>“You could put a superhero in the real world for a dramatic effect, because they are kind of stupid. They got these tight costumes, stupid names; they’re kind of unbelievable, so if you actually put them in the real world and have people reacting to them the way that people would, you’d laugh at them, you’d be scared of them. It would be a different way of looking at them, so that’s what went mostly into Watchmen.
“[Gibbons and I] thought about superhero types like Batman, so I thought, ‘What would he be like in the real world.’ And he’d be very much like Rorschach—if you’re a revenge-driven vigilante, you’re not quite right in the head. Yeah, alright, your parents got killed when you were a kid, whatever, that’s upsetting. But for most of us, if our parents were killed when we were little, would not become a bat-themed costumed vigilante—that’s a bit mental.
So, I thought, ‘Alright, if there was a Batman in the real world, he probably would be a bit mental.’ He wouldn’t have time for a girlfriend, friends, a social life, because he’d just be driven by getting revenge against criminals… dressed up as a bat for some reason. He probably wouldn’t be very careful about his personal hygiene. He’d probably smell. He’d probably eat baked beans out of a tin. He probably wouldn’t talk to many people. His voice probably would have become weird with misuse, his phraseology would be strange.
>“I wanted to kind of make this like, ‘Yeah, this is what Batman would be in the real world.’ But I had forgotten that actually to a lot of comic fans that smelling, not having a girlfriend—these are actually kind of heroic. So actually, sort of, Rorschach became the most popular character in Watchmen. I meant him to be a bad example, but I have people come up to me in the street saying, ‘I am Rorschach! That is my story!’ And I’ll be thinking, ‘Yeah, great, can you just keep away from me and never come anywhere near me again for as long as I live?’”
Moore hates Roschard
Other urls found in this thread:
stevensurman.com
twitter.com
RoschardFags BTFO
stevensurman.com
Rorscharch is a parody of a far right conspiracy theorist who hates women, hates homosexuals, reads alternate-universe versions of Breitbart, and is the embodiment of America’s destructive War on Drugs.
>But I had forgotten that actually to a lot of comic fans that smelling, not having a girlfriend—these are actually kind of heroic
Kek, bants
Seriously though, big talk coming from Alan Fucking Moore. Pot meets kettle
>Rorscharch is a parody of a far right conspiracy theorist who hates women, hates homosexuals, reads alternate-universe versions of Breitbart, and is the embodiment of America’s destructive War on Drugs.
This is all true.
But then, the problem we're confronted with: why was he the most moral and correct one of the group>?
Maybe Alan wanted to show that there was no right side and human beings are complicated complex beings. I remember that being the theme concerning the Comedian's story as well.
Him being portrayed as a rapist asshole who turned out to have a passionate affair with the original Silk Spectre. Also having the humanity to actually be horrified at Ozymandias' plans.
but how is this related to Doomsday clock
>But I had forgotten that actually to a lot of comic fans that smelling, not having a girlfriend—these are actually kind of heroic.
Absolutely savage.
It's Rorschad not Roschard you fucking casual.
He was neither, you just identify yourself with his values.
The interview is older than OP.
It's from at least 2011. Moore even quit comics (and talking about comics) in 2015, when his first prose novel was released.
As much as OP would like daddy Alan to care, he doesn't, and he never will.
Nope; it's an undeniable fact that Rorschach was the most principled of the characters
>tfw love Rorschach and read Breitbart daily
I agree that the way on drugs is a crock of shit, though. At least pot should be legalized nationwide.
legalize pot and tax the shit out of it so at least those fucking stoners can do something useful.
Seriously, stoners are fucking annoying to deal with, worse than drunks
No; he was the only one not willing to compromise or be party to mass murder. Yes, he was crazy and no, I don't share his political or social views, but at the end of the day he understood you can't build something on deception
Do you also read real news or just hugbox opinion blogs?
Yea, everyone over the age of 20 who doesn't consistently post on /r9k/, Sup Forums and the_donald knows that Rorschach is a clown.
>inb4 someone over the age of 20 who consistently posts on /r9k/, Sup Forums and the_donald telling me what a cuck soyboy I am
>make a strawman
>oops my strawman is too cool
a trait of bad writers
no wonder rorshrek is so good
Cape comics are suppose to be like modern myths meant to inspire. Making them real defeats the purpose. And this isn't new. Humanity has been telling such stories for millenia.
I don't want to read about heroes like me. I don't like me. I want to better than me. I want to be inspired.
If everything has to be real to you, then you never learned to dream of something better.
