InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "K is for Killswitch"

jlroberson (jlroberson) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-07-07 01:20:00

Current location:	Seattle
Current music:	Rush, of course. No, only joking.
Entry tags:	char: blue beetle/ted kord, char: mr. a, char: question/vic sage, creator: steve ditko, publisher: charlton, theme: objectivism

Some Random Ditko Objectivism

Charting one talented man's descent into darkest philosophy. Discuss.
First, a glimpse of what Rorschach might have been like before the kidnapping.

Second, one of the most classic straw man arguments, and one of those pages of Ditko that remind me of Jack Chick in the severity. And the utter idiocy of those who aren't the protagonist. For instance, this is how much a dick Mr. A is. He could have done both in the time of all this yappity-yap. And knows it.

I know you don't mean the following as awkwardly as it sounds, Steve, but still.

And here we see a Bushmilleresque misunderstanding of modern art. And this isn't QUESTION--this is Ted Kord, Blue Beetle. This is based on Ayn Rand's rather destructive limitation of art as a presentation of ideals. The assumption being that expressionist art and its ilk(which I like) were also presenting an ideal, but one of decadence. See the Nazis, Stalin and Mao for a remarkably similar take. Also, damn hippies.

Finally, the most philosophical mugging ever.

(c)Charlton and Steve Ditko.

(Post a new comment)

	darklorelei 2009-07-07 08:43 am UTC (link)
	"Your goals were never realistic!" Bwahahahah! (Reply to this)

	freezer818 2009-07-07 08:53 am UTC (link)
	It's like those Archie parables, but they're drawing from Atlas Shrugged instead of The Bible! (Reply to this) (Thread)

	jlroberson 2009-07-07 09:08 am UTC (link)
	It's truly amazing how humorless didactic comics all sound very much the same, regardless of what they're pushing. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	xammax 2009-07-07 12:12 pm UTC (link)
	I think the next time we delve into Super/Bat Dickery it was never like this... now prove me wrong S/D. (Reply to this)

	vignettelante 2009-07-07 02:21 pm UTC (link)
	sagedickery is a tag we need to see more of. "Ooh God help me! I-I can't say!" (Reply to this)

	lonewolf23k 2009-07-07 02:31 pm UTC (link)
	So, who do -you- side with in that mugging argument? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	jlroberson 2009-07-07 09:17 pm UTC (link)
	It's a false argument. Nobody wants to be mugged or have their money taken away. But that's not what this is about. If you read the rest(it's from AVENGING WORLD, which is all mainline objectivism uncut)It's about taxation. And its premises are faulty so it's not worth engaging. (Reply to this) (Parent)

thanekos
2009-07-07 02:37 pm UTC (link)

Boris Ebar seems like he should be the Question's recurring nemesis.

Like, some guy who consistently funds efforts, commits crime, does anything to impress on as many people as he can that we are living in a Crapsack World. I mean, look at the lengths he went to destroy that optimistic poster that made him all " I am a man who could not be, and knows it, and THAT FUCKING SUCKS ARRRGH "

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	jlroberson 2009-07-07 10:02 pm UTC (link)
	Look real close at the "Love" sculpture. (Reply to this) (Parent)

psychop_rex
2009-07-08 06:58 am UTC (link)

That would be kinda cool, actually - the Question needs recurring nemeses of SOME sort, anyway. All the people he fights tend to be one-time thugs - the only repeat performer is the Banshee, and no one's ever heard of him outside of Question fans - I'm not sure if he even has an entry on Wikipedia. The Banshee, that guy in the old-style diving suit who drowns people, and Boris Ebar - not a bad start.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) -

jlroberson, 2009-07-08 07:08 am UTC

(no subject) -

psychop_rex, 2009-07-08 09:03 am UTC

	sandoz_iscariot 2009-07-07 03:09 pm UTC (link)
	I love Crazypants Objectivist Ditko posts. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	jlroberson 2009-07-07 10:48 pm UTC (link)
	You may enjoy this then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD7EKZ32ODQ (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) -

