Today I Learned
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
view the rest of the comments
V for Vendetta had a similar message. V was really not all that much better than the people he was fighting. He tortured the fuck out of Evey in order to get her to do his bidding. I'm sure it pissed him off to a huge degree that people started adopting Guy Fawkes masks as an actual symbol of revolution. Moore chose that mask for a reason. That reason is that Guy Fawkes was both fighting oppression and trying to turn England into a theocracy.
The issue with subtle critiques of facists is that facists will enjoy them non ironically.
See Watchmen, V for vendetta, starship troopers, warhammer 40k, on and on.
40k isn't a critique any more, and I'd argue it stopped the moment the Emperor became an actual strongman who is the bestest and smartest and handsomest immortal wizard human to ever live who guards humanity in its sleep uwu step on me daddy~~~~
Compared to the original, first edition version, where everything was at the whims of unreliable narration and it was understood that whatever the Emperor was in 30k, and that is a very big question, he's a corpse on a throne in 40k.
Starship Troopers stopped being a critique the minute the first film ended, and the book never was.
That's why you gotta watch movies like Inglorious Basterds. Make it impossible for them to claim that shit.
It really is unfortunate.
There's also the factor that the movie is very different from the original comic, and the folks who adopted the Guy Fawkes mask as a hacktivist icon mostly just saw the movie.
He still tortures the shit out if Evie in the film
To radicalize her, yeah.
Which makes V just as bad if not worse than the society he's fighting against.
V admits this in the story. That's why he sacrificed himself. He knows he's not fit for the world he's trying to create by taking out the people who are just like him.
How?
How is torture bad...?
How is a man torturing one woman equal to or worse than a fascist regime guilty of ethnic cleansing?
Please do not get involved in revolutionary movements if you cannot understand how violently torturing someone into slavery/submission is morally incorrect.
First of all, I'm not sure that's an accurate description of the text of the film. V did not torture Evey into servitude, he didn't break her spirit, she did not become dependent on or obedient to him. Shortly after, she is free to leave his company, which she does, after thanking him.
Second of all, I'm not sure she would have thanked the Fingermen who were going to rape and murder her for being out after curfew at the beginning of the film.
Just because there are other bad people does not make V good. Moore would tell you this himself.
Granted, though I woudl consider motives as well as deeds when attempting to label someone "good" or "bad." Else you end up saying goofy shit like "The allies were just as bad as the Nazis in World War 2 because they used guns to kill people and killing people is wrong."
And torturing someone to achieve moral goals is still immoral
I mean all you've really done there is set up the trolley problem.
The countdown clock on the doomsday machine is ticking, you've got one hour until it burns the earth sterile, a pair of pliers, and the only person who knows the deactivation code strapped to a table. You're gonna tell me you're not pulling his toenails out because torture bad?
How about this one: You're a doctor, you've got a syringe loaded with a dose of a vaccine that will grant immunity to a deadly viral disease, thing is it HURTS. It causes a burning sensation at the injection site, it'll leave a scar like the smallpox vaccine did. Your patient is a 7 year old child. You stick that needle in her arm, and she's gonna scream in pain, but she'll be immune from sharkpox for the rest of her life.
V believes - at least somewhat correctly - that he's breaking down Evey's deep seated fears that allow the fascist government to keep her cowed. He pushes her to the point she truly believes she's going to be killed, and that she holds some ideal more precious than her own life, that she's willing to face death for, this will enable her to right a revolution against said fascist government. After which she thanks him. It's as immoral as drafting soldiers for war; the question boils down to why are you in the fight at all?
This isn't a trolley problem because V has no clue if his methods would work. He just tortures someone.
Every hypothetical ypu list is a false equivalence as again V has no certainty that what he is doing will work.
Torture is always bad. It never gives reliable information gecause tortured people will tell you whatever you want to hear to make it stop.
Oh! You come with the anti-Catholicism baked in. The Brits will love you.
Fascinated by the continued adherence to the idea that overthrowing a monarch who is simultaneously the head of the national church is a movement toward theocracy.
Replacing the secular head of state with the clerical leader would be a significant step towards theocracy. The monarch of the UK might be the head of the faith but they are not seen as a member of the clergy. The Pope, who would ultimately have controlled the UK had Fawkes succeeded, would be a theocrat.
There's the anti-Catholic education paying off. Which countries did the pope control again? Why would the UK have been different from Spain, France or Italy? Why does being crowned by a pope or an archbishop differ? How, with apparent seriousness, are you defining the man who said this in parliament as a "secular head of state":
Even today British monarchs are ordained as kings with holy oil. It is not a secular position.
Mind-boggling that even young children don't see through this blatant myth-building for what it is. The same scaremongering is used even today by regressive Orangemen about papish plots.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_States
I get that you are very, very upset that anyone dare criticize Catholicism, but that doesn't excuse you from being ignorant of history.
I'm not ignorant of history. I'm on paper still a Catholic, since the Irish church decided to stop taking excommunication requests in 2005. Thanks for the Wikipedia article though.