The point is, the characters in Watchmen are still something to aspire to be, no matter what Moore says.
Rorschach never bows down to pressure, and is always true to himself, even in the face of death.
Ozymandias went from a 0 to the most powerful man in the world just because he wanted to.
>Roschard
>Rorscharch
>Rorschad
>rorshrek
I'm done
Rorschach isn't supposed to be cool. He's a crazy fucking nut hobo who sleeps in garbage and likely stinks of sweat and piss.
It's honestly no wonder Moore fucking despairs at the state of comics. He writes a character who is a clear indictment of far right nut jobs, and his audience spend the next 30 years banging on about how cool he is.
Moore's biggest mistake was assuming that the vast majority of people who read comics are in any way capable of analysing a text, even at a purely surface level. Rorschachfags are illiterate spastics.
>Guys I have a better opinion, everything should be like I want, because there should be no variety.
They are simply characters with good and bad traits.
Both of the guys you cited are ultimately self righteous bastards without perspective, one ends up killing millions because he thinks mathematic supports it, the other wants to nonsensically flush it away.
Those are 2 people with their respective high morals.
What's wrong with Rochambeau?
He should really come out as Rasputin now.
If your take from the end was that Rorschach was absolutely morally correct in making all those deaths be in vain, then congratulations, you're exactly the black and white randian moron Moore was trying to skewer.
The point of the ending was to shit on that. There's clearly shades of grey there. Adrian is a fucking monster for killing all those people, but he's potentially brought about an end to the cold war and nuclear annihilation. There's clear shades of grey there, you can come down on either side of the argument there, but there is no objective right or wrong. The fucking point of Rorschach is to show how Objectivism is a load of shit.
>It's honestly no wonder Moore fucking despairs at the state of comics. He writes a character who is a clear indictment of far right nut jobs, and his audience spend the next 30 years banging on about how cool he is.
Then maybe he shouldn't have tried to make him cool.
Everything from the comic itself (the raid, terrifying criminals just by showing himself, "I'm not locked in here with you, you're locked in here with me") to the background (refusing to bow down to the Keane act, dropping that BDSM guy down an elevator shaft) illustrates how cool he is, and pretentious faggots like you sneer about how he is a "disgusting right-wing caricature"
>but he's potentially brought about an end to the cold war and nuclear annihilation
Why has nobody posted this yet?
>black-and-white morality is good
>a total inability to compromise is good
Oops, you're fucking retarded
Fine, he's ended the immediate threat of it. That doesn't counter my point at all.
>moral
One of the books includes an essay he wrote in school where he says the bombing of Japan during WW2 was justified because it prevented more lives being taken later. The guy's a hypocrite who's throwing a fit because >muh America
>people always rave about how Rorschach is racist, homophobic, Sup Forums, etc.
>not once in the entire story does he ever do anything racist or homophobic except read an alt right newspaper and muse about how he thinks Veidt might be gay
Why are people blowing this part of him the fuck out of proportion? I'm as liberal as they come and I had never read Watchmen until recently and everyone had be expecting him to be gay bashing or targeting black criminals just because of their skin color. The only people he kills are rapists and murderes so why are you all acting like he's some alt right faggot going out and starting race wars?
>not understanding what that means
Ozy's plan works in the short term. Earth isn't going to blow itself up with nukes in the next 10 years anymore.
That doesn't change humanity's fundamental nature, so EVENTUALLY we'll destroy ourselves, but it's made very clear that in the short-term Veidt's plan worked just fucking fine.
Anyone who finished Watchmen and said anything to the effect of "X was just wrong," "Y was just right," or "Z was pointless" is a fucking moron who missed the entire point.
The point is that Adrian might well have sacrificed millions of people for nothing
>but it's made very clear that in the short-term Veidt's plan worked just fucking fine
J O U R N A L
The point is Walter wanted to make sure it was for nothing.
>he was a little kid projecting his absence of a father onto the president
>the atomic bombing wasn't built off a global lie that manipulated people and killed innocents just to preserve the illusion before it was even off the ground
He's hypocritical technically but don't act like it's an identical parallel.
>not willing to compromise
This is not good in itself. Compromise is not a bad thing per se.
And Rorscharch values truth at the expense of peace. Most people would prefer a peace based on a lie than a war brought out by the truth. Even more in Watchmen were war means the end of the world.
>It's Rorschach's fault Veidt's insane
>No; he was the only one not willing to compromise
Which is the most fundamental and horrifying part of his moral code - its inflexibility. Moral absolutism is not something to be lauded, it is something to be feared.
