Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Thank you. This is why I consider Rorschach a lot like an even darker Punisher. Does he affect some good? Sure, but he himself is not good. He's a murderer and a vigilante, possibly psychotic.

I would say the big thing about the Punisher and Rorschach is that they never make mistakes. As in, they never kill someone who is later cleared of the crime they thought they were punishing him for. And, in more general terms, the story never makes their victims sympathetic in any way.
I guess if there were a bunch of examples of victims of Rorschach that were actually innocent and sympathetic, a lot less people would hold him as an heroic figure. And innocent victims/abuse of power are the main reason why vigilante are not a good idea.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Thank you. This is why I consider Rorschach a lot like an even darker Punisher. Does he affect some good? Sure, but he himself is not good. He's a murderer and a vigilante, possibly psychotic.

I would say the big thing about the Punisher and Rorschach is that they never make mistakes. As in, they never kill someone who is later cleared of the crime they thought they were punishing him for. And, in more general terms, the story never makes their victims sympathetic in any way.
I guess if there were a bunch of examples of victims of Rorschach that were actually innocent and sympathetic, a lot less people would hold him as an heroic figure. And innocent victims/abuse of power are the main reason why vigilante are not a good idea.

Well, the Punisher/Rorschasch go through a fair amount of stalking/detective work before blowing a guy away, or they catch him in the act and do it.

None of this prevent you from making tragic errors.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
None of this prevent you from making tragic errors.

You're making it sound like fictional characters can do anything other than what the writer decides for them.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
None of this prevent you from making tragic errors.

It does reduce the chance of them making a mistake though. The same could be said of more legitimate methods of law enforcement.
As if they would be written as such, anyway.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Snip

We seem to agree on the Hillel, although you left out the most important part of the quote according to my ex rabbi. Anyway, perhaps it was my upbringing, but I have always seen the value in criticism, even blunt criticism. If I alienate someone, I much prefer to know why instead of losing them silently. Perhaps I should coddle Warlord's mind more?

We also seem to have a different view of what comprises the SJW movement. Politically, I feel I am very far to the left of you, and from my position I see lots of genuinely valuable criticism dismissed with the SJW label. It seems like a facile way to avoid actually questioning your own stance on an issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
They're really not. I've advocated this before (and I'm not the only one) that Slaanesh is the God of Excess and that an easy paradigm to follow for that would be the seven deadly sins.

This. A thousand times this.

Thinking that Slaanesh is the Chaos God of Boobies and Nakedness reduces it down to a petulant child-like and, dare I say it, 4-chan-ish interpretation. Slaanesh is not that. Slaanesh is the Chaos God of Excess. Spent quite a while with a team of people writing a whole damned book about that, so I'd say I know a thing or two about the subject.

So thank you for bringing it up Az.

Can you please point me out to anyone complaining about Slaaneshi miniatures? I am not being snarky; I can't remember ever seeing it.

The closest I remember is when the less/un-sexy plastic daemonettes came out and for months the board was full of people complaining about GW caving in to...some sort of phantom movement against boobies? Even at the time, it was notable that there were complaints about the complaints, but no original, anti-booby complaints in the first place. The impression I got is that GW chose to redesign the daemonettes to be closer to the older, uglier daemonettes, and perhaps toned down the sensuality based on the company's own internal impression that it made products for children. That one's not on the SJWs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
That is absolutely hilarious. The irony of the term triggering you so badly is not lost on me. Perhaps a trigger warning is in order?

I would actually appreciate that. Something along the lines of "Warning: Terrible writing and blatant money cash grab ahead". Guess what? I was just as "triggered" when Doom cried over 9/11 or when they made Thor a woman.

Pretty sure that warning would apply to every comic book ever written.

I wonder if this is how old-school nerds felt about the Claremont-era X-Men with their dated 70's civil rights lingo.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Snip

We seem to agree on the Hillel, although you left out the most important part of the quote according to my ex rabbi. Anyway, perhaps it was my upbringing, but I have always seen the value in criticism, even blunt criticism. If I alienate someone, I much prefer to know why instead of losing them silently. Perhaps I should coddle Warlord's mind more?

