What is the takeaway from this character?

Gingers are maniacs

Question said he sucks.

traps are gay

Manlets are maniacs *

No Walter, you don't understand

You will NEVER overcome the manlet rage.

True heroes can’t live in a society

All I’m saying is Rorschach did what any JL member would have done in his place.

He is the most correct one of all

Not true, half of them would go into autistic rages but do nothing of consequence, the other half would pull PIS time-travel shit out of their asses

Even a broken clock is right twice?
That sometimes people have reasons for their hate and why they are what they are?
Something about pain and conviction?

Attached: 1561876882727.jpg (600x537, 58K)

Paranoid, delusional, moral hypocrite, largely ineffectual in the grand scheme of things, good for beating up hoods, but that's about it.

Well if they didn’t have powers like if Hal didn’t have his ring and Superman was derived of yellow sunlight

God is always right...
Kidding its that moral extremes never work

Whatever you believe the takeaway to be.

Attached: aHR0cDovL3d3dy5uZXdzYXJhbWEuY29tL2ltYWdlcy9pLzAwMC8yMjMvODAwL2kwMi9kb29tc2RheS1jbG9jay00LXNwb2lsZXJz (417x362, 85K)

RIGID BELIEFS BAD
MORAL VALUES BAD

Attached: -ze7SRS__400x400.jpg (400x400, 11K)

Why did he affect the prison psychiatrist so much. The guy has to talk to rapists, worse murderers, pedophiles and more on the regular, but Rorschach talking about how shit we are and how rotten the world is, is enough to shatter him entirely. Always thought it was weird.

It didn’t shatter him. He realised no matter how crazed Walter was he was ultimately just trying to do what little, banal, futile good he could in the time he had left.

The only things that changed were that he refused to gossip about a rape case and chose to intervene in a couple’s fight (before him and all the other people helping each other died because Adrian didn’t trust humans to be good people)

nothing

>couldn't even answer for the hypocrisy of regarding criminals as purely scum fit to be imprisoned or put down, but couldn't get Blake's dick out of his mouth despite being a completely unrepentant rapist and murderer
>couldn't abide by Veidt's reasoning that averting a potential greater loss of life by killing people with his plan despite agreeing with Truman's rationale that nuking Japan potentially averted a greater loss of life

He failed on both of those, too.

if you take a stand, if you pick a side and fight for what you believe, prepare to die

Fuck it’s another retarded Veidt apologist, go ahead, tell us all why the guy who literally compared himself to Hitler has the moral highground. Not like we can change your mind.

Japan was going to sacrifice its own civilians in defense of the homeland if operation Olympic ever took place. That includes suicide bombs and children as human shields.

I guess you could technically call him a hypocrite for liking Truman nuking civilians to prevent that but his entire beef is with men in power slaughtering civilians wholesale to push a personal agenda. Veidt in his eyes was essentially Tojo.

>Fuck it’s another retarded Veidt apologist

Suck my dick, Veidt was a monster, my point was that Rorschach thought himself above the rabble, with unbreakable principles and morals, but he bent over twice in two separate incidences as seen in the book. He was just as morally compromised as the people he judged as degenerates or layabouts.

>tell us all why the guy who literally compared himself to Hitler has the moral highground

Don't strawman shit, the argument was never proposed as a defense of Veidt, it was Rorshach's own failings.

>Not like we can change your mind.

Like I give a fuck, Veidt was a monster for taking his plan so far and Rorschach was a retard for trying stir shit in what was an already tenuous situation for principles that he already failed to uphold, just so he could feel like he contributed something worthwhile for once in his miserable life.

It's almost like he was written to be wrong.

But everyone knew what Truman did, while Veidt took the world peace as a hostage to cover his own ass. And the real world history proved that Veidt was an idiot.

Sometimes bad people do good things for bad reasons.

>being a hypocrite is okay when Veidt does it!

Didn't Alan Moore say he wrote him as a conservative

Moore intention wanted the reader to despise the character for being an extremist. At the same time, he wanted the reader to accept authority and institutions (because sometimes you have to "compromise").