Rorschach is the kind of psycho that would answer a trolley problem with 99% of the world population on the main track and 1% on the switch track by saying he shouldn't flip the switch because that would make him party to murder.
Shit, the actions he takes are basically the train going on the track killing 1%, then rorschach pushing the train back and forcing it to take the other track as well.
Anyone who believes that his inability to compromise is in any way a good thing or that it makes him more moral than the other characters has a child's understanding of morality.
He wanted to make sure people knew, because he felt the world deserved to know. Maybe he thought the families of all those who died, and all those in the world affected by the event, had a right to know the truth.
Hating Rorschach unconditionally because Alan Moore said he's not a hero is just as stupid as loving Rorschach unconditionally because he has a nice costume.
>kid's uninformed opinion
>20 years of personal growth and development
>has another opinion
>DURR WHAT A HYPOCRITE
Congrats, you might be the stupidest poster in this thread
The journal of a hated madman that we don't even know gets published, and if it does it gets published by a hyper right-wing conspiracy nut paper.
You didn't understand that scene.
It's to show that the truth is still out there and reiterate Jon's point that this is only a temporary peace. It's not saying "lol this collapses in a few weeks"
see
You're also wrong, or purposefully misrepresenter the situation. There is no guarantee that nuclear war will be prevented if Rorschach keeps quiet, and there's no guarantee that nuclear war would occur if he told the truth.
He only thought it was justified because his daddy figure said so.
Because unsavory places on the internet like reddit and /r/thedonald along with your usual suspects like edgy teens have made it uncool to like or empathize with a character like Rorschach. No one wants to be accused of being an autist or edgelord or racist for liking him, so people scramble to come up with excuses why they don't even if it means exaggerating his negative aspects or outright ignoring parts of canon that show that he's more human than he lets on.
You all know I'm right.
>he felt the world deserved to know
You don't understand the first fucking thing about Rorschach you pretentious little twat.
Rorschach hates everyone. Everyone. EVERYONE.
No one deserves shit. No one is good. No one is worthy. They're all fucking cockroaches to him.
He doesn't try to tell the world because people need to know, or peace built on a lie can't last, or whatever stupid shit YOU believe that you've projected onto Rorscach.
He was going to tell everyone because murder is bad and Veidt is a murderer and that's his black and white code of ethics that he is incapable of straying from.
>Rorschach hates everyone. Everyone. EVERYONE.
>No one deserves shit. No one is good. No one is worthy. They're all fucking cockroaches to him.
Where is this implied in the text?
Also, you don't know the first thing about Rorschach, he's a literal fucking murder you absolute plebian.
He cares about murdering innocents, which is already more presonable than Ozymandias.
I'd remind you that the death of some washed up vet started off the whole story
>Rorschach felt the world needed to know!
Holy shit, nice projection you fucking faggot.
Rorscach literally starts the book by saying how if the entire world screamed for help he'd watch them burn. He does not give a fuck about what people "deserve."
>There is no guarantee that nuclear war will be prevented if Rorschach keeps quiet, and there's no guarantee that nuclear war would occur if he told the truth.
We are quite literally shown that Veidt's plan ends the cold war and begins a period of unprecedented cooperation between the US and Russia.
There's no guarantee that peace will LAST, but it is extremely clear that in the short term Veidt's plan is viable. Why the fuck do you think Jon goes along with it? Why do you think Jon prevents Rorschach from getting back to civilization? Because if he does it all gets undone. If he dies there, the peace lasts for a short time.
Motherfucker looks through time and there's no tachyons left. Kill yourself for misunderstanding a book so fucking old and over-analyzed.
>Rorschach hates everyone. Everyone. EVERYONE
He likes Dan, clearly enough to GO TO HIM FIRST when he finds out about the Comedian's death, and clearly enough to swallow his pride and apologize for being a dick.
And you're forgetting the fact that the entire reason he went crazy to begin with was because he cared so much about saving Blair Roche that the brutality of her death drove him off the deep end.
>Where is this implied in the text?
His opening. Fucking. Monologue.
Rorschach is about punishing evil, not protecting good. The fucking end.
>Cape comics are suppose to be like modern myths meant to inspire.
This is bullshit. People like to trace link between Superman and his click and heroes and gods of the mythology. And sure, they are links. But that's not what define them.
Cape comics are supposed to be inspiring not because there're modern myths but because they were made for kids; and you try to tell positive stories to children.
Except a lot of cape comics aren't made for kids nowadays. And thus don't need to be inspiring and can be critical. Like dark fairy tales made for an older audience.
