What did he mean by this?

What did he mean by this?

That he was an edgelord

Fuck off Ozzy

Pro-tip: If you think Rorschach is cool or admirable, walk away from the comic and come back in a few years when you've matured a bit.

Rorschach is admirable, he was unshook in his views.

Doesn't mean I think he's right. I think he was the villain in the end. Despite being morally pure, he will end more lives then he has saved.

>Implying that asinine plan worked.

If a character has the littlest bit of edge Sup Forums thinks he can't have any merits.

His principle is admirable but he's naive and reckless. Neither him or Ozymandias are 'right'; they're two extreme solutions to the same issue of conflict. Rorschach accepts conflict as an inevitable part of life. Veidt is willing to commit horrible deeds in the name of ending conflict forever.

Doctor Manhattan telling Veidt 'Nothing ever ends' is essentially saying 'no victory is eternal'.

There's been an awful lot of "was rorshach right?" threads lately. I'm used to seeing them once or twice a month, but I feel like we've had one every day for like a week now.

At least this one doesn't have some autist posting about how Rorshach would've been a Trump voter

Every single news station is remarking that the nuclear standoff has ended. Months later America and Russia are still cooperating. If they print Rorshach's journal it will make zero difference because it'll appear in the back of a disreputable journal of opinion, and Rorshach is pretty much universally despised as a murderer.

Rorschach believed that the world was black and white there's no such thing as compromises to him.

Because there is no such thing is compromise. All compromise is temporary and eventually collapses as one side will always want their way more and more until there can be no disagreement. Rorshach was the hero of the story and people still fail to realize it because naively buy into the "peace" that Ozy created.

>Every single news station is remarking that the nuclear standoff has ended.

And?

The point of Manhattan's final conversation with Veidt is that you can't view anything as an ending.

It's because DC is raping Watchmen's corpse so a bunch of teens are finding out about it and going to read it.

And just twenty years before, the world had supposedly fought "The war to end all wars"

Ozy was naive and stupid, you can never end conflict because existence itself is conflict. You will never see eye to eye with everyone around you. Someone will never be satisfied and will always want more. Someone will simply just hate the way things are. You will never end conflict, you'll have to exterminate all life for that to happen

He did his part. He saved humanity for the time being.

He "presumed" to have saved humanity from nuclear oblivion. He didn't actually save them from anything, he just pointed their anger at something else and that will fade with time. Once again, foolish and naive. Not to mention that it was made near the end of the cold war so Moore wouldn't have known about the eventual collapse of the USSR or that nuclear war had been intentionally avoided by both sides for years because both weren't stupid and knew what it would result in.

Childhood Is when you worship Rorschach
Teenage Years is when you realize Ozzy makes more sense
Adulthood is when you realize that Rorschach was in fact Super Right

It'll take a long time for a threat of extraterrestrial origin to fade way. Way past his lifetime. Ozzy did what was right the best way he could.

Ozzy's plan making sense, and Rorschach being right are not necessarily contradictory.

If Armageddon is inevitable, trying to unite the world around an outside threat makes sense. But will it work?

Also, is Rorschach morally correct?

So accepting his design is cool and thinking his sense of justice was radical but objectively right on some cases is wrong?
This board became a place of bittered people who hate laws but complains when some character use illegal ways of punishing people who deserved it just because MUH EDGINESS

This is why Watchmen is so remembered. Moore went into a genre where the answers to big questions are usually handed to you on a plate and used those archetypes to give the audience a moral dilemma that isn't so easily solved.

Personally, I think the best art is that which causes meaningful debate, and I think Watchmen does that.

That he didn't want to let a psychotic mass murder who dresses and acts like an Egyptian pharaoh get away with killing half of New York

>objectively right on some cases
What justice should or shouldn't be dispensed isn't an objective discussion in the first place.

In all honesty it's not that deep. People with more conservative values side with Rorshach. Those with more liberal values side with Ozymandias.

Rorshach appeals to the value that no one has the right to determine our future, our actions,and our beliefs.

Ozymandias appeals to those who think that oversight from a more central figure is what we need because people clearly don't what's good for themselves and need to be "assisted"

I have always been torn with mostly every character on Watchmen, which is why I like it in the first place.
Rorschach, The Comedian, Dr Manhattan and Ozymandias all reflect parts of me.
I think Veidt did the right thing. Rorschach shouldn't kill humanity just because of his principles, but he died for them and for me is also right.