Moral extremism is self destructing, issues are more complex than "good guys" and "bad guys."

That Steve Ditko's simple, black-and-white "A = A" philosophy regarding morality is deeply flawed.

Alan Moore is a hippy satanist faggot so I'm sure his depictions of conservatives are accurate and unbiased.

>I have no argument against Rorschach being a hypocritical failure, better prop up this strawman!

Isn’t killing millions more extreme?

>At the same time, he wanted the reader to accept authority and institutions (because sometimes you have to "compromise").
I'm pretty sure the guy who wrote V for Vendetta didn't want people to accept authority

This, Rorschach was the textbook hero figure, looking at everything as either good or bad, but ultimately he kept being confronted with times it didn’t apply (Moloch’s cancer, his landlady’s kids) and ultimately it’s what got him killed.

The real world isn’t a place someone who thinks like a comicbook hero can survive.

Depends on what lens you want to take. I'd argue that he isn't made just to say objectivity is bad given how his death is handled in a way that makes you sympathize with him. At the end Ozymandias doesn't even know if he made the right choice, and the others were just playing heroes. I think that Manhattan killing him was merciful, as it allows Rorschach to die on his own terms and die without compromising his views. Manhattan could of easily put him on some planet and gave him air and supplies if he wanted to. In the sense of his unflinching moral views I think Rorschach is a victim of it, given how his life went. But he is also more principled and more "pure" than other characters for sticking to them. The world is more complex than his own world view, and because of that he suffers as he's incompatible, but he's not necessarily a bad person for it.

Right wing bad

this guy gets it

Attached: 1547697484930.jpg (753x800, 170K)

I like his mask.

Steve Jobs died of Ligma

>I don't know what a strawman is!

Have you read V for Vendetta? V isn't really a good guy and his destructive anarchy isn't really depicted as inherently better than the structured totalitarianism he seeks to tear down.

Steve Ditko's brand of Objectivism works in the comic books. A lot of DC Comics and Marvel comics like to preach the values of complex storylines, but they can't outgrow the black and white morality when it comes to who the writer deems as right and wrong.

Alan Moore avoids this by focusing more on the characters than the plot.

>A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

Read and again, some retard assumed that a criticism against Rorschach was a defense of Veidt's actions, rather than the post pointing out that Rorschach is a huge fucking hypocrite with a flimsy moral foundation.

Saying the following:

>being a hypocrite is okay when Veidt does it!

In no way addressed the argument against Rorschach failing to live up to his own principles and morals, nor was there any excuse or defense for Veidt's actions or "hypocrisy".

In short, fuck you.

That he died for nothing because people found out anyway.

He’s an asshole but a bit of a badass

Attached: 6ADA4E02-345D-4AA9-A30E-9558E044E094.jpg (750x964, 930K)

With Watchmen in general Alan Moore wanted to explore what superhero characters would be like taken to their logical conclusion. Rorschach is what Mr. A would be like if he were a real person. He has the less flattering and more disturbing characteristics that would come with a real person living as an Objectivist philosophy vigilante like Mr. A.
A vigilante like Mr. A is absolute in his view that there is simply good and evil and nothing in between. Rorschach demonstrates where this view takes you by being extremely violent for one thing. The closest real world equivalent to someone who carries out these extremely violent acts would be a serial killer, and Moore in fact sources the Son of Sam letters as a stylistic model for Rorschach's diary.
Only seeing absolute good and evil and caring about nothing but the mission to punish evil also leads to the idea Rorschach is socially stunted and has poor hygiene, in contrast with more traditional superhero depictions where topics like bathing or being able to carry a conversation don't come up.
I think a lot of people want to say Rorschach is meant to be wrong or Rorschach is meant to be right, but I don't think Moore actually had either in mind given his statement about having discovered partway through the writing process someone like Rorschach would necessarily die over his lack of flexibility. It's more that Moore was exploring what would happen with realistically grounded superheroes, not that he was making a statement on which philosophy is correct.