Moore wrote and included that essay to intentionally draw a parallel.
>people ITT arguing that Veidt's peace is broken instantly by the journal
>people ITT arguing that Rorschach gave a fuck about anyone besides his man-crush Dan
>people ITT arguing that Rorschach being a psychopath incapable of compromising his moral absolutism is a good thing
>people ITT arguing that Rorschach wanted to reveal the truth about Veidt for anything even remotely resembling practical or altruistic reasons
Holy shit there's a lot of stupid motherfuckers in this thread
It’s baffling
>Rorscach literally starts the book by saying how if the entire world screamed for help he'd watch them burn. He does not give a fuck about what people "deserve."
Rorschach thinks he doesn't care, but when confronted with Ozymandias' plan, he finds he does care enough, even to the point of death.
>There's no guarantee that peace will LAST, but it is extremely clear that in the short term Veidt's plan is viable.
You say 'viable' as if nuclear war was certain. It wasn't, but it was a constant problem that Ozymandias got mad at not being able to fix. Even without the stupid squid, there may have been no nuclear war. There was no mutant squid in the real world.
>Why do you think Jon prevents Rorschach from getting back to civilization? Because if he does it all gets undone. If he dies there, the peace lasts for a short time.
I love that you think whatever the characters *you* like do are what Alan Moore believes to be the right thing to do. Have you ever thought that even Alan Moore himself would not have a clear answer as to the right thing to do in that situaton?
>Kill yourself for misunderstanding a book so fucking old and over-analyzed.
Kill yourself for thinking you understand it all perfectly because you go on r/graphicnovels.
???
>Hating Rorschach unconditionally because Alan Moore said he's not a hero is just as stupid as loving Rorschach unconditionally because he has a nice costume.
What the fuck are you talking about.
I am contesting the argument that Rorschach is an inspiring character with "moral guideline" that absolves delusional judgment.
Whatever opinion Moore farted out has no merit over what is in the book.
To avoid repetition: Morals are the most dangerous shit in the world.
Then why doesn't he target anyone that commits petty offenses, Punisher style? Why does he compromise multiple times in the story when he's confronted with someone who's done wrong but he doesn't have the heart to go through with punishing them out of pity? Why does one of his monologues end with him talking about the importance of having hope because life is so important and worth protecting? Please give me an excuse to dig through my copy so I can write that entire speech down, because it singlehandedly dismantles your entire argument.
>Morals are the most dangerous thing in the world
t. brainlet.
Do you think an amoral society would be a better place to live?
>babby's first tidbit of comic book knowledge
>he's a literal fucking murder you absolute plebian.
Because he's also a hypocrite you fucking moron. That's the point Moore was trying to make about Objectivism and how people who believe in it are crazy assholes. Their strict worldview that they use to malign others doesn't apply to them in the same way, because they can explain away any hypocrisy on their part. In Rorschach's case, because he's dispensing "justice"
Rorschach is a skewering of Randian black and white moral Objectivism. Hence the mask. If you really don't get that about him, then you don't know what you're on about. Rorschach doesn't care about other people, because Objectivists don't care about other people. They care about what is "right", and what is "wrong" in their eyes. There is black and there is white, and there is nothing in between. The ending is a skewering of that ideology because the ending isn't black and white. It's grey. That's the fucking point. Rorschach posting the journal makes sense to his moral code, but it could also potentially see everyone die in nuclear hellfire. Can you genuinely not see the moral quandry at play at the end of the book? If you can, then you accept that Objectivism is bollocks. Which, again, is the entire fucking point
Jesus Christ.
>Morals are the most dangerous shit in the world.
dipp :DDDD
Where do people get that Roarshark was homophobic/sexist? He's just uncomfortable with all sexuality due to his childhood.
>Rorschach thinks he doesn't care, but when confronted with Ozymandias' plan, he finds he does care enough, even to the point of death
Pure projection.
Rorschach can't break his moral absolutism. That's the reason. Full stop. If you disagree you're wrong and stupid.
We're done here.
Or maybe its because he doesn't mind murdering criminals but he does mind murdering innocents? You know, what is shown throughout the whole graphic novel? No, no, no, I'm sure your unique interpretation is the real reason.
>when confronted with Ozymandias' plan, he finds he does care enough, even to the point of death.
No, he doesn't. Not about people anyway. He cares that what Adrian did was wrong. He literally can't see the argument that Adrians plan might bring about the end of the cold war, and a diffusion of nuclear tensions (no matter how brief) because Adrian did something wrong and that's all there is to it. The people dying wasn't the impetus. It was Adrian not being morally just.