>People with more conservative values side with Rorshach. Those with more liberal values side with Ozymandias.
shouldn't it be the other way around? Liberals usually have a view that every life is worth keeping alive (depending on your views on abortion), but conservatives don't mind breaking a few eggs to make an omelette. Rorshach wanted everyone to know the truth and make their own decisions, but Ozy was happy to kill millions for his plans
Consider the refugee crises. Libs want to let them all in to "save" them, no matter the cost, but conservatives are happy to close the gates to protect their own people no matter what happens to the refugees.

This is what I mean. You're projecting your understanding of utilitarian and idealistic values onto the current primary conflict in American culture.

You see utilitarianism and idealism practised on both sides of the isle, and selectively in different situations.

>In all honesty it's not that deep.
No, it's simple. Depth isn't about complexity in presentation, at least not necessarily. Something doesn't need to be esoteric and difficult as a text to have depth.

In fact, I'd say that Watchmen strikes a great balance of readability and genuinely thought/emotion-provoking content. A text may contain great depth, but what's the point of that if depth if only 3 or 4 people really get anything for it?

>the truth is now considered an extreme solution
why couldnt i have been born at any other point in history?

>Rorshach was the hero of the story and people still fail to realize it because naively buy into the "peace" that Ozy created
Rorshach was the bad guy, according to Alan Moore himself.

The only good guys in the story were in no position to actually try and change everything.

It is when revealing the truth has the distinct possibility of wiping out all life on Earth.

Note I said 'extreme', not 'wrong'. Watchmen is about a clash of value systems.

If you're trying to find a good guy in Watchmen you're completely missing the point that there are no heroes.
At most you can make that argument about Dan. He didn't kill anyone but he chose to live with the horrible truth to protect the human race.

okay, so go back to defend pedophiles and serial killer you dipshit communist!

how are a million lives worth more than a single one when you decided it was ok to kill one man you decided it was ok to kill them all, good luck trying to hold on to your humanity in the distopia you built were everyone is guilty and innocent at the same time. You saved the world, for a while, but you didnt save the people

Recognizing my value system as subjective doesn't mean abandoning it.

Values are obviously subjective because paedophiles and serial killers exist in the first place. I don't think that those behaviours should be allowed, but I can recognize that there's no fundamental reason that those things are wrong. I just don't like people hurting others.

the ENTIRE point of Rorschach is to represent the black-and-white views of comics of the golden era and how that would be perceived as edgy in modern times

>how are a million lives worth more than a single one when you decided it was ok to kill one man you decided it was ok to kill them all

Did you, though? Ozymandias decided that the deaths were necessary in this situation to prevent further death in the future. You're saying that everyone is guilty and innocent at the same time, but the ethical system that Veidt is using is trying to work outside ideas of guilt and innocence.

That the character makes you feel so emotionally charged about his viewpoint is a good thing, user, but I'd say take an opportunity to really try and justify both the viewpoints of Veidt and Rorschach (and Manhattan, if you want to mess with your head a little) to get an understanding of their thought processes.

you have killed once you will kill again, you will become the same thing you were trying to avoid

the only thing that you have decided is that you are the one who gets to decide who lives and who dies
Look into stalinism, look into russia, north korea. Thats the world you saved, a world were people kill each other with clean hands, a world were the state kills you to protect you.
Mark my words you will kill again, and again and again, you will turn the world into something you regret saving

>i killed a person to save the world
and yet for the person you killed the world ended
congrtatulations you wanted to stop the world from becoming a place were innocent people are killed at any point for no reason by creating a world were innocent people are killed at any point for no reason.
Is society a tool or a goal, how many people have to die for your society?

>I can recognize that there's no fundamental reason that those things are wrong
That depends entirely on your beliefs. Most religions say that an all powerful being objectively says that murder is wrong.

Rorshach would have voted Trump, but purely because of Mike Pence

31 years later and people are still arguing about watchmen. This is why it's absolutely fantastic.

That and every time you read it through you notice something new.

This is an anonymous board, you can just not post if you have no argument next time.

How is saying that some people believe morality is subjective and some people believe it is objective "not an argument"

Rorschach's resolve is admirable regardless of whether or not his position is correct.

This guy gets it