Attached: 1561808482758.jpg (1000x797, 1.74M)

The same as every other character, the inevitable failure of pure ideology because of human nature.

But that's the best part about Rorschach: He's the first serial killer superhero. The guy is the unholy combination of Son of Sam, Timothy McVeigh, and the Unabomber.

and if you know anything about Moore you would know that he genuinely does prefer that to structured totalitarianism.

I'm sorry but all I can think of right now is the last Rorschach thread where there was like a two hour argument over whether or not Rorschach breaking a guy's finger counted as torture.

Extreme right wing nut jobs think they're on the side of good but in reality they are fucking crazy

Rorschach was right

>rigid belief bad
Yes, you should be open to change with new information
>morals bad
Are you literally retarded?

>Rorschach sucks
>*cries about someone saying nigger*

O'Neil Question was cringe

Who's Steve Jobs?

And people love him for it.

>MORAL VALUES BAD
But Rorschach was depicted as being a moral hypocrite who couldn't even really live up to the batshit insane moral values he espoused.

wing

>Saves a person from a bunch of black thugs
>That person turns out to be a crazy racist who "always wanted to cut off a hunka nigger"
>The upset stems from him living in the Sodom and Gomorrah merger that is Hub City.

>Him using Rorschach's methods was caused by his life being saved by a racist detective.
>He fucked it up because he wasn't familiar with those methods and was dealing with trauma.

>But Rorschach was depicted as being a moral hypocrite who couldn't even really live up to the batshit insane moral values he espoused.

You don't understand, it's not the same because Truman was the legally appointed head of state to make the decision, while Ozymandias wasn't, when they both made the call to kill a bunch of people to prevent a greater loss of life. You have to understand that the legality of the situation matters a ton, that's exactly why Rorschach was still illegally operating by killing and maiming criminals despite superheroes being outlawed by legally appointed politicians, people who were just like Truman... but it's cool though because he's only killing bad guys, so who cares what those liberal limpwrist politicians think? Comedian's raping and murdering are also okay because he served his country, and it's okay for servicemen to have a few moral lapses, like killing his pregnant girlfriend he always planned on abandoning, versus the scumbag who raped and murdered a little girl and fed her body to his dogs, who probably didn't serve his country and therefore couldn't afford any moral lapses.

>Why does one death matter against so many? Because there is good and there is evil, and evil must be punished. Even in the face of Armageddon I shall not compromise in this.

>'Why does one death matter against so many?
>'Because there is good and there is evil, and evil must be punished.'
>'Even in the face of Armageddon I shall not compromise in this.'
>'Unless they're people I like, in which case, they're cool lol.'

What was the consensus regarding that?

It was really just a bunch of people pointing out that what Rorschach did fit under most literal and legal definitions of torture and one guy denying it because what he did wasn't severe enough or something and insisting the guy deserved it even though he did nothing beyond make a rude comment.

Oh Hal would've gone for a punch.

Nigga what? Lyndon B. Johnson, and JFK were the most chad like presidents of their time. The only limp wristed politician was Nixon, a Republican who was paranoid of losing power that he committed illegal activities to engineer his reelection win.

The presidents after him were chads right up until Clinton.

Rorschach is supposed to be a deconstruction of Batman and Mr.A's black and white view of the world.

That only a smelly, objectivist psycho would ever think being a violent vigilante was a good idea.

I need to hear Moore's explanation of why Manhattan waited until Nixon to get involved in Nam. How would LBJ or JFK not use him

Parts of him are good and parts of him are bad and neither should overshadow the other.

LBJ focused primarily on domestic issues and famous for domestic reforms, but was terrible at foreign policy.

American Troops weren't prepared for the Vietcong's guerilla warfare, and it's likely Dr. Manhattan was used to search the area and snuff them out of their hiding.

