Why is idolizing and identifying with this dude seen as bad?

ah yes. the objectivist value of inflicting aggression on people who deals drugs

Because the whole point is that his better qualities are more in spite of his ideals rather than because of. His worldview is a massive cope both to deal with injustice and numb the pain of living through said injustice. By the end of the story he rejects his ideals entirely because he can't pretend he feels nothing at everything he's been through.

If it isn't to teach morals, what is art for?

What faggot country would mock a veteran for getting mutilated in war? These burgers, I swear.

Grey morality and nihilism are much more for cringelord 15 year olds who think they're deep.

I idolize Dr Manhattan because I’m also a hung loser that repel’s women due to my refusal to censor my chronic autism.

Can someone explain why Ditko considered contributing to public wellbeing important when Rand thought altruism is useless?

because he's incompetent. he goes into a bar and starts breaking some random guy's fingers to get information, what exactly was he expecting? that the person who killed the comedian would be there in that room at that time and would reveal themselves to save another?

>killing child murderers is... le bad!

Nobody is perfect =/= constant extreme emphasis on turmoil and muh relatable villains. The argument is that fiction perceives reality as having a baseline of misery, this simply isn't true and is a self-destructive mindset. This means that peddling misery and tragedy equates to "realistic", and due to the literary elite's long bias against genre fiction, genre fiction now attempts to take on the traits of "realistic" fiction, aka modernist fiction, which attempts to show just how dirty and sad everything "really" is. This is why superheroes are brooding and violent, not even to the extent of the Xtreme 90s nonsense, but in the Nolan sense of just humorless grimness. It's intellectual poison. We don't allow ourselves idealism or what-ifs because it isn't "realistic". OP is arguing for the fantastic to be fantastic for its own sake. Superhero stories can and should explore concept and imagery as much as they do "relevant" and "important" topics, which we've been fooled into believing have more intrinsic worth than the imagination.

And generally people will agree that choosing to save the lives of countless people over one was the right thing to do. People will also agree that no one wants to be mutilated. Looking at situations in terms of what is lost is also a problem.

so you're taking a break from spamming Moore threads to this shit again, huh?

It's about losing touch of what good actually is. Not that black and white morality bad.

Black and white morality IS bad though because by its very nature excludes the very concept of nuance and is just an extremely childish perception of a complex subject like human morality since it inherently limits you to only two extremes.

He was literally me during my 2016 /pol/ phase and I can only cringe when thinking of this dude now. I hope you get there one day too OP.

"Grey morality" doesn't exist, it's called fucking reality.
Sometimes your only choice is between two shitty options and you have to choose between sticking to your principles even if it makes life objectively worse for you and those around you or compromising your principles to avoid making things worse.

>the alternative is nuclear armageddon.
It's implied but never stated absolutely.

The problem is this, people took an Alan Moore quote out of context and feel insulted because they misunderstood the quote. The people who worship Rorschach are like the people who worship other characters like the Joker or Judge Dredd. Enjoying or finding a character interesting =/= worshipping them and thinking they are an example on how to live your life. Like when TDK came out and all these edgy teens were babbling about how they are the Joker and babys first philosophy about life. It was cringe as fuck. Rorschach is not an example how to live your life, he's a broken person full of traumas. Him appearing heroic in his death, almost a final sacrifice, adds to the interest of his character and the moral debate around Watchmen.

Everyday more spam. I honestly want to know why people reply when this is a slower board. Have people not recognised it by now.

>You WILL NOT discuss the most complex work in Yea Forums history

Attached: a.jpg (1000x667, 516.82K)

You spam threads for arguments, not debates. Don't act like you give a fuck. This thread isn't even about Watchmen, it's more a discussion of types of fans.

Probably because he is an extremist who takes it upon himself to kill the people he dislikes. He not compromising is morally correct, but he is essentially a biased vigilante who probably dishes out much more punishment to the people who do not fit his idea of the world.

idk user, you are just one step into thinking about it. Being nuanced also means understanding the potential for binaries. Hell, if you want to get into the nitty gritty of things, we almost always HAVE to think in terms of binaries, the subject and the object. the thesis and the antithesis.

good take. Hes not evil, but he sticks to his guns, and that obviously causes people who are not in line with him to be in the way. He accepts this and goes forward anyways.

I like it because its not RORSHAK BAD
or
RORCHAK GOOD
but a particular stance with particular consequences and accolades to it.
In fact, it kinda reminded me of socrateses trial. he could have gotten off with a slap on the wrist if he either chose banishment of pleading guilty, but he did neither on principle and accepted his death on those terms.

which is often a reoccuring thing in comics like batman no kill that deserves disection.

>but he sticks to his guns

Except he doesn't because he's a walking hypocrite who doesn't consistently follow his own dogma. He sticks to his guns when it suits him and makes excuses or doesn't care when someone he doesn't like says something he doesn't want to agree with. Like how in the very beginning he's saying the entire city deserves to burn down and he won't lift a finger to help but then kinda loses it when New York got squidded. Or how he is ready to beat the shit out of the Moloch because he's scum and then goes 'oh' when he realizes he's now a frail old man dying of cancer who has nothing to do with the murder, even though that shouldn't matter because he is still the same criminal Rorschach detests. The only consistency is his inconsistency.

