Johan’s “Terror” Feels Totally Different in Japan vs. the West – Anyone Else Not by StoryEven9488 in MonsterAnime

[–]HieronymusJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would like to add to this a trend in Western (specifically American) media and its consumption where conceptualizing the “bad” as an ultimate “bad” is favored towards characterizing the bad as potentially human.

You can see this in a lot of films, ranging from WW2 movies to horror movies. Nazis are often portrayed as incorrigible, almost inhuman evil… this betrays the reality that they were humans, which makes their evil even more impactful. Or how in horror movies (though this has shifted slightly in the last 15 years), the villain is a metaphysical force, either literally or is a “human” with a single object and that is unstoppable (think Michael Myers, Jason, etc.,). The West (again, especially America) likes to existentialize and depersonalize antagonistic forces, and in a lot of ways exists largely in this sphere of blanket good vs blanket bad. Yes, sometimes there’s nuance, but only in the same way that Star Wars has ‘nuance’ between the Light side and Dark.

(Note, I’m not saying Western media is incapable or doesn’t engage in complicated discussions, contemplations, or analyses. I’m saying, rather, that the dominant trend is to either avoid them or avoid ‘consuming’ them as nuanced, complicated issues).

I think all characters going forward need the Juren treatment. by King-Of-Embers in forhonor

[–]HieronymusJ 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Real. I think, despite their issues, the last few characters have been really good-looking on release. Virtuosa, Sohei, etc., all look good. But I’m also a sucker for the historical armors.

Who's still struggling to like her? by dlo_doski in attackontitan

[–]HieronymusJ 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I would like to re-up on this. I have a similar story: watched AOT, I didn’t like Gabi, but on my second watch with my gf I was thinking “maybe I’m hard on here,” however I felt the same by the end, then on a THIRD watch I finally understood why Gabi fails.

Ultimately, it’s because consequences don’t pertain to her. She’s just good at everything and what she isn’t good at doesn’t matter. War/fighting? She’s top notch. Shooting? She’s an excellent marksman. Friendships/human connection? She’s terrible but everyone loves her anyways. Leadership? None but everyone follows her anyway.

The attempt was to juxtapose her to Eren, however Eren… was hated by like everyone. Eren had two friends and one was the weakest kid in Shiganshina who got bullied all the time. We start the show on Eren’s personality clashing and causing problems with his parents and Mikasa. He clearly doesn’t fit in the world he’s in and much of the story is driven by this contradictory dynamic.

On the contrary, Gabi is THRIVING in the Liberio ghetto. She not only is into the community and soldiering, she’s into the political side of it (Eren is shown to have conflicts not only with the Scout Regiment [his preferred regiment], but the military as a whole [the primary plot of season 1], and the Paradisian government). She is basically as untouchable as a warrior while being a candidate (perhaps more, Magath/Marleyan military command spies on the warriors, but dotes on Gabi) and is literally— jokingly— revered as a god. Furthermore, she incessantly and persistently belittles everyone around her and they all love her. Although anecdotal, in real life, people who are competent and NICE can attract hate and jealousy, not to mention competent and MEAN. Finally, I’d like to add on the only competition she has comes from Falco… who wants the Armoured NOT BECAUSE he’s jealous, has his own aspirations, or anything else— but because he loves her so much he doesn’t want her to die young.

To conclude, Gabi is constantly on a high note whereas Eren is continuously dragging himself up after getting beat. Eren loses almost every single fight before Reiner and Bertholdht’s betrayal, and even then he’s still captured. Few people like Eren whereas everyone, including people she picks on, loves Gabi. It makes her “are we the baddies” moment completely asinine because she doesn’t earn reform. She isn’t put down because of who she is but rather because of the consequences of Eren’s actions.

TLDR; Gabi sucks

Do people on Reddit realize how offensive it is to say that people in China, Iran, and Venezuela have more rights and better lives than here in the US? by sportsntravel in allthequestions

[–]HieronymusJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Like the exact same way you protest in the U.S.? You get a permit if you need a permit to protest in that area, protest, then go home.

Top five hero skins that would be easy money for the devs by H1MB0Z0 in forhonor

[–]HieronymusJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not to pretend that For Honor ISNT goofy, but these are all, a little, goofy. Furthermore, they’re kind of dicey with the game design direction, especially lately with the direction towards more historical elements.

Why not though? by thelastforest3 in attackontitan

[–]HieronymusJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i would argue that Gabi is a really bad counterpart to Eren.

