From the WTF files.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up9nJLkxzlk
You knew this kind of cultural criticism was coming, right? But I consider this no different than secular societies abandoning their historic churches.
Can't be assed into watchindg the video, but I will say the Near Harad (Middle Easterners) were presented as morally savages who willingly joined the forces of Sauron, and the Far Harad are even worse... their blackness is a result of being bred with trolls.
All the while they fight the forces of good, who are all based on Anglo Saxon stock.
You even have Tolkien out right admitting that the Dwarfs and their greed, as well as their lack of a homeland, are heavily influenced by the Jews... as well as multiple instances of him saying that the Rohirrim are Anglo-Saxons, that certain languages are directly correlated to Welsh, Old English, etc. ... it's not like Tolkien didn't flat out admit that his perception of the races didn't influence his works.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how that could be seen as racist, and given the era Tolkien was born and raised in... yeah, he most likely was quite racist.
It goes back to what we are talking about Lovecraft... there is nothing wrong with acknowledging that there are some very racist undertones by books written by old white men at the turn of the century. Just don't be obnoxious about pointing it out and realise that's not enough to warrant discarding these masterpiece works.
Anybody not Gandhi is racist, and he was one too. So will you dismiss Tolkien as just another dead White author?
Quote from: Baruch on November 27, 2018, 02:56:16 AM
Anybody not Gandhi is racist, and he was one too. So will you dismiss Tolkien as just another dead White author?
I'll call a spade a spade, yes.
Tolkien is one of my top 3 favorite artists of all time, and I even plan on getting something of his work tattooed on my body that will stay with me to the grave. Admiration of someone does not mean blindly ignoring their flaws, however.
I have decided that cultural racism of the past is something I can tolerate and not let taint my opinion of someone's art. Tolkien is though, objectively, just another dead white author... one who wrote absolutely fantastic works, but still a product of the world he lived him. And all evidence points to that world having influenced his work having some racial biases.
Fascist complains about racism. That's so funny.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 27, 2018, 03:57:12 AM
I'll call a spade a spade, yes.
Tolkien is one of my top 3 favorite artists of all time, and I even plan on getting something of his work tattooed on my body that will stay with me to the grave. Admiration of someone does not mean blindly ignoring their flaws, however.
I have decided that cultural racism of the past is something I can tolerate and not let taint my opinion of someone's art. Tolkien is though, objectively, just another dead white author... one who wrote absolutely fantastic works, but still a product of the world he lived him. And all evidence points to that world having influenced his work having some racial biases.
It makes me worry for you, given all the pressures you face. Gandhi said to Jews ... die now, and if you do it right, you can be reincarnated as a Hindu in India! Or be reincarnated as a Nazi in 1933, and burn books you don't like.
I'm a lot less bothered about authors who were racist more than half a century ago than I am about political leaders who still are today.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 27, 2018, 01:48:56 AM
Can't be assed into watchindg the video, but I will say the Near Harad (Middle Easterners) were presented as morally savages who willingly joined the forces of Sauron, and the Far Harad are even worse... their blackness is a result of being bred with trolls.
All the while they fight the forces of good, who are all based on Anglo Saxon stock.
You even have Tolkien out right admitting that the Dwarfs and their greed, as well as their lack of a homeland, are heavily influenced by the Jews... as well as multiple instances of him saying that the Rohirrim are Anglo-Saxons, that certain languages are directly correlated to Welsh, Old English, etc. ... it's not like Tolkien didn't flat out admit that his perception of the races didn't influence his works.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how that could be seen as racist, and given the era Tolkien was born and raised in... yeah, he most likely was quite racist.
It goes back to what we are talking about Lovecraft... there is nothing wrong with acknowledging that there are some very racist undertones by books written by old white men at the turn of the century. Just don't be obnoxious about pointing it out and realise that's not enough to warrant discarding these masterpiece works.
STFU
Tolkien was never displaying racist shit from our world when he created the world. In fact he suggested upon human as a whole people.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 27, 2018, 03:57:12 AM
I have decided that cultural racism of the past is something I can tolerate and not let taint my opinion of someone's art. Tolkien is though, objectively, just another dead white author... one who wrote absolutely fantastic works, but still a product of the world he lived him. And all evidence points to that world having influenced his work having some racial biases.
You racist.
How can that be racist? He is dissing white men. ¯\_(ãƒ,,)_/¯
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EswnwRdyeoA
Quote from: trdsf on November 27, 2018, 07:31:53 AM
I'm a lot less bothered about authors who were racist more than half a century ago than I am about political leaders who still are today.
OK, but don't hold your breath. Racism is going nowhere.
Quote from: Munch on November 27, 2018, 08:59:16 AM
You racist.
Grow up and/or fuck off dude.
I was quoting what Buruch said about him. Your little kid games of cherry picking aren't cute, they are pathetic.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 27, 2018, 01:08:30 PM
Grow up and/or fuck off dude.