leikomgwtfbbq, 2009-07-08 05:10 am UTC

(no subject) -

jlroberson, 2009-07-08 06:17 am UTC

(no subject) -

leikomgwtfbbq, 2009-07-08 08:50 am UTC

(no subject) -

jlroberson, 2009-07-08 10:30 am UTC

	foxhack 2009-07-07 03:42 pm UTC (link)
	What kind of bullshit thinking is this? o_O (Reply to this) (Thread)

	sandoz_iscariot 2009-07-07 05:04 pm UTC (link)
	Behold the horrors of objectivism! (Reply to this) (Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2009-10-31 01:02 am UTC (link)
	There's something wrong with choosing to save a victim over a killer? Not trying to start a fight. Honestly curious. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) -

jlroberson, 2009-10-31 07:25 am UTC

	moneyless_jew 2009-07-07 04:05 pm UTC (link)
	Ann Nocenti is reading this and thinking, "A bit too on the nose, homey." (Reply to this) (Thread)

	My icon is appropriate for everything ashtoreth 2009-07-08 04:20 am UTC (link)
	Gah, I went there. It reminds me too much of Nocenti Daredevil getting argued at by people he was fighting. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	starwolf_oakley 2009-07-07 05:19 pm UTC (link)
	I read the first part on-line before, and thought The Question said something more like "You try to kill me, and now I have to risk my life to save you?" One interesting thing about Objectivists is they say they are not against charity or charity work. I'm not sure how that is, but that's what they say. (Reply to this) (Thread)

jlroberson
2009-07-07 10:00 pm UTC (link)

No, because if you choose to be selfless that's your business, however weak and pathetic that makes you. But to them, it's better than the state doing it.

I don't recall that they think it's wrong, always, to help others. It's the issue of doing so out of duty or the fear of force.

On the other hand, I remember the essay that broke me of my teen liking of Rand(that and seeing what THE ROMANTIC MANIFESTO did to my writing--Rand and art are two tastes that taste grey together), in, I think, VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS, having to do with the question: would you risk your life to save a drowning man? Rather than answer it, she engaged in several pages of sophistry to avoid the question and finally decided the question wasn't worth answering. Her usual tactic when hit with something outside her System To Explain All.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) -

jlbarnett, 2009-07-07 11:45 pm UTC

	jlroberson 2009-07-07 09:56 pm UTC (link)
	You know, it might not be such a good idea to leave work in the dark with your money right in your hand like that. I realize he's proud of it, but common sense would dictate otherwise. Even back then. (Reply to this)

psychop_rex
2009-07-08 07:22 am UTC (link)

As someone who has grown up in a vaguely hippyish climate - the area I live in is basically the place most hippies migrated to at the end of the '60's - may I say that Ditko has most likely never even TALKED to a hippy? Sure, a lot of hippies were dropouts and airheads and whatnot, but one of their central tenets is that they believed in a better world - peace, love, all that stuff, you know? I don't think they'd be exactly the target audience for Boris Ebar - he's talking hopelessness, while they were all about hope. The people who'd be listening to him would be more likely to be proto-Goths, beatniks, whoever they had back then that were the equivalent of the thick-eyeshadow-and-bad-poetry crowd - the people, in short, who were inclined to be depressed ANYWAY. If the hippies had one major flaw, it would've been that they were too OPTIMISTIC, not the other way around.
Also, the whole mugging thing is just preposterous. Of COURSE the mugger is in the wrong - he's lurking in an alleyway waiting to club someone over the head and take their money! Yet Ditko is putting arguments in his mouth that would be quite reasonable coming from a genuinely innocent person who can't get money but needs it - a welfare mom, for instance, or a homeless man who no one will hire. 'Get a job or starve' are not the only two options - what about someone who's inherited his money, and never worked a day in his life? He didn't EARN it, the worthless bum! Yet does that mean he needs to be thrown out on the streets? What about someone who CAN'T work, someone who's paralyzed or retarded or otherwise rendered incapable of making a living? Being self-sufficient is a marvelous thing, but some people aren't or can't be, and that's just the way the world is.
And Mr. A? I can't understand a word you're saying. 'If there are no blacks or whites, then there cannot even be a gray' - true enough. 'Gray equals black', on the other hand - wha'?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	sandoz_iscariot 2009-07-08 04:15 pm UTC (link)
	may I say that Ditko has most likely never even TALKED to a hippy? Well if Ditko's reclusive nature is any indication, he probably hasn't talked to a lot of people before. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) -