>I'm right, you're wrong lalala!
Yep. we're definitely done here, I accept your concession.
You know, after going through this thread, I think you might be onto something.
Moore literally wrote him as a criticism of moral objectivism. If you don't see his hypocrisy as part of that criticism, then you don't understand the book.
You want to be an objectivist? Cool. Shine on you crazy diamond, but just like Rorschach was not written to be an inspirational character. He was written as a criticism, and to ignore parts of that criticism make you as blind about Rorschach as the character is about himself.
>You say 'viable' as if nuclear war was certain
Nigger did you even fucking read the book
>why doesn't the book cover him beating the shit out of petty offenders
It does.
>why does he compromise multiple times
He doesn't - if you're referring to Moloch he literally did nothing wrong
>his speech about hope
He literally just says that there's hope if there's life in the middle of talking about how shit the world is and how Comedian knew it was all a joke.
The last thing he had said was "Soon there will be war. Millions will burn. Millions will perish in sickness and misery. Why does one death matter against so many? Because there is good and there is evil, and evil must be punished. "
Come off it.
No, you're not. Moore wrote him as a criticism. If you miss that, you're fucking illiterate, edgelord or not.
I think Rorschach is a fantastic character, I don't think he was "in the right" though. You're not supposed to.
>that interpretation
>"unique"
Will it take Moore screaming "you're a fucking daft cunt" directly into your face to get across how wrong you are?
All characters were written as a criticism, thats basically the point of Watchmen. Rorschach was NOT however, written as a cartoon villain who was completely in the wrong. There's a difference, and its laughable that you look down on those that are able to see this difference. My bet is that you've never had to analyze a text anywhere above highschool level.
Protip: If you went up to Alan Moore and said 'Hey Alan, Rorsrcharch was SOOO stoopid, and everything he did was DUMB, and what he did at the end was DUMB and everyone else was right!!' he would not be impressed.
You're talking to a brick wall, user.
This user has clearly tied his personal morals to Rorschach in such a way that if Rorschach is actually stupid and essentially wrong that means HE is stupid and essentially wrong.
And people can't deal with that anymore.
So you are saying that Rorschach has a problem with murder fullstop, and not with murdering innocents? That IS a unique interpretation and one I doubt Alan Moore would agree with.
only a total pleb JOHNS would think that the journal would stop Ozy. it doesn't have credibility; it would just become a focus for conspiracy-tards and would be sadly disregarded by the mainstream.
>and everyone else was right!
That you even see it as a question of Rorschach vs the others, that their decisions are in direct opposition to each other, defly illustrates how poorly you understand the subject matter.
>Rorschach was NOT however, written as a cartoon villain who was completely in the wrong.
I know he wasn't. I've argued that repeatedly througout this thread. The fact that he isn't completely wrong is the entire fucking point you utter, utter spastic. See, Rorschach believes you can only be either right or wrong, and that there is no inbetween because he's a goddamn objectivist. That's their philosophy. The fact that he's not completely wrong shatters that, doesn't it?
Not at all, I'm no objectivist, I think the viewpoint is disgusting. I just realize that there's a level of ambiguity to Watchmen that almost no one in this thread will admit to (ironically, for fear of being unintelligent).
Everyone here is ironically, reading Watchmen as black and white, as Rorschach would do.
Rorschach has a problem with murder full stop.
Rorschach is a hypocrite.
Hypocrites do things they're not ok with others doing, and justify it. In his case, he's dispensing justice.
On top of that you're conflating murder and killing.
I'm a bifag and when I read Watchmen as a teen I always saw his """"homophobia"""" (I really didn't even notice it as first) as just being a result of it being 1985 and his latching on of right-wing views as a way of idolising and respecting his father. My dad was a piece of shit too who was absent a lot so I often tried to emulate him and took a lot of his values as my own for his approval or I'd build him up in my head as this manly, cool, rolling stone type figure with a devil-may-care attitude who didn't give a fuck about anything and lived how he wanted when he was just an alcoholic who abandoned me repeatedly. It was a way of coping with it all (and a very common way at that, loads of kids who have scumbag fathers do the same) and I always assumed Rorschach was just doing the same and everyone knew it until I started discussing the character on literally any site on the internet and was met with "hurr durr yeah hes cool but the homophobia is pretty lame".