>didn't catch the sarcasm in that statement

the moral intransigence of a single individual triumphs even the greatest plots, regardless of how perfectly they were conceived and pushed forward by those of highest intellect and power (ozymandias and dr. manhattan). however, the process of corroding through the most intense and impervious of evils might involve irreversible self-sacrifice. if for a second one thinks that Watchmen is about the inescapable grayness of morality that permeates all characters, i have a plain reply: it is not. the fact that Rorschach dies does not mean that morality is relative, it simply means that taking things to their logical conclusion with infallible consistency and not conceding any grounds to moral corruption might lead to your death. if you think this doesn't make sense, think of another guy who was killed for his incorruptible spirit, about 2000 years ago. and then think of all the saints who imitated that guy and were mercilessly murdered for not giving in. i don't care that moore was exactly the sort of neoliberal who would side with ozymandias, and i'm pretty much unconcerned with any left-wing person who perceives my reading to be biased. at the end, it didn't matter that he was a kooky ginger manlet going against übermenschen, all he had to do was tell the truth to undo all of their efforts in one fell swoop. st. thérèse of lisieux would be proud of this little red haired fella.

watchmen sheds light on a couple of other things too, like how nite owl and silk spectre were concerned with erectile dysfunction and their relationship in the face of armageddon. considering they were the least surreal and closest-to-common-people characters, it serves to represent how little normal people give a fuck about even the most important of things if they have menial matters of their personal lives to take care of. another good one is comedian, the caricature of the nihilist who, like rorschach and veidt, takes a set of beliefs to their logical conclusion, and ends up a miserable, contradictory and confused man who ends up being stepped on and crushed by veidt, his last words being "it's all a big joke" sealing his ultimate impotence despite his glaring display of superiority over veidt when he burns the map (and how silk spectre admires him). turns out the shield of nihilism doesn't actually protect you from anything. i gotta give it to moore, he was a real dostoevsky on scifi when writing this behemoth, creating characters that are embodiments of ideas and having that battle it out. brilliant stuff.

honorable mention: it's no coincidence that the parents of the closest-to-common-people characters are the ones most explored. OG nite owl represents the traditions that his descendants were unable to protect, and despite his powerful resilience, was brutalized by petty gang members. and OG silk spectre, well, that's just a reminder of the nature of women and hybristophilia: she forgave her rapist. perhaps the backstory of Rorschach also deserves some mention, although i don't much like expanding on the things that are more obvious, like the fact that he recognizes the end results of glamorized moral corruptions because he grew up fatherless and with a whore for a mother. he understands better than anybody else what he's up against: it's not an adventurous quest for do-gooders to beat bank robbers, it's not a political fight, the conflict between america and vietnam is irrelevant, and it's not even a fight against veidt. the fight is against the all-pervasive evil and how it scales from the smallest of deeds. he is aware evil will still be present after he's gone, but it doesn't not for one second hinder him from continuing his work.

lel

Attached: fbi.png (1000x972, 461K)

If Rorschach had just kept his mouth shut he could have gone back to fighting crime in what remains of new york.

and i shall get meta! rorschach is perceived by plenty of people to be *just* as morally questionable as veidt, someone who has perpetrated an actual genocide. these same people generally consider travis bickle to be a bad guy in taxi driver. ask yourself this: what evil did they commit? the real reason they are perceived to be immoral is because they signal low status and that makes people subconsciously understand them to be undesirable people. rorschach is short, doesn't shower, is 'bigoted', is careless about his social status or how he looks to society, enacts justice without the oversight of bureaucratic authorities, and this makes the common softy perceive him as some sort of dangerous lunatic, despite him doing NO EVIL whatsoever. but, the fact he's a stinky mean old right winger who is judgmental of prostitutes means he is in the same class as people who've committed a genocide, who i think the common softy ultimately likes more than rorschach, given the self-excusing utilitarian "but it saved more people!" trope, which is simply put a rationalization so they can ignore the immorality deep rooted (that roschach objected to!) in every step of the way, and so they can pretend that another immoral act is the solution.

perhaps the most brainlet thing i can think of is the implication that because a piece of paper signed by a politician said that rorschach was operating illegally that somehow, him punishing criminals is indefensible. but, one could meander forever about the morally corrupt readings of watchmen, i'd rather leave my diatribe at that.