psychop_rex, 2009-07-08 08:42 pm UTC

This was in the Onion today

jlroberson
2009-07-08 11:31 am UTC (link)

And this guy is basically where Steve got our critic friend Boris Ebar:
http://www.avclub.com/articles/mr-farber-has-been-killed-by-a-scrunt-17-films-and,30033/
"Ellsworth M. Toohey, The Fountainhead (1949)
Ayn Rand didn’t so much create characters as invent mouthpieces for ideological positions, which is why no one in her books behaves even remotely like a real human. Witness Ellsworth M. Toohey, the architectural critic of the Banner newspaper in The Fountainhead, the 1949 movie version of her novel, with a screenplay by Rand herself. Toohey is meant to be not only an example of the kind of commie collectivism that Rand despises; he’s also a stand-in for the critics who consistently savaged her books. He’s the least believable character imaginable, openly speaking of his contempt for the masses and his intention to destroy the excellence of true achievers like Howard Roark (played by Gary Cooper) for the sake of his collectivist philosophy. Yet audiences are also asked to believe that he—an architecture critic!—is the most popular, beloved columnist in New York. On top of it all, Robert Douglas plays Toohey with a not-so-subtle implication of homosexuality. Both as a representation of Rand’s socialist bogeymen and an embodiment of her critics, he’s a perfectly ludicrous cartoon."

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: This was in the Onion today psychop_rex 2009-07-08 08:45 pm UTC (link)
	Hmm - I believe that movie is available at my local lending library. Maybe I should check it out, do a bit more research on the subject. It'd be interesting if I could spot Mr. Ebar lurking around somewhere. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: This was in the Onion today -

jlroberson, 2009-07-08 08:49 pm UTC

Re: This was in the Onion today -

psychop_rex, 2009-07-08 09:22 pm UTC

Re: This was in the Onion today -

psychop_rex, 2009-07-17 01:10 am UTC

Re: This was in the Onion today -

jlroberson, 2009-07-17 01:39 am UTC

Re: This was in the Onion today -

psychop_rex, 2009-07-17 05:43 am UTC

Re: This was in the Onion today -

jlroberson, 2009-07-17 05:51 am UTC

Re: This was in the Onion today -

psychop_rex, 2009-07-17 05:55 am UTC

Re: This was in the Onion today -

jlroberson, 2009-07-17 06:17 am UTC

Re: This was in the Onion today -

psychop_rex, 2009-07-17 08:07 am UTC

Re: This was in the Onion today -

jlroberson, 2009-07-17 08:14 am UTC

Re: This was in the Onion today -

psychop_rex, 2009-07-17 08:26 pm UTC

Re: This was in the Onion today -

jlroberson, 2009-07-17 08:43 pm UTC

Re: This was in the Onion today -

psychop_rex, 2009-07-17 09:12 pm UTC

Re: This was in the Onion today -

jlroberson, 2009-07-17 09:33 pm UTC

Re: This was in the Onion today -

psychop_rex, 2009-07-17 10:29 pm UTC

Re: This was in the Onion today -

jlroberson, 2009-07-17 10:40 pm UTC

Re: This was in the Onion today -

psychop_rex, 2009-07-17 11:07 pm UTC

	From a previous Question post: jlroberson 2009-07-09 01:58 am UTC (link)
	More Boris! http://asylums.insanejournal.com/scans_daily/559892.html (Reply to this)