I was quoting what Buruch said about him. Your little kid games of cherry picking aren't cute, they are pathetic.
Baaaaruch ... not Buuuuruch. Back to the trees, no banana for you.
I suppose you are sufficiently tanned, that you think racism etc doesn't apply to you. Just saying, not accusing.
Quote from: Munch on November 27, 2018, 08:59:16 AM
You racist.
By the way, you've still never actually explained how it's everyone else who is racist because you brought up Obama's ethnicity as an argument against him and Germany/France.
Just going to keep on weaseling out of that one?
Quote from: Shiranu on November 27, 2018, 01:23:07 PM
By the way, you've still never actually explained how it's everyone else who is racist because you brought up Obama's ethnicity as an argument against him and Germany/France.
Just going to keep on weaseling out of that one?
Nope, just forgot about it, like everyone else.
Cept you, those scars never heal.
Your poor superego must be like taffy at this stage
Quote from: Munch on November 27, 2018, 01:31:36 PM
Nope, just forgot about it, like everyone else.
Cept you, those scars never heal.
Your poor superego must be like taffy at this stage
White people can eat a dick for being white.
That's okay to say, because you will forget about it in a day or two. So it's not racist.
I guess your still just going to choose the option of weaseling out of answering for racist shit rather than explain why it wasn't racist. Cool.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 27, 2018, 01:37:15 PM
White people can eat a dick for being white.
That's okay to say, because you will forget about it in a day or two. So it's not racist.
I guess your still just going to choose the option of weaseling out of answering for racist shit rather than explain why it wasn't racist. Cool.
It wasn't racist, because I say it wasn't.
That good enough for you?
Your not black, so why would implied racism linger with you. Were you a black rose in your previous life?
QuoteIt wasn't racist, because I say it wasn't.
I'm just going to let you think about that for a second and imagine anyone else using that excuse.
QuoteYour not black, so why would implied racism linger with you.
If by implied you mean directly stated that Obama's race is the reason he get's preferential treatment compared to Trump and that everyone is racist, then I guess we can call that implied.
Weird to say it's "implied" when you are literally directly bringing up both his and Trump's race as arguments, but okay.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 27, 2018, 02:01:32 PM
I'm just going to let you think about that for a second and imagine anyone else using that excuse.
Seems to work for your president. And he's done well for himself.
Quote
If by implied you mean directly stated that Obama's race is the reason he get's preferential treatment compared to Trump and that everyone is racist, then I guess we can call that implied.
Weird to say it's "implied" when you are literally directly bringing up both his and Trump's race as arguments, but okay.
*Shrug* you take things so literally I guess it's why you felt that way.
I wouldn't dare apply everyone thought that of Obama, just tge ones who overlooked things he did overseas because his skin colour exempted him from such criticism by said followers.
It's not Obama I had an issue with, it's the ones who can't judge someone like him because he's black, because how dare it be assume he could be as at fault for the same things a white guy would.
In other words, only white leaders can be bad (should say only white male leaders to be specific).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKHeoMCfzS8
Quote from: Shiranu on November 27, 2018, 01:37:15 PM
White people can eat a dick for being white.
That's okay to say, because you will forget about it in a day or two. So it's not racist.
I guess your still just going to choose the option of weaseling out of answering for racist shit rather than explain why it wasn't racist. Cool.
Sorry, yes it is racist (under the color-blind standard). But equality of opportunity, hell, not even equality of result is desired ... conquest is desired.
OLM = Orc Lives Matter
It is kind of interesting how races in worlds like the LoTR and D&D are naturally good or evil. There are some races in them that are just evil by nature, and they rarely, if ever, break away from that. Paarthurnax in Skyrim had interesting things to say about that. He was the lieutenant of Alduin's army, and the three words of his name even translate to "Ambition Overlord Cruelty." He later changes sides, and aids the humans in their mastery of the Voice.
"The Blades are wise not to trust me. Onikaan ni ov. I would not trust another dovah. Dov wahlaan fah rel. We were made to dominate. The will to power is in our blood. You feel it in yourself, do you not? I can be trusted. I know this. But they do not. Onikaan ni ov dovah. It is always wise to mistrust a dovah. I have overcome my nature only through meditation and long study of the Way of the Voice. No day goes by where I am not tempted to return to my inborn nature. Zin krif horvut se suleyk. What is better - to be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?"
I wouldn't call it "racist," though. These are fictional characters in a weird universe. "Race" doesn't even mean the same thing in these worlds. While here, race is mostly a social construct within one species, races in these fictional universes are actually different. The differences between a white person and an asian are minimal, while the differences between a human and an orc are quite obvious. In the real world, humans, elves, and orcs would be species, not races. But in these fictional universes, these vastly different creatures can somehow interbreed, so they are "races."