We also seem to have a different view of what comprises the SJW movement. Politically, I feel I am very far to the left of you, and from my position I see lots of genuinely valuable criticism dismissed with the SJW label. It seems like a facile way to avoid actually questioning your own stance on an issue.

Perhaps it's simply been too long since my reply which you are now addressing, but I don't understand the nature of your response. Well, except for the 'all the rest is commentary, now go and learn it' allusion (Hillel's full quote is generally given as "What is hateful to you, do not do unto others. That is the whole Torah, all the rest is commentary. Now go and learn it."). While is certainly the case that the 'commentary' part is profoundly important, I felt it a bit far afield for this particular discussion.

I'm genuinely at a loss as to where I have indicated I don't support either criticism or the free exchange of ideas. On the contrary, I think I've rather aggressively supported the idea of open forums for discussion. What I don't support is the tendentious moralizing wherein the SJW will claim that their position on a given issue cannot be challenged, and if challenged said challenge is prima facia evidence of bigotry. Q.V. SJWs accusing Christina Hoff Summers of 'supporting rape culture'. Certainly no one has previously accused me of lacking in criticism before!

Not to be rude, but if you're going to accuse me of a 'facile avoidance of examining my own stance', it would seem incumbent on you to provide an example of an issue where I have done so. After all, it is always possible that I and the other critics of the Social Justice movement are correct and it is the deeply illiberal movement responsible for, as Prof Dershowitz described it, "the fog of fascism... descending quickly over many American universities."

 Kojiro wrote:
You're making it sound like fictional characters can do anything other than what the writer decides for them.

That is not what I intend to do. What I did intend to do was point out that it would have been possible to depict Rorschach, or the Punisher, as “punishing” the wrong victim, without too much credibility issues. If I wanted to write them as a cautionary tale about vigilantism, that is definitely something I would have done.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
I'm genuinely at a loss as to where I have indicated I don't support either criticism or the free exchange of ideas.

I don't know, perhaps people get that idea when you posts links like this, which can be accurately summed up as "SJWS SAID THINGS I DON'T LIKE THIS IS NOT RIGHT!!!!!!".

What I don't support is the tendentious moralizing wherein the SJW will claim that their position on a given issue cannot be challenged, and if challenged said challenge is prima facia evidence of bigotry.

And calling someone a bigot is part of the "free exchange of ideas" you claim to support. Why are you trying to silence the "SJWs" who make accusations of bigotry in the same way that you claim that the anti-SJW side is being "silenced"?

But the truth is that you don't care about the free exchange of ideas, you care about the free exchange of your ideas. You want other people to give you a platform to speak from, you want other people to listen to you, and you don't want to face any criticism that would make you too uncomfortable. And if anyone doesn't want to give you these things you cry "silencing" and "fascism", as if you're suddenly the victim of horrible oppression.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:
You're making it sound like fictional characters can do anything other than what the writer decides for them.

That is not what I intend to do. What I did intend to do was point out that it would have been possible to depict Rorschach, or the Punisher, as “punishing” the wrong victim, without too much credibility issues. If I wanted to write them as a cautionary tale about vigilantism, that is definitely something I would have done.

Yes, you could and it would break character, the most important part of a fictional character is establishing its character its background what they do and they do not, given the quite recent Overwatch Tracer victory pose "controversy" her pose was indeed breaking character and this comes from a character that is hardly fleshed out in comparison with the two mentioned.

Breaking character to "experiment" ectr is one of the biggest reasons I stopped reading or caring for superhero comics.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
After all, it is always possible that I and the other critics of the Social Justice movement are correct and it is the deeply illiberal movement responsible for, as Prof Dershowitz described it, "the fog of fascism... descending quickly over many American universities."