Alan Moore is a faggot that doesn't respect a superior artist because he doesn't agree with his politics.

>if for a second one thinks that Watchmen is about the inescapable grayness of morality that permeates all characters, i have a plain reply: it is not.

Yeah, but...it is. That's how Moore wrote it.

>i don't care that moore was exactly the sort of neoliberal who would side with ozymandias,

LOL WUT

a color blind painter may still paint the grass green.

Who are you referring to?

orwell scathingly criticized socialists while being one, it's not exactly uncommon for artists to have their creations to be contradictory to their personal sets of beliefs and intentions.

Meaningless nonsense that you think sounds wise. I like it!

But seriously, though, if you think Moore is "exactly the sort of neoliberal who would side with ozymandias" you don't have enough knowledge to be part of this conversation.

moore is like that, and given your elitist little "you need be smarter to be part of the conversation" quip, i see that you are too. :0

>orwell scathingly criticized socialists while being one,

No, but this is a common misunderstanding of people who haven't actually read Orwell or know anything about him.

Orwell criticized Stalinism and the tendency for socialists of his time to allow themselves to be blindly lead along by Moscow, among others. He was also very critical of theorists and radicals who emphasized "revolution" over actually alleviating day-to-day suffering. There was no contradiction in his work.

And there's certainly no contradiction in Watchmen with regard to Moore's own beliefs. Just read up on what he's said about Rorschach and Ozymandias. Anyone who thinks he's on either of their sides is simply wrong.

Let's add "elitist" to "neoliberal" in the list of words you use but don't actually know the meaning of.

user, just admit you don't know anything about Moore or his views. It doesn't help to pretend like this.

i'm assuming that user is talking about Steve Ditko, which is weird because Moore does respect Ditko as a talented comic writer/artist despite hating his politics

i'm sure moore objects to some of veidt's actions, like him not having rorschach killed earlier so that he'd get away with the genocide. if you are going to tell me that AM was sitting precisely in the middle between rorschach and veidt, you'd just be being dull to annoy me. seeing as you are saying that orwell wasn't criticizing socialists while being one (see: second part of road to wigan pier), i'd say you are already doing that.

He's kind of right tho, you went full simpleton with that pseudo religious rambling, even for a meme conversation

>if you think this doesn't make sense, think of another guy who was killed for his incorruptible spirit, about 2000 years ago. and then think of all the saints who imitated that guy and were mercilessly murdered for not giving in.

Jesus taught the exact opposite of what Rorschach did.

answer me this with a yes or no: is morality absolute

matthew 10:34, luke 22:36

This is what's known as a "dodge", user. You're trying to dance around the point by changing the subject.

>i'm sure moore objects to some of veidt's actions, like him not having rorschach killed earlier so that he'd get away with the genocide.

Alan Moore, the avowed anarchist and strident, outspoken anti-nuclear, anti-war advocate was on the side of genocide. Right.

You're just embarrassing yourself here, user, and quickly Googling works by Orwell so you can sound like you know something just makes it sadder.

the only argument you present was "you don't know the meaning of these words" without saying how i used them wrong (because you can't). but, for the sake of argument, say i dodged. don't be like me, answer the question.

if he had to side with one, he would side with veidt. do you believe that's not true?

I appreciate your admission that you're operating in bad faith. Though that's exactly why you're a waste of time to engage with. I just wanted to correct your factual error about Moore's beliefs.

that's a funny way of saying "no", but thank you for playing.

Yes and no.
No, but yes.
Also take your meds.

Whenever I see people claim that Watchmen is actually a very simple comic I feel they've never seen a thread like this.

Not the EXACT opposite.

You've certainly earned your hunny mussy tonight. Enjoy!

Who would say that? Watchmen is the one comic even normies and the mainstream literati respect.

Watchman IS a simple comic. It's very forward and obvious in the point that it's trying to make, retards who misunderstand that are just that. Retards

Looks like some kid is mad that he doesn't get laid. Unlike Moore who gets mad amounts of pussy.