Good, evil, race are all fictions. We would be better off keeping them there, and not bringing them into the real world. There are many individuals. Each one is ... the way they are. If you like them, or dislike them ... that is on you.
I'm with Shiranu on this. It's a bit racist, but that racism isn't worth being concerned about given the age of the work.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on November 29, 2018, 08:25:01 AM
I'm with Shiranu on this. It's a bit racist, but that racism isn't worth being concerned about given the age of the work.
My thoughts exactly. It's unrealistic to expect someone writing in 1940 to have a 2018 outlook on race, gender, orientation and/or identity. It doesn't excuse it, but it explains why it's there and where it came from, and at least where the work otherwise is of literary value, just means one has to read the work with that in mind.
Of course, it's more than just racism -- homophobia (or at least heteronormativity), sexism, religious and irreligious intolerance, and all the other forms of intraspecies hatred and division can just go under the catch-all term 'bigotry'.
How did we become so politically correct, so inclusive, so tolerant?
Have we really become better human beings?
Or are we just afraid to speak out because we are browbeaten constantly by the politically correct and do not want to be called racist, xenophobe, haters, bigots, Islamophobes, fascist, and all the other invectives?
We are being conditioned to become docile citizens, easy to control.
Here is the replacement for religious fascism.
Political correctness achieves the same effect. Heresy will be punished.
And just like in religion, we are self-policing against offenders. (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube censors)
I do not think we have become better, more tolerant human beings. Not really.
But you keep it to yourself. Dare not speak out.
BTW, it is becoming a criminal offense punishable by law to be "politically incorrect" and lose your job, freedom of speech, and become a social outcast.
UK: Six years in prison for Islamophobia under new proposals (https://www.therebel.media/uk_six_years_in_prison_for_islamophobia_under_new_proposals)
Other people, outside the western countries, do not have this restriction.
They say and do whatever they want (migrants to Europe for example) and we just have to tolerate and accept.
Thousands of young children are used as sex slaves while the authorities are silent for fear of becoming "Islamophobic".
/rant.
Tyranny is what we do. Progress is impossible with humans. We are merely changing the tyranny of the week. In order for you to survive, let alone gain what your ambitions demand, you have to fuck people over. Preferably using the government to do it for you. That is why socialism is always popular. You get Free Mafia without the guilt. But of course, like all human social systems, it is self destructive ... because that is also what we do.
PC has nothing to do with tolerance or progress. It is simply the latest tool, by the usual suspects, to extend and deepen slavery. Some people can't get it off, unless they can hear the sweet screams of their victims.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on November 29, 2018, 08:25:01 AM
I'm with Shiranu on this. It's a bit racist, but that racism isn't worth being concerned about given the age of the work.
Where is the Earthly racism? Honestly I don't s it. Because Dwarfs are from Norse mythology and are obsessed with treasure. Thy are not Jews like you say they are. Same thing with Farness hes created a world not blindly making racist statements.
As for the Rohirerm, his initial thought was during WWI it was the last time horses were used in war due to technology being better. He's romancing the British Calvary.
The only thing of Tolkien was that he hated atheists.
In films and TV, there is (for now) the zombies who are the only group is permitted to kill and fight.
Soon there will be an outcry for this travesty. World war Z etc.
#ZombieLives matter.
Yes, it is stupid. But hey, we are used to that.
Quote from: trdsf on November 29, 2018, 10:19:11 AM
My thoughts exactly. It's unrealistic to expect someone writing in 1940 to have a 2018 outlook on race, gender, orientation and/or identity. It doesn't excuse it, but it explains why it's there and where it came from, and at least where the work otherwise is of literary value, just means one has to read the work with that in mind.
Of course, it's more than just racism -- homophobia (or at least heteronormativity), sexism, religious and irreligious intolerance, and all the other forms of intraspecies hatred and division can just go under the catch-all term 'bigotry'.
It's been over a decade since I've read the books, so I can't remember. But didn't a woman kill one of the most powerful villains in the series, or was that just a movie thing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ_-rmuPZC4
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 29, 2018, 02:01:22 PM
It's been over a decade since I've read the books, so I can't remember. But didn't a woman kill one of the most powerful villains in the series, or was that just a movie thing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ_-rmuPZC4
Absolutely no idea. I never finished reading the first book in the trilogy, much less any of the others. I found it impenetrably dull. When I call Tolkien the Dickens of fantasy fiction, I don't mean it as a compliment. But I've seen implicit (and explicit) bigotry in any number of other works from the period -- and not just Lovecraft, where it was overt. I mean, just spend some time looking at portrayals of the Japanese in wartime comics, of Native Americans in most westerns, of African-Americans (or just Africans) in almost any genre at the Digital Comic Museum (http://digitalcomicmuseum.org). That kind of thought was woven into the popular culture of the time.
