this plan would actually result in anything but nukes flying you're lying to yourself or retarded. No one "focuses" on anything. Wars are fault with multiple sides all against eachother, Veidt just introduced another side for people to waste a few bullets fruitlessly on.

Considering the fact that the West and URSS were ready to kill each other but ended up fighting together to repel Hittler says otherwise. And the war didn't start yet, countries don't declare war on each other while being invaded by another non related enemy.

This is a well thought out interpretation.

I don't think that's how it happened.

smokin' sherm, stabbin' whiteys

That’s just what they want you to think.