It's always shocked me how much people care about and latched onto Rorschach's alleged 'homophobia' when it was just a couple of passing comments at most. That was pretty fucking mild for it being the 80s, especially when you consider the fact that he was intended to be this cariacaturish, detestable figure. Hell, I grew up in the late 90s/early 2000s and the average person I knew said more homophobic shit during dinner than this supposed fagbashing mental homeless freak ever did over the whole series.
The whole thing happened because some washed up guy got thrown out of a window and Rorschach just happened to notice the body and investigate; he didn't even know it was the Comedian.
>"not having a girlfriend"
But this is heroic? Women are awful creatures. I thank my genes everyday for making me gay.
>I just realize that there's a level of ambiguity to Watchmen that almost no one in this thread will admit to
Please, this chain has been nothing but someone willfully misinterpreting Rorschach's actions to provide him with sympathetic characterization that isn't. there.
Watchman is grey but this nigga is trying to tell us it's purple, and now you're trying to cover up all the projection and misinterpretation as vague "grey area" that you're not wrong about, we're all just unwilling to see.
Fuck off.
I've literally repeatedly said about how the end was morally grey. I'd say can you not read, but you've already displayed that you can't comprehend even fucking basic surface level concepts.
I think Rorschach did have a level of humanity hidden underneath his exterior, despite being warped by a disturbing moral view, and WAS repulsed by Ozymandias' plan because it killed innocent people.
If you're saying that this isn't possibly the case, then you are seeing it in black and white, as if only one possible message or 'judgement' about each character can be drawn.
If you're saying it IS possible but you see it differently, then we're arguing over nothing, as I'm merely arguing for the possibility.
>The ending is morally grey, except for Rorschach, who is completely wrong!
Lol.
I don’t like rosharch so much as I pitied him. Here was a man who is so dependent on the mask that he can no longer function in society, he’s dirty he stinks. Yet he fights on to try at least save some innocents or at the very least punish evil. Yet that final scene he’s punished because he refused to comprise and be complicit with a mass murderer. Is it really strange that some people might like him?
Alan Moore said its uncool to like him, and your average brainlet is deathly afraid of being found out as a brainlet, so now its the in thing to hate him unconditionally.
The justification is that he's hideously flawed, when Niteowl and Silk Spectre are just about the only characters who AREN'T hideously flawed, and are they really anyone's favourite Watchmen characters?
>I think Rorschach did have a level of humanity hidden underneath his exterior, despite being warped by a disturbing moral view, and WAS repulsed by Ozymandias' plan because it killed innocent people.
That's fine. It's clear that Kovacs still had some measure of empathy based on his relationship with Dan.
However, to extend that to his reasons to tell the world is fucking idiotic.
He didn't want to save anyone, he didn't think the world deserved to know, and he didn't "think of all the families who died" you projecting little twat. Veidt commited a crime. Crimes must be punished. That is the central conceit of the character. That is the core of his existence in the novel and it is the reason Kovacs has to die.
Also
>hurr its just my interpretation, interpretations can't be wrong
Yes they can you insufferable little faggot
Have you ever read Rand, user? If you have, you'd know how much she put across the idea of individualism. You don't help others, you help yourself.
A true Randian objectivist (which Rorschach is) wouldn't seek to break down Adrians plan because it killed others, they'd do it because to their mind it would be the morally just thing to do, and in their mind you're either morally just or your not.
I suggest actually looking into Randian philosophy. I know this sounds cartoonishly evil of them, but it's more or less what they actually believe.
You remind me of some liberal christians and muslims I have met that try their best to make sure their bible or quran is compatible with modern ideologies.
You are literally projecting. Alan Moore himself said he was right wing nut job, that includes hating the gays. I am sorry your idol turned out to be an asshole.
Just go back to closet if you can't cope.
>he fights on to try and save innocents
Retard detected.
See
You thick cunt.
>when Niteowl and Silk Spectre are just about the only characters who AREN'T hideously flawed
Is this really the popular reading? These are people who are so self-absorbed they have sex minutes after they let the guy who killed millions off the hook
Why did he talk about bodies in the foundations and start crying? I interpreted it as an actual empathic reaction to just how reprehensible Ozymandias' plan was.
Rorschach was gay
He wanted to fuck Dan
His whore mom and conservative views fucked up his relationship with sex wholesale
I know what Rand believed. I don't think Rorschach's actions support the idea that he's a true objectivist, but rather a man trying to be a true objectivist.
>Alan Moore himself said he was right wing nut job, that includes hating the gays
Yet the only proof of this in the comic itself is the comment about investigating whether Ozy is homo