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 29, 2018, 02:01:22 PM
It's been over a decade since I've read the books, so I can't remember. But didn't a woman kill one of the most powerful villains in the series, or was that just a movie thing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ_-rmuPZC4
Eowyn did in the book.
they changed what she said in the book, but she faced the witch king either way.
QuoteBut lo! suddenly in the midst of the glory of the king his golden shield was dimmed.... Dark fell about him....
Snowmane wild with terror stood up on high, fighting with the air, and then with a great scream he crashed upon his side: a black dart had pierced him. The king fell beneath him.
The great shadow descended like a falling cloud. And behold! it was a winged creature: if bird, then greater than all other birds, and it was naked, and neither quill nor feather did it bear, and its vast pinions were as webs of hide between horned fingers; and it stank.... Down, down it came, and then, folding its fingered webs, it gave a croaking cry, and settled upon the body of Snowmane, digging in its claws, stooping its long naked neck.
Upon it sat a shape, black-mantled, huge and threatening. A crown of steel he bore, but between rim and robe naught was there to see, save only a deadly gleam of eyes: the Lord of the Nazgûl.... bringing ruin, turning hope to despair, and victory to death. A great black mace he wielded.
But Théoden was not utterly forsaken. The knights of his house lay slain about him.... Yet one stood there still: Dernhelm the young, faithful beyond fear; and he wept, for he had loved his lord as a father. Right through the charge Merry had been borne unharmed behind him, until the Shadow came; and then Windfola had thrown them in his terror.... Merry crawled on all fours like a dazed beast, and such a horror was on him that he was blind and sick.... He dared not open his eyes or look up.
Then out of the blackness in his mind he thought that he heard Dernhelm speaking; yet now the voice seemed strange, recalling some other voice that he had known.
'Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!'
A cold voice answered: 'Come not between the Nazgûl and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye.'
A sword rang as it was drawn. 'Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may.'
'Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!'
Then Merry heard of all sounds in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed.... 'But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Éowyn I am, Éomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.'
The winged creature screamed at her, but the Ringwraith made no answer, and was silent, as if in sudden doubt. Very amazement for a moment conquered Merry's fear. He opened his eyes and the blackness was lifted from them. There some paces from him sat the great beast..., and above it loomed the Nazgûl Lord like a shadow of despair. A little to the left facing them stood she whom he had called Dernhelm. But the helm of her secrecy had fallen from her, and her bright hair... gleamed with pale gold upon her shoulders. Her eyes grey as the sea were hard and fell, and yet tears were on her cheek. A sword was in her hand, and she raised her shield against the horror of her enemy's eyes.
Éowyn it was, and Dernhelm also. For into Merry's mind flashed the memory of the face that he saw at the riding from Dunharrow: the face of one that goes seeking death, having no hope. Pity filled his heart..., and suddenly the slow-kindled courage of his race awoke. He clenched his hand. She should not die, so fair, so desperate. At least she should not die alone, unaided.
The face of their enemy was not turned towards him, but still he hardly dared to move.... Slowly, slowly he began to crawl aside; but the Black Captain, in doubt and malice intent upon the woman before him, heeded him no more than a worm in the mud.
Suddenly the great beast beat its hideous wings.... Again it leaped into the air, and then swiftly fell down upon Éowyn, shrieking, striking with beak and claw.
Still she did not blench: maiden of the Rohirrim, child of kings..., fair but terrible. A swift stroke she dealt, skilled and deadly. The outstretched neck she clove asunder, and the hewn head fell like a stone. Backward she sprang as the huge shape crashed to ruin, vast wings outspread, crumpled on the earth; and with its fall the shadow passed away. A light fell about her, and her hair shone in the sunrise.
Out of the wreck rose the Black Rider, tall and threatening, towering above her. With a cry of hatred that stung the very ears like venom he let fall his mace. Her shield was shivered in many pieces, and her arm was broken; she stumbled to her knees. He bent over her like a cloud, and his eyes glittered; he raised his mace to kill.
But suddenly he too stumbled forward with a cry of bitter pain, and his stroke went wide, driving into the ground. Merry's sword had stabbed him from behind, shearing through the black mantle, and passing up beneath the hauberk had pierced the sinew behind his mighty knee.
'Éowyn! Éowyn!' cried Merry. Then tottering, struggling up, with her last strength she drove her sword between crown and mantle, as the great shoulders bowed before her. The sword broke sparkling into many shards. The crown rolled away with a clang. Éowyn fell forward upon her fallen foe. But lo! the mantle and hauberk were empty. Shapeless they lay now on the ground...; and a cry went up into the shuddering air, and faded to a shrill wailing..., a voice bodiless and thin that died, and was swallowed up, and was never heard again in that age of this world.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on November 29, 2018, 04:42:55 PM
Eowyn did in the book.
Eowyn and her gay Halfling side-kick, Merry. The chief of the Dark Riders was killed by two non-men.