Yes, very clever, the area the pope literally was sovereign of was under his control. I'm sure a clever guy like you understands the difference between that and the idea that literally any Catholic is 100% subservient to the Pope at all times regardless of their own rank and power, which is the sort of nonsense you're usually railing against when it's your flavour of old-timey god-stuff.
Tip though, and a bit of genuine sympathy here, when the UK continues down it's path of right-wing bigotry and you feel your family isnt safe again, you are now in a Common Travel Area with a far more welcoming "Catholic" nation. Feel free to walk across the border unchecked and I promise I won't you rat you out for describing a basic awareness of England's anti-Catholic biases as a "need to be a victim".
That has nothing to do with cleverness. You asked which countries the Pope controlled and I showed you. Facts have nothing to do with cleverness. I'm not clever, I'm almost certainly far stupider than you. I just know history.
Also, I never said every Catholic is 100% subservient to the Pope or even implied it, so why are you putting words in my mouth? Are you usually this dishonest?
I'm not accusing you of that (in fact I literally said that you understand its not that), but I'm guess you're ignorant of how that is how it is taught in the British curriculum. The motif you're talking about Alan Moore using - the Gunpowder plot and therefore Guy Fawkes wanting to replace the noble British monarchy with a foreign theocracy - relies entirely on that context. British history is carefully curated with "that was a foreign plot and the British nation bravely survived it" vs "a foreign ally saved and restored our glorious nation". For many, the presence of Catholicism is one of the primary deciding factors in that.
Are you usually this unable to take criticism without insulting people? (Yes, daily)
You literally accused me of that. Now you're gaslighting.
This is what you said: "Yes, very clever, the area the pope literally was sovereign of was under his control. I’m sure a clever guy like you understands the difference between that and the idea that literally any Catholic is 100% subservient to the Pope at all times regardless of their own rank and power, which is the sort of nonsense you’re usually railing against when it’s your flavour of old-timey god-stuff."
You have presented zero evidence to the contrary. None whatsoever. "Trust me, bro, the British are wrong" is not how history works.
You've been rude and insulting to people all over this thread, unprompted, so that's pretty fucking ironic.
I genuinely don't know how you interpret "I'm sure you understand the difference" as "you actually believe this". But sure, I'm manipulating your mind.
The evidence - well, an argument, because this isn't a paper - is exactly what you so helpfully brought up the Papal States for. Apart from literally his own domain, the pope did not turn any other nations into a Catholic theocracy because their monarch was Catholic.
It should be the other way around really - this idea of Catholic blind obedience to the pope is advanced as an assumption hy British historians despite having no example or evidence that it would be the case other than "that's what Catholics are like" despite the Anglican church literally arising from a Catholic English monarch disobeying the pope.
You saying things is not evidence that the Gunpowder Plotters did not want a Catholic theocracy.
And I already said that Catholics do not have blind obedience to the Pope so stop putting words in my mouth. Apparently you think lying about me is a way to the truth. It is not.
Yes, that's the whole fucking point. The Anglicans were oppressing the Catholics and the Gunpowder Plotters tried to commit mass murder in order to not just end that oppression, but bring back Catholicism by force. They were literally forming an army. Both sides were in the wrong here, which was also Moore's reason for using the Guy Fawkes mask. To show that people fighting oppression can also be oppressors.
And if you think any of that is untrue, present some evidence. Don't insult, don't be rude, don't just tell me I'm wrong, don't tell me the British are liars, present some evidence.
I didn't put any words in your mouth... I really don't understand how you're not getting that. I said you understand that it's not true. Literally just read the part you quoted.
Actually none of what you said just now was untrue. The leap that is unexplained is that bringing back a Catholic monarch would turn the UK into a papal theocracy where no other Catholic kingdom was (except the Papal States!).
And that specifically is the part that I'm arguing has no basis in fact - you're asking me to provide evidence that something wasn't going to happen. Usually we ask for evidence of speculation, not against speculation. It doesn't help that the people that could have said so were hung drawn and quartered, and the history written by people who immediately brought in further anti-Catholic legislation.
Yes, I am. Because you made a claim and that's how the burden of proof works. It is not my fault if you made a claim you can't prove.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
Actually, you have made multiple claims and have backed none of them up. Like how the British are lying.
Of course, if you actually know what Guy Fawkes wanted, then you know he wanted a theocracy. Why you think it matters if he would have achieved it, I don't know.
https://insertphilosophyhere.com/guy-fawkes-terrorist/
Do you really think they wanted a nine-year-old in charge?
You are welcome to dismiss that, but it's your claim that it isn't true, so it's up to you to back that claim up. It is no one else's job to prove you are telling the truth, just yours.
As the Papacy coronated Kings they had a role to play in the legitimacy of any King. The Papacy has a history of playing favorites in this regard.
Please provide a source that substantiates the idea that people currently living in the UK see the monarch as a religious leader.
I don’t think anyone is promoting an anti-Roman Catholic ideology as much as you have an apparently biased and flawed understanding of Fawkes goals.
Please do read about the Gunpowder Plot because you clearly don't know about it if you think this is some anti-Catholicism thing.
Also, I am talking about Moore's point, not whether or not you believe the point is based in fact.
But your need to be a victim when you aren't even a factor here is relevant.
Thats called a brain, my dude. They're normally included in the package.