HOME | DD

TheArtrix In reply to vree [2015-06-18 11:49:05 +0000 UTC]

History will tell you that many have tried and failed :\

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

vree In reply to TheArtrix [2015-06-18 18:27:25 +0000 UTC]

Becasue it (the idea) has been erased from history when they succeeded.

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

TheArtrix In reply to vree [2015-06-24 09:37:17 +0000 UTC]

It may work for very small isolated tribes, but in larger communities, especially with the Internet, it is virtually impossible to wipe out an idea by trying to stop its spread.

The Soviets tried it, the Nazis tried it, religions tried it, but the ideas they tried to eradicate were preserved and are probably more widespread than ever before.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheArtrix In reply to shadowcatkill69 [2015-01-15 12:07:50 +0000 UTC]

Good comment that recognizes aesthetics, "the basic premise" and still manages to point out a flaw in the underlying message.

As for picking Amon, I'll link to a reply I made earlier.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheArtrix In reply to Crack-N [2015-01-15 12:15:05 +0000 UTC]

That's the normal course of ideas in a free marketplace of ideas, anonymous chan-culture is just really good at accelerating the process as ideas are not linked to people but stand on their own merit. Not saying that everything that comes out of anonymity is great, as it also fosters really dumb and juvenile idiocy from idiots and trolls as anonymity also shields people from consequences.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheArtrix In reply to garciarael [2015-01-15 11:55:24 +0000 UTC]

But did the regime of 1984 truly kill the ideas that were opposing it? I mean, the regime even recognized that it can't control all people and stratified the population into "proles" and the tiered higher levels that were highly regulated. The proles were offered complete freedom, but they lived in severe poverty and were constantly distracted by low-brow entertainment.

If anything, even though it illustrated the dangers of thought policing, it also shows that even in a world where everything is monitored and an elaborate system of thought control is in place, you still end up with people getting their hands on dissenting ideas. Though, it could be argued that the dissenting materials were planted by the regime in the first place, to root out people with "crimethink".

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

garciarael In reply to TheArtrix [2015-01-15 14:55:15 +0000 UTC]

As I said. Not worth it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheArtrix In reply to Orhblin [2015-01-15 12:05:27 +0000 UTC]

Not necessarily for free speech, but he is a good representation of the concept of an "idea".

One of the things that struck me as odd in the S1 finale of  The Legend of Korra is that even though Amon was no longer around (keep in mind that most people didn't even know he was dead), his Equalist revolution seemed to have completely died out, as in, everyone seemed to just shrug and forget out it.

Real life politics don't work like that. There would've been someone to take Amon's ideas and continue the revolution, and the series even acknowledges this as Rupublic City (and presumably the United Republic?) did elect a non-bender as their president. The point is that even though the person died, and that person turned out to be a lying douche bag, the idea still lived on.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Orhblin In reply to TheArtrix [2015-01-15 18:37:22 +0000 UTC]

Hmmm I see what you're getting at. real life would probably not work like that. I thought it would've been fun to see some amateur movement in the series. But taken into consideration that he took down the united forces by force and generally took a lot of toll on the public order of the city, I think most people would want a breathing hole. The second in command was killed by Amon probably didn't help the public view.

The idea may be retrievable at some point, but the movement and it's progress would've died down with him. See Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun or Genghis Khan as examples of how movements die after the leader is taken out. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Krawczyk In reply to Orhblin [2015-03-22 06:39:41 +0000 UTC]

Nah, I think he'd be more analogous to someone like Che. Che went to Bolivia mostly disgraced. Only managed to whip up about 350 fanatically loyal supporters or so. Just mild popularity amongst the locals.
And then that one fateful line. "I know you are here to kill me. Shoot, coward, you are only going to kill a man."

And now he's on every damned t-shirt and poster at GAP and Hot Topic and graffiti-tagged at every major protest. He went full out Obi Wan, yo.
Ideological movements have a tendency to only get stronger once the leader dies (see also: Lenin, Fawkes, Locke, Robespierre, Riehl, Patrick Henry, pretty much everyone at The Alamo)
Conversely, a movement which is purely populist/religious whose hierarchy resembles a pyramid (self-appointed gods/emperors like Nero, paranoid freakos like Stalin and Franco, kingships, Moral Majority) get the wind blasted from their sails as the big guy topples over and takes out everyone beneath him.
Also nobody knows who offed the Lieutenant other than Korrra and there's no implication that she said anything about it. Unfortunately for that guy I don't think anyone actually cared about him!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Orhblin In reply to Krawczyk [2015-03-22 12:43:25 +0000 UTC]

Yes well, this fantastic leader turned out to be a fraud and a liar.Che died a martur and was popularised by the US, whic then spread to Europe and what not.

Che was a docter and an actual asset to the people, someone worth looking up to. These guys never really did anything good for anyone. Then again, helping people doesn't always get you popular, as is seen by che's death and Korra's descrimination. Which goes to show that people are STUPID :V

we cannot know whether or not the lieutenant was exposed or not, butI think it is fair to assume he was. I whatever case, he was probably know by third in commands and people below that, as the hierarchy goes, it's usually important to know who your superiours are. We're going about with a lot of fucking speculation, and don't get to go around R.C polling people of their opinions.

And be careful about mentioning Robespierre, he was a prick who got what was coming to him, and his death effectively ended the reign of terror.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheArtrix In reply to Orhblin [2015-02-18 11:24:13 +0000 UTC]

You bring up a good point. I don't really like how the Equalist movement was disposed of in the series, but this makes it all seem to be more plausible. I suppose it all boils down to poor pacing in season 1, which had a pretty cringe worthy "everything neatly wrapped up and sorted" finale that killed any kind of character development it could have had.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Orhblin In reply to TheArtrix [2015-03-01 23:00:19 +0000 UTC]

I'll agree, the pacin in the first book was kinda lacking as to what you'd expect from seeing the last  airbender and all. Having said that, it's a pretty long shadow to be standing in. I think if I wanted to appriciate something in the first book, it'd be the way they showcased republic city. A setting that important is important to introduce properly. One example would be Gotham city which is also really imporant to understand.

Hmm I dunno what you mean by the lack of character development. Sure she didn't come out being all damaged and stuff, but she did seem to have changed from book 1 to book 2. at least a little bit.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheArtrix In reply to Orhblin [2015-03-05 15:24:57 +0000 UTC]

Hmm, I did mention that they more or less hit a reset button in the finale of S1, didn't I? I do agree that she changed a bit in S2, particularly that she seems more aware of the dangers that are inherent to being the Avatar, but I just didn't feel like she got anything out of the last season. In contrast, her friends seemed to change more organically whereas Korra's development seemed to kick in around S3.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0