Quote from: Munch on November 29, 2018, 05:45:21 PM
they changed what she said in the book, but she faced the witch king either way.
Eh. The movie's version of Eowyn's words may have sounded silly, but it was a lot more concise. But anyway, a woman slaying a nazgul and the most powerful Ringwraith kinda played against popular conventions, at least at the time. I guess that was kind of the whole point, though. The main hero of the story was a weak little Hobbit after all; a man the size of a human child. The ringbearer could only be someone who was too weak to misuse the ring. You could give the ring to Gandalf, but then he might be corrupted by the power of the ring and become a powerful force for evil. There seems to be a message there, of the importance of humility, and not underestimating what people can accomplish. Given that Tolkien was a devout Christian, this was probably based on the Christian concept of "the first will be last, and the last will be first."
He also gave that Gimili and Legolas who were racists became best of friends. Tolkein had friends who were Jewish and despised Nazi Germany. So he wasn't racist. SJW just seem to take everything literally like Black wizard and White wizard and troll/ human is blackish skin so obviously Tolkin is a racist. No. Go else where with your antics!
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on November 30, 2018, 02:16:59 AM
He also gave that Gimili and Legolas who were racists became best of friends. Tolkein had friends who were Jewish and despised Nazi Germany. So he wasn't racist. SJW just seem to take everything literally like Black wizard and White wizard and troll/ human is blackish skin so obviously Tolkin is a racist. No. Go else where with your antics!
Two words: Critical theory.
Two more: Frankfurt School.
QuoteThe ringbearer could only be someone who was too weak to misuse the ring.
That's never how I have really interpreted it... I felt it was much more a story of someone being so content with life that the desire for power it corrupts people with didn't have as strong of effect on him. Frodo damn near kills Sam because of the ring's corruption in Gondor, so I don't think it's a matter of physical strength.
It corrupted Gollum whom was a Hobbit, and the palantir was able to corrupt Merry (or Pippin, a bit too drunk to remember atm). Also, Hobbits are surprisingly strong and hardy when forced into a fight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2EgKPFEjno
And while we at it, #FloodLivesMatter.
The 343 Industries Halo where the Flood is killed mercilessly by the Forerunners, humans, everyone.
Oh and lets not forget the Elites, Brutes, Jackals, Unggoy, San'Shyuum, the Covenant.
How racist can you get? /sarc
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 28, 2018, 02:11:33 PM
It is kind of interesting how races in worlds like the LoTR and D&D are naturally good or evil.
Not all of Sauron's troops were "naturally evil". Faramir wondered what lies they were told.
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 30, 2018, 01:19:16 AM
Eh. The movie's version of Eowyn's words may have sounded silly, but it was a lot more concise. But anyway, a woman slaying a nazgul and the most powerful Ringwraith kinda played against popular conventions, at least at the time.
Shades of Boadicea
QuoteI guess that was kind of the whole point, though. The main hero of the story was a weak little Hobbit after all; a man the size of a human child. The ringbearer could only be someone who was too weak to misuse the ring.
Or someone who didn't seek power.
QuoteYou could give the ring to Gandalf, but then he might be corrupted by the power of the ring and become a powerful force for evil.
"But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine."
Quote from: Shiranu on November 30, 2018, 05:28:39 AM
That's never how I have really interpreted it... I felt it was much more a story of someone being so content with life that the desire for power it corrupts people with didn't have as strong of effect on him. Frodo damn near kills Sam because of the ring's corruption in Gondor, so I don't think it's a matter of physical strength.
It corrupted Gollum whom was a Hobbit, and the palantir was able to corrupt Merry (or Pippin, a bit too drunk to remember atm). Also, Hobbits are surprisingly strong and hardy when forced into a fight.
Anyone who touches the ring would be corrupted by it. It was only natural that Frodo wouldn't be able to go through with the plan of destroying the ring. That's not what I meant, though. The ring's power scales with the power of the person who uses it. Gandalf couldn't touch the ring because he was already a powerful wizard, and the ring would just make him unstoppable. He rejected the offer of the ring in terror of what he knew he was capable of. Galadriel was tempted by the offer of the ring as well, but she refused it for similar reasons. Frodo was just a hobbit. No magical abilities, very little physical strength. The only thing he could do with the ring was turn invisible, which is apparently an extension of a Hobbit's natural stealth ability. With the ring in the hands of Frodo, the world was not threatened. Only Frodo himself was at risk.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 30, 2018, 10:19:15 AM
Not all of Sauron's troops were "naturally evil". Faramir wondered what lies they were told.
Not all evil ... were any evil? I am beginning to wonder. Sorry, the White hat/Black hat narrative is racism itself. Hitler etc were never wrong, nobody is.