Its been a while since I read, I just remember my idea of the guy, I will have to reread to see if this does come off as thematic dissonance or there is another intent there.

I just remember him walking out on dr manhatten knowing he would die, but not being willing to just let stuff go down.

The whole point is Rorshach is deeply emotionally compromised since he was a child and his philosophy is just desperately trying to force an idea of objective morality and justice. He only seems to stick to his guns in a general sense because he's the only hero who didn't just fuck off because being a vigilante was illegal again and didn't immediately fold and go along with Veidt's plan though there's obvious argument that he did in his own way.

To be fair, killing child rapists is an objectively good public service.

What are you retarded? He was looking for information of any kind. Why would you think he expected to find the killern that bar?

Most teens are socialists though

>He was looking for information of any kind

And this makes it better? He just starts torturing random people hoping they say something of note? That only makes Rorschach more of a horrible human being and a lunatic.

Because he's a psychotic hobo who can't even stick to his own moral standards.

Yes it is, in the world of the comic nuclear conflict is an inevitably they're all preparing for and the only thing that pulls it back is Adrian's squid attack. Go read the book again

He also murdered a guy the other watchmen dismissed as a largely harmless pervert. A guy who only antagonizes superheroes, while not harming anyone else, to get his rocks off needs therapy, not to be killed

To entertain, to share and reveal things about life that can't easily be told otherwise, etc.

>If you refuse and lose your manhood and any ability to pass on your genes in the future, are you the good guy?
Your genes aren't that important, dumbass. Protect your country's secrets and then adopt a war orphan

Deep down everyone resonates with characters struggling against an oppressive system, everyone wants to feel like a hero fighting back against something powerful.

To reflect upon, so you discover your own morals instead of being fed.

That kind of morality is what's peddled to us in mainstream media and culture today. "Right side of History". People who wax lyrical about grey morality in their fiction rarely follow it in real life. Most people believe they're mostly right about whatever they believe in. It's the tribe mind we've inherited, that's all.

But my post is not about reality, it's about fantastic fiction and defending OP's disdain for the eradication of escapism and idealism in that fantastic fiction.

>Punisher who murder redeemed villains that never killed anyone and petty criminals that were already arrested by cops.

based punisher. he buck broke baraccuda too.

Ok but why was Tom King's Rorshach comic so retarded? Steve Ditko wasn't a crazy conspiracy theorist and Frank Miller isn't whatever the hell this was.

Attached: rorschach-1.jpg (1889x2000, 431.21K)

The entire comic is about the psychosis that the existence of the Squid created in America.

>the Xtreme 90s nonsense

i like how girls showed off their asses in 90s comics

>retard cringelord 15 year olds who think they're deep.
V for Vendetta in a nutshell

sounds like someone needs to shoot you, then throw you out of an airplane and then remark about how you didn't fly so good.

Attached: 1649370044221.jpg (967x1024, 70K)

>the thesis and the antithesis.

based hegel

>harmless pervert
LG-Alphagettioes-BT is never harmless. he is based for taking one of them out

>That doesn't mean that they can't reflect reality if the author chooses to
But they don't have to, not all the time, which OP felt was the case. Nobody wants to humanize Hitler. Perfectly okay for him (and Trump, Putin, etc.) to be characterized as objectively evil by the mainstream. No one is against grey morality as a concept, but its over-saturation and frank excess, to the point where no one is ever really happy and the baseline is misery and all we can do survive, isn't really a good place for pop culture to be in.

>Nobody wants to humanize Hitler

i want to humanize Hitler

>not written by alan moore
Never read, never will.

I'm not saying binaries don't exist, it's just that applying them universally is not very conducive to critical thought. We think largely think in ways of binaries because it's easier for the human brain, not because it has some sort of inherent truth to it.

You're an idiot who thinks my criticism of strict moral binaries means I subscribe to another retarded moral binary.

Because it was written by Tom King

>Sometimes your only choice is between two shitty options and you have to choose between sticking to your principles even if it makes life objectively worse
how do you know an option is shitty?
why do you think sticking to principles is good?
how do you know what a worse life is?

you pretend that you don't believe in good but everything you say depends on it

Why are you lumping me in with him? Either way, you're an absolutionist that misconstrues what "gray" morality means. Gray morality is just believing that the two extremes exist but most human action falls somewhere along the middle on the sliding scale. Black and white morality believes there is no middle-ground.

Cause he's also a crazy smelly and weird hobo man who can barely keep himself alive, let alone stop crime in a meaningful way beyond killing thugs on repeat. Still ended up having far more morals than his friends and former colleagues, but still. Wanting to grow up to be a crazy smelly weird hobo is not something one should aspire to, and it's pretty obvious he would agree. Which is always what makes every sequel to Watchmen trying to villainize him and his methods even funnier to me, cause it means everyone else in the comics had to be exceptionally shitty and unlikeable if the growling paranoid ginger comes off as the moral center of their setting.

Attached: Watchmen-1986-1-crop.jpg (1680x895, 1023.73K)

We only know he liked getting his ass kicked, there's no indication he was gay or bisexual, go play trad cath prude on /pol/ with the test of the larpers if you don't have a real argument