What does issues about Palestino-Israeli conflict have to do with “SJW”? Because he is 100% talking about that, there really is nothing about, say, representation issues in geek culture.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
What I don't support is the tendentious moralizing wherein the SJW will claim that their position on a given issue cannot be challenged, and if challenged said challenge is prima facia evidence of bigotry. Q.V. SJWs accusing Christina Hoff Summers of 'supporting rape culture'.

You can challenge all you want. If your challenge shows bigotry, it is highly likely it is going to be called for. Even if you are not, some people may call you a bigot anyway, but hey, that's life. Answer them by showing by your words and deeds that you are not a bigot, and ignore them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Yes, you could and it would break character

So, when Alan Moore wrote Watchmen, if he had decided to make Rorschach make an error, it would have been “breaking character” ?
Also, making a mistake is “out of character”, so part of their character is “never make mistakes” ?
But yeah, if you are reading comics, most of them don't have characters. They have franchise. I find that annoying too. That's not (yet) the case for Watchmen, thankfully. And that is a direct result of the US way of doing things, with the company rather than the author owning the IP of the character/franchise.

No because nothing was published, but after publication and after the character mythos has been established making a character that is known for been methodical making a sloppy error would break character.

Yes in real life everybody does mistakes some quite big, but, the fictional characters are not real and their persona is established by their character, breaking it is more serious.

Then in the context, my quote made perfect sense. If I had been Moore I would have made Rorschach made mistakes (and/or abuse of power), and then way less people would have mistaken him for a hero.
Also, even after the character has been established, stuff happens. If he begin to systematically make mistake it is breaking character. If he makes one mistake, and that is a big deal, and there are good reasons that explain why he made it, it is not breaking character. It's just, you know, stuff happening. Just like when Castle get into a trap, which happens a lot…
Things would be boring if characters never made mistakes.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Then in the context, my quote made perfect sense. If I had been Moore I would have made Rorschach made mistakes (and/or abuse of power), and then way less people would have mistaken him for a hero.
Also, even after the character has been established, stuff happens. If he begin to systematically make mistake it is breaking character. If he makes one mistake, and that is a big deal, and there are good reasons that explain why he made it, it is not breaking character. It's just, you know, stuff happening. Just like when Castle get into a trap, which happens a lot…
Things would be boring if characters never made mistakes.

While I agree it's boring if there's no risk involved, I think it would make more sense for them to cause collateral damage than to make mistakes. I think it'd be more interesting if Punisher got in a gunfight and some stray bullets blew away some innocent civilians. That makes for interesting righting, because it's not "Oh crap, I plugged the wrong guy", it's "Oh crap, my actions have large consequences and ripple effects."

33 pages in, we appear to have wandered far afield here, and perhaps now this thread is being used discuss other topics,m and maybe also to insult one another?

Is there a reason for this thread to stay open at this point?

First of all: What does Watchmen even have to do with TTWargames anymore?

Second: Are we actually arguing here that Rorschach, the most broken and clearly in need of help character in a book about crazy people that dress up and play super heroes, never makes mistakes? EVERYONE involved in that story very clearly and obviously makes mistakes. Heavy Spoiler Ahead! Watchmen is a Oneshot story and during the entire storyline, he's preoccupied with investigating the Comedian Case. We only ever get glimpses of the past and only really see the one case that completely broke his mind. It's nowhere ever stated that he's flawless and I think it's pretty darn obvious from his ramblings that he's completely insane. And that can lead him either way, as we see in the story. In the end, his entire point is taking the psychopathic, obsessive side of Batman and demonstrating that such a person would be deemed instable, dangerous and crazy in the real world.

So, once again, what exactly are we talking about anymore and how does it pertain to the General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures?

Edit: Ninja'd by Alpharius. Because of course, by whom else?

First, let me disagree completely with Korraz, but that brings up...

 Alpharius wrote:
33 pages in, we appear to have wandered far afield here, and perhaps now this thread is being used discuss other topics,m and maybe also to insult one another?

Is there a reason for this thread to stay open at this point?

Probably not. The one thing the thread has demonstrated definitively is that the issues surrounding this are almost entirely non-amenable to discussion.

I think, then, that this is a good time to close this one up.