Quote from: Baruch on November 30, 2018, 01:03:30 PM
Hitler etc were never wrong
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/c67da678d745dbab8a86759d9e629d3d/tumblr_oxfj26oTjI1u9fa5qo1_500.gif)
Galadriel's comments about Sauron's fabrication of the ring at the beginning of "Fellowship" explained why it was dangerous. Sauron's corporeal form was destroyed when the ring was severed from him, but the core essence of Sauron survived in the ring. Frodo and Bilbo had so little power that ring could only influence them to make bad choices.
QuoteFrodo and Bilbo had so little power that ring could only influence them to make bad choices.
The same could be said of almost all men, though.
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 30, 2018, 01:33:18 PM
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/c67da678d745dbab8a86759d9e629d3d/tumblr_oxfj26oTjI1u9fa5qo1_500.gif)
I piss on anyone's virtue signaling. If Russia is Satan, then Hitler was right to try to destroy it, and the Allies were wrong to support Stalin. With a Nazi victory, there would only be German-style socialism in Europe (EU with a real army), Stalinism would be dead, and Mao would have ended up in Auschwitz. Would, from the POV of W European democratic socialists, that be all that bad? Black-White thinking is simple minded. The good are bad, and the bad are good. Just ask the folks at Hiroshima.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 30, 2018, 06:39:33 PM
The same could be said of almost all men, though.
Are you short, with hairy feet? Didn't think so. More like the tragic king of Gondor who couldn't destroy the ring (I can use it for liberalism!).
Quote from: Baruch on November 30, 2018, 07:21:00 PM
I piss on anyone's virtue signaling. If Russia is Satan, then Hitler was right to try to destroy it, and the Allies were wrong to support Stalin. With a Nazi victory, there would only be German-style socialism in Europe (EU with a real army), Stalinism would be dead, and Mao would have ended up in Auschwitz. Would, from the POV of W European democratic socialists, that be all that bad? Black-White thinking is simple minded. The good are bad, and the bad are good. Just ask the folks at Hiroshima.
Your word salad needs croutons.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 30, 2018, 07:56:35 PM
Your word salad needs croutons.
The idea that in some objective way (rather than some chauvinist way) the US is good, and that who we choose to fight are bad ... is closed minded. Particularly for gay/video-gaming/sci fantasy addicts. Thinking alternative history (British victory over Washington or the US siding with Kaiser Wilhelm) is simply smart. Of course it is an armchair exercise. Given some intentional change over here, there is no way to prevent an unintended change over there.
How about a Persian victory over the Greeks? Prevent Western Civ from forming in the first place. It would make the SJW wet their underoos. Or the Chinese junk fleet getting to California circa 1500, and preventing European colonization in the New World. Then the Chinese would be 500 years ahead of their current plan ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxFvZE_-GM
The number 2 language in the US, in 1914, was German. In the 1920s-1930s, the US War Dept had Plan Red, to defeat the British Empire and seize Canada.
"It is better to have a plan and not need it than to need a plan and not have it."
The War Plans were developed at the Army and Navy War Colleges. The northern border of the US presents a nearly unique situation, many miles of undefended, and in some cases indefensible, border. So studying how we would do that gives us a chance to consider what is needed in such a war.
The idea that we were planning to go to war with Brits is shear dumbassery.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 01, 2018, 06:59:04 AM
"It is better to have a plan and not need it than to need a plan and not have it."
The War Plans were developed at the Army and Navy War Colleges. The northern border of the US presents a nearly unique situation, many miles of undefended, and in some cases indefensible, border. So studying how we would do that gives us a chance to consider what is needed in such a war.
The idea that we were planning to go to war with Brits is shear dumbassery.
We plan to go to war with every nation ... not if, but when. Humans are predatory. The US is predatory. Not that is a bad thing. I predated on a chicken for supper last night ;-) If you want to see real efficient predation, you have to study a vegetarian like Hitler.
And in particular, the US, not not Britain, might have been better off without the BoE coup of Federal Reserve in 1913. It was originally Teddy Roosevelt who made Britain and France become partners, before 1913. He was pro-British (as am I). But that doesn't make it right, even with his face on Mt Rushmore.
Quote from: Baruch on December 01, 2018, 08:07:17 AM
We plan to go to war with every nation ... not if, but when. Humans are predatory. The US is predatory. Not that is a bad thing. I predated on a chicken for supper last night ;-) If you want to see real efficient predation, you have to study a vegetarian like Hitler.
And in particular, the US, not not Britain, might have been better off without the BoE coup of Federal Reserve in 1913. It was originally Teddy Roosevelt who made Britain and France become partners, before 1913. He was pro-British (as am I). But that doesn't make it right, even with his face on Mt Rushmore.
I started laughing at the first sentence. You're the second most ignorable person on this forum.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 01, 2018, 12:15:31 PM
I started laughing at the first sentence. You're the second most ignorable person on this forum.
