Recent comments
Search
Common Misconceptions
Books by Jay
Conflict and Conciliation: Faith and Politics in an Age of Global Dissonance
Despite the peaceful foundations of global monotheistic religions, the broad diversity of interpretations can lead to a sharp paradox regarding the use of force. Inevitably, we must ask ourselves: How can those who ascribe to peaceful beliefs suspend their own moral foundation to beat the drums of war? ... read more
Now Reading
Hover or click for reviews
A self-indulgent blog for people just like me - PhD, author, photographer, entrepreneur, husband, father, music-lover, and uber-geek. More about Jay
Follow THF
View Recent Posts on:
Resist, I think you made some really good points. I especially like the parallel you made between the idea transcending the individual identity - astute observation and it has definitely cast this issue I am struggling with in a new light. "Beneath these robes lies not a man, but an idea - and ideas are bulletproof". And true, literature (and this was a true modern classic by any account) certainly retains both symbolic and literal (pun intended) relevance inarguably applicable to this case.
Also, your point is well taken about the increased dangers of facial recognition under the threat of retribution from this government. Yet I still wonder if the exposure of one's identity under this increased threat does not make one's point all the more powerful - we know the risks and are willing to endure them. Especially when you consider that many nonviolent practitioners who came before us risked death and torture for their beliefs.
T, I think to characterize "Guy Fawkes" as a violent anarchist would be to miss the point. True, he employed violent means which I find difficult to condone - though to be fair it was ALWAYS in self-defense. But an anarchist? No, there was nothing to indicate he was opposed to a system of laws. In fact, I'd say that he was pro-government - with the caveat that "governments should be afraid of their people." This was a populist movement which was very much a nonviolent seizure of direct rule by the majority. It was an overthrow of a "silent" totalitarianism that had creeped up slowly, an authoritarian regime wearing its own mask of democracy and benevolence. As I said to Resist, I retain some concern over the costs of anonymity, though I don't think I would go so far as to characterize it as cowardice. I think it is more likely that the practitioners chose a symbol they felt would resonate with outsiders.
Out of curiosity, I wonder if anybody has an opinion about the use of sabotage (a la V or likewise) and whether or not this qualifies as nonviolence (assuming, of course, that all steps are taken to ensure that nobody is injured in the process).
Where'd you get that from? In some parts of Argentina I could see fear of retribution generally, but just from police? This is news to me... I'm not saying it's not the case, I just haven't seen this in the news.
Hey man, don't broad bash graphic novels. Maus set the stage for the graphic novel medium to be used for conveying much deeper intellectual sentiment than simple mass market brain candy (not that most of it isn't just that - brain candy - but some of it is very insightful). Alan Moore is quite astute.
one, V was a movie, a work of fiction. so was 1984, Farenheit 451 and Kafka's The Trial. Works of fiction have a disturbing habit of sometimes pointing their criticisms quite flatly at what is happening in current events.
You're comparing a comic book to 1984? Whatever; I had nothing to say about the applicability of the source material. It's the gesture I find vapid...they're staging a non-violent demonstration by dressing as a violent anarchist.
i think you are wrong about it being thought-provoking. i just think you are emotionally dead to such things, because you choose to be cold hearted and ambivilant. that is your "m.o."
One hardly chooses their modus operandi. That's simply how I work...I'm not overly impressed by theatrics and pageantry. So were I walking down the street and saw a bunch of protesters dressed as V, I'm not going to find their message overwhelmingly compelling, I'm just going to point and giggle.
to me, this was brave and anonymous - an anti-Cindy Sheehan statement, in where the statement was loudly "it is not who we are that is important, it is how we feel, it is the idea"
What bravery is there in anonymity? To be anonymous in public is to hide from reproach. Cowardice.
And what is the idea being conveyed? That the government should fear us, sitting here placidly?
now, if they all sat there in scream masks and held up signs - that would be much more silly. but the outfit WAS part of the statement, because V stood for something...and the idea is not fiction, even if the movie was.
Exactly. If they want to don the outfit, set something on fire. If not, and you're still going for the theatrical angle, shave your head and walk around barefoot in a white robe and wire-rimmed glasses. If you're going to go in costume, then play the fucking part.
that is your viewpoint, valid for you, perhaps, but it adds nothing to the discussion, nor did it address his question very directly.
i think the message is quite clear. within this "display" is a multitude of statements, if one chooses to see them.
one, V was a movie, a work of fiction. so was 1984, Farenheit 451 and Kafka's The Trial. Works of fiction have a disturbing habit of sometimes pointing their criticisms quite flatly at what is happening in current events.
we know that The Crucible was as much a story about the Salem Witchtrials as it was an examination of the "witchhunt" mentality that permeated the US during the McCarthy era
-- in music, song writers have long used metaphors and symbols to codify their true feelings and thoughts in songs about love, politics and freedom --
i think you are wrong about it being thought-provoking. i just think you are emotionally dead to such things, because you choose to be cold hearted and ambivilant. that is your "m.o."
to me, this was brave and anonymous - an anti-Cindy Sheehan statement, in where the statement was loudly "it is not who we are that is important, it is how we feel, it is the idea"
that was also the message of the movie, so using the symbol to parralell that message was a nice touch.
now, if they all sat there in scream masks and held up signs - that would be much more silly. but the outfit WAS part of the statement, because V stood for something...and the idea is not fiction, even if the movie was.
besides, while usurped by V - the original mask is a guy friday mask, which adds a whole new complexion to the statement they were making, which certainly require anonymity.