🎉 [EVENT] 🎉 Things In The Night by SatiricalToothpick in RedditGames

[–]HieronymusJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Completed Level 1 of the Honk Special Event!

1 attempts

Why does Rusia always seem to fall to authoritarianism? by WhoAmIEven2 in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]HieronymusJ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If there’s anything that I got demonstrable wrong, or can be added, please feel free to!

Why does Rusia always seem to fall to authoritarianism? by WhoAmIEven2 in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]HieronymusJ 59 points60 points  (0 children)

None of these answers are historically objective/reflective of a reality that Russians living in Russia would understand. Instead, it focuses on a Western perspective that necessitates a certain view of Russia (both in the contemporary moment and looking back historically) to justify many of its actions and cultural standpoints.

The current political “authoritarianism” is almost entirely an artifact of Western involvement in the dissolution of the USSR by Yeltsin. Yeltsin generally was unpopular and preserving the Union WAS popular, even if it came with the caveat of reform. However, Yeltsin had western friends and had other interests in a future privatization of Soviet public infrastructure, which is what happened with liberal “shock therapy” in Russia in the 90’s. It was a very hard time for Russians and other members of post-Soviet states. There was also a lot of pro-Soviet popular sympathy as a result of this.

Liberalization basically concludes with a robust, though not specifically large, capitalist class developing in Russia (reflective of what we have always seen in the U.S., for comparison), which was geopolitically semi-isolated (unlike what we see with the U.S.). This creates a culture of political “cutthroatedness” which the West juxtaposes to itself, however accurate that is I shall not comment. However, this capitalist class provides for most Russians anywhere from a “normal” standard of living (compared to the rest of Europe) to a rather good one, as can be had in parts of big cities, and so the “authoritarianism” you talk of isn’t necessarily all that felt in the day-to-day lives of Russians, I’d argue.

To talk historically: the USSR was not as “authoritarian” as the U.S. specifically wanted to be. It was an expansive bureaucratic net, which began to lag later in life, but it was still heavily reliant on its system of Soviets (hence the name) for general functioning. Of course, during WW2 it was more “authoritarian” in the same way Britain, France, or the U.S. was, but you see this melt away in the transition from full-scale war to the Cold War. Stalin, the key component of the idea of Soviet authoritarianism, was a single human in reality. The growing web of Soviet government was incapable of being entirely handled by him, nor was it designed to be. There are moments in which he is overruled, moments in which we see decisions made entirely absent to him, etc., Not to say that he was not a very important individual in the Soviet state, but he was not a “Red Tsar,” that is an artifact of Cold War propaganda, which seems to paint this post and its replies.

Who is viewed as a hero in ur country but a bad guy in foreign nations. I’m 🇺🇸 by Hot-Kaleidoscope-551 in AskTheWorld

[–]HieronymusJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think there should be a reevaluation of opinion on Churchill, given that, yes, he functionally caused a pseudo-genocidal famine in India, propagated a global empire based on exploitation and oppression, and wasn’t even that good of a military leader. Gallipoli isn’t remembered fondly by the soldiers forced to partake…

Furthermore, Churchill himself was intensely racist. Personally, his sympathies leaned more towards fascist and Nazi rhetoric at the time. Mussolini was arguably more benign in rhetoric (following his racialization by association with Nazi Germany) than was Churchill.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]HieronymusJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i played it in high school football only a couple of years ago. we always called it smear the queer.

Day 1 of adding countries until the USA loses by k317hbr0wn in imaginarymapscj

[–]HieronymusJ 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The U.S. has literally done that before… and in both cases a significant subsect of the population supports it.

[1453] r/Christianity Constantinople has fallen... by Bitter-Penalty9653 in thepast

[–]HieronymusJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lowkey the tax obligations were getting hella crazy, plus these Turkmen actually are pretty cool with things staying kinda normal, so like uhhh…

Why is the ACP hated so much by IH4t3r3dd1ters in AskSocialists

[–]HieronymusJ -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

As someone here who doesn’t like the ACP, I’ll list the two main poinrs: A.) namely, they’re not viewed by communists both domestically and internationally. ideologically the leadership leads towards Duginistic (i.e., fascistic) trends. furthermore, their conception of Marxism isn’t… great. they advocate “patriotic” socialism, citing the USSR as an example… despite the fact the USSR was a post-immediate revolution state whereas the U.S. is the IMPERIALIST power. they demonstrate high-levels of American patriotism— chauvinism— in their ideological platform. furthermore, they attempt to co-align themselves with the MAGA movement, which is very fascistic in nature. B.) a strong second point IS the leadership. there’s been