I will have to keep trying then ;-)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 30, 2018, 02:36:49 PM
Galadriel's comments about Sauron's fabrication of the ring at the beginning of "Fellowship" explained why it was dangerous. Sauron's corporeal form was destroyed when the ring was severed from him, but the core essence of Sauron survived in the ring. Frodo and Bilbo had so little power that ring could only influence them to make bad choices.
I'm not quite sure about that. I think Sauron certainly sufferred a great loss of power when he lost the One Ring he had put so much of his power into, but he surely still held much. And I have the impression that the power of the One Ring was such that it sought the best way to return to Sauron.
And I had the impression that Sauron willingly changed his form to The Eye rather than was forced to give up his corporeal form (I would not debate this, as I said "impression" in a slight uncertainity). But I think most of him was still there aside from the Ring.
Consider thgis. When the Ring was present at the Council Of Elrond, was Sauron present? No, the Ring gained power by closeness to Sauron. So Sauron was still the major force (as I think a Mian).
When Gollum took the Ring, Sauron was still the majot force (see the Nazgul streaking to My Doom).
But I am at the limits of my recollection.
But there was also a suggestion that the Hobbits (being relatively innocent of power) were not so "of little power" as being less influenced by it. Bilbo gave it up 3 times after all (once to Gandalf to examine, once when it was thrown into his fireplace, and finally in the envelope to Frodo. As Gandalf said "Hobbits are rather tough". And Frodo set the Ring aside at the Council Of Elrond (forgive me if I don't get some of the terms exactly right, it's been years).
It was only after the hardships of bearing the Ring even to the very heart of Mordor that Frodo began to yield to the power.
Good analysis. If I was Sauron, I would be primarily incorporeal by design, and use the physical form as tele-dildonics.
Quote from: Baruch on January 12, 2019, 08:33:07 AM
Good analysis. If I was Sauron, I would be primarily incorporeal by design, and use the physical form as tele-dildonics.
I looked that up. I saw and left...
More importantly, IIRC, Sauron never seduced anyone quite that way.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 12, 2019, 09:01:25 AM
I looked that up. I saw and left...
More importantly, IIRC, Sauron never seduced anyone quite that way.
You simply aren't into S&M ... Sauron would be an awesome sadist ;-))
Sauron with a masochist leader of Minas Tirith ...
Denethor: Please destroy my city ...
Sauron: No
Quote from: Baruch on January 12, 2019, 12:19:48 PM
You simply aren't into S&M ... Sauron would be an awesome sadist ;-))
Sauron with a masochist leader of Minas Tirith ...
Denethor: Please destroy my city ...
Sauron: No
Cracked UP. That was GOOD! In that sense, Sauron SHOULD have seen close up as his Ring melted with e "mere" Gollum holding it. But better safe than sorry. Let the deed be done safely.
Sauron had no respect for OSHA. Mt Doom would have never have passed a safety inspection. There weren't even any safety rails over the diving board platform into the lava pit ;-((
Quote from: Shiranu on November 27, 2018, 01:08:30 PM
Grow up and/or fuck off dude.
I was quoting what Buruch said about him. Your little kid games of cherry picking aren't cute, they are pathetic.
I swear, almost all of munch's recent posts of the past year is just him being a conservative troll.
Time warp dude? Part of an Outer Limits episode? Look at the date on that necro!
Quote from: Cavebear on January 12, 2019, 04:50:41 AM
I'm not quite sure about that. I think Sauron certainly sufferred a great loss of power when he lost the One Ring he had put so much of his power into, but he surely still held much. And I have the impression that the power of the One Ring was such that it sought the best way to return to Sauron.
And I had the impression that Sauron willingly changed his form to The Eye rather than was forced to give up his corporeal form (I would not debate this, as I said "impression" in a slight uncertainity). But I think most of him was still there aside from the Ring.
Consider thgis. When the Ring was present at the Council Of Elrond, was Sauron present? No, the Ring gained power by closeness to Sauron. So Sauron was still the major force (as I think a Mian).
When Gollum took the Ring, Sauron was still the majot force (see the Nazgul streaking to My Doom).
But I am at the limits of my recollection.
But there was also a suggestion that the Hobbits (being relatively innocent of power) were not so "of little power" as being less influenced by it. Bilbo gave it up 3 times after all (once to Gandalf to examine, once when it was thrown into his fireplace, and finally in the envelope to Frodo. As Gandalf said "Hobbits are rather tough". And Frodo set the Ring aside at the Council Of Elrond (forgive me if I don't get some of the terms exactly right, it's been years).
It was only after the hardships of bearing the Ring even to the very heart of Mordor that Frodo began to yield to the power.
Didn't Sauron manifest himself as a "necromancer" after he was defeated, before he had that eye tower thing? I don't know. The lore of LotR is really confusing sometimes.
