this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
834 points (97.2% liked)

Comic Strips

12934 readers
2631 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 99 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Good joke. Everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum.

[–] cRazi_man@lemm.ee 49 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 39 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

There's a lot of people that don't get the irony of that scene. Rorschach is a villain, just like the comedian was. There are no heroes in Watchmen.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 47 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

the closest we get to a hero in the currently operative adventurers are niteowl ii and silk spectre, both of whom are aware they operate in the moral gray area of relativism and are constantly haunted by the question of whether or not what they do is right. as if to drive home that no, no it is not, they can't engage sexually until they engage in violence. they try to justify their actions as being the best thing they can do in the moment given the constraints of the scenarios they find themselves in, but ultimately their actions are selfish and self serving. in many ways, this is why the comedian laughs. this contradictory form of nihilism is the joke all the adventurers must grapple with. they each respond differently. silk spectre chooses not to analyze or engage with the joke, preferring not to get it. niteowl ii and rorschach are different versions of understanding the joke, and choosing to carry on as if it wasn't even the truth of their reality, choosing instead to lean into the philosophies they represent: relativism and objectivism, respectively. in walter kovacs telling mr manhatten to kill him, we see the failure of objectivism: objectivism leaves no room for making the best of a bad situation, de-emphasizing harm reduction and harm prevention in the name of righteousness. in niteowl ii's inaction, we see the failure of moral relativism. niteowl ii is driven to inaction by his inability to take any real kind of a moral stance.

watchmen is such a misunderstood comic…

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Yes absolutely, even Nite Owl II is compromised and flawed. It's such a great comic.

[–] halykthered@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago

It'd be a real hoot if Owl Boy stepped on me tho

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 2 points 2 weeks ago
[–] Freefall@lemmy.world 99 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Imagine having so much money you can buy love and happiness, but are so stupid you fail at both.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 41 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

You probably have to be one nasty motherfucker to continue after you have 1.000 Million dollars.

More is just even more mentaly ill people IMO

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 20 points 2 weeks ago

You have to love getting money more than any other thing.

Or, at least you have to love the things you need to do to get money. What given the things those people do, is even worse.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Eh, I think a million maybe 2 is still in the limits of life savings for a normal person to warrant comfy retirement

[–] MarkCarsonDev@slrpnk.net 29 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

I think the parent commenter uses the decimal separator and means a billion dollars.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 2 weeks ago

Ah yeah you're probably right

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Yep, European here, sorry for the confusion.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago

Let's be generous and let people dream and make it a cap at around ten millions.

More is just bad for everyone.

[–] EvilZ@thelemmy.club 2 points 1 week ago

I believe it was Robert Reich who spoke about the difference eif CEO in the 1970's were profit margins where in the 30-40% versus to now where the goal is 100%....

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 25 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

The thing is you can really only buy sycophants and pleasure, and the thing is that those aren’t love and happiness. Love and happiness are more easily found by finding equals

[–] Famko@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

To a shallow person, it may as well be the same.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

And yet he remains miserable and lonely

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

You can also buy yourself fewer hardships, less need, more choices. These may not directly be happiness but you’re removing obstacles to hapiness

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Ya, but that only works up to maybe a million or so.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Money only buys happiness to up about like a 100k a year or so. I don't know it might be even more now, but definitely not over 200k.

It used to be roughly 70k USD and 50k EUR some 10 years ago when I read the study. That's the point at which you're financially secure enough to have your basics needs met and have enough over to climb towards self-actualization.

[–] hohoho@lemmy.world 48 points 2 weeks ago

But Doctor, I Am Pagliacci

[–] SelfProgrammed@lemmy.world 24 points 2 weeks ago

Everybody's laughing at him but he's the saddest clown of the circus

[–] gofsckyourself@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)
[–] MissNasty@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago

On a post making fun of Musk you go and post a link to his website. Fuck X.com! No one should be sharing links to that site.