The Hobbit movie says "the Necromancer" was in the old castle, and that turned out to be Sauron.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 13, 2019, 12:04:25 PM
The Hobbit movie says "the Necromancer" was in the old castle, and that turned out to be Sauron.
So he was in a spirit form, raising the dead, and causing trouble until he was caught and forced to flee? It seems like the eye tower was made for him, but followers who hoped to take advantage of his power once the ring had been returned to him.
I thought he "rebuilt" the Eye Tower?
When the LotR movies where at their height and popularity, and lotr merchandise was everywhere, I got several encyclopedias on the whole tolkein universe, spent much a time going over the details and characters in the world he made.
Some of its foggy now, but I still have the books and informations easy enough online.
Quote from: Munch on January 13, 2019, 04:42:51 PM
When the LotR movies where at their height and popularity, and lotr merchandise was everywhere, I got several encyclopedias on the whole tolkein universe, spent much a time going over the details and characters in the world he made.
Some of its foggy now, but I still have the books and informations easy enough online.
So, dish it out!
I pretty much got everything about the book and film, including much of the stuff left out from the movies. But it was the deeper lore, like in the silmarillion, the evil or morgoth, the great lanterns, the trees of valinor, their destruction by morgoth and ungolient, all broader sense of lore the actually enriched the Tolkien universe for me even more.
(http://tolkiengateway.net/w/images/0/07/Ted_Nasmith_-_Illuin%2C_Lamp_of_the_Valar.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/17/9f/0c/179f0c483fd05c6767607ed0b05e42f7.jpg)
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 13, 2019, 11:49:54 AM
Didn't Sauron manifest himself as a "necromancer" after he was defeated, before he had that eye tower thing? I don't know. The lore of LotR is really confusing sometimes.
Duh.
I'm reminded about an episode of Deep Space 9 of a slave-like race, the Jem'Hadar that are bred for warfare and only warfare. Well, in this episode the away crew come across a Jem'Hadar infant, and Odo takes him under his wing, because for some reason the Jem'Hadar worship the Founders, and Odo being a changeling, the same race as the Founders, so this Jem'Hadar worships Odo. Odo tries to change his nature, that he should be considerate and basically good. It doesn't go well in that episode.
It's the old nature vs nurture debate.
Anyways, it's a fantasy setting in LOTR, where non-human invaders try to kill everyone that isn't an orc or uruk-hai. That SJWs try to play this as something else entirely is just ridiculous.
With humans, we share the same nature.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 13, 2019, 01:19:46 PM
I thought he "rebuilt" the Eye Tower?
Yes. Barad-dur was destroyed at the end of the second age. Sauron rebuilt it during the 70ish year period between the being driven out of Dol Guldur by the White Council and the beginning of the LoTR story.
I thought it was a nice touch in the Battle of Five Armies movie that when Sarun first took the shape of the eye the pupil of the eye was shaped like Sauron's humanoid form.
Melkor was the fallen leader of some Ainur at the founding of the world. After being cast into the Earth, he tried to seize power and was cast down by other Ainur. His lieutenant was Sauron. Sauron was the evil of the Earth afterwards as detailed in The Silmarillion. Sauron placed much of his power into the One Ring he created to control the lesser rings given to the dwarves, men, and elves in a scheme to control them. The men fell easily and became the ringwraiths. The dwarves were harder to overcome (coming from rock and stone), but he got most of them. The elves with rings were outside his ability to control, though he broke a few heroes and created the orcs from them.
The elvers fought most of The Great Wars but were slowly driven back from Sauron's work and internal divisions. In the last great battle, the elves and men overcame Sauron but the men took the ring as trophy and it was lost. That began the struggle of the 3rd Age.
Sauron sought his Ring, the Ring sought Sauron and the lesser being of the world emerged. Hobbits, Ents, etc.
The hobbits won, hurray. Bilbo, Ring, Gollum, Ents, Gandalf, Orcs, Frodo, you know that part. I can't write this stuff forever.
So why is that all racist?
The Orcs, if portrayed as pale blond haired folks, yet evil, would match today's un-racism. The opponents of Sauron etc should all be gay women of color.
Quote from: Baruch on February 03, 2019, 03:31:43 PM
The Orcs, if portrayed as pale blond haired folks, yet evil, would match today's un-racism. The opponents of Sauron etc should all be gay women of color.
I expected SOMETHING like that (though the specifics were a surprise). And I understand, in a way. I would love to have see Orcs as the pale blonde types and the elves as swarthy little ugly ones. Oh but wait, that sounds like dwarves and they were "good guys" too. Sorry about that...
But here is something to consider... Maybe it was the Neanderthals who had blonde/red hair and blue eyes and the Cro-magnons who brought us dark hair and brown eyes? Both light color hair and eyes are to be expected of people who had lived in and were evolutionarily Northern climes for a few hundred thousand years rather than the recently-arrived modern humans who hadn't have had so much time to adapt to reduces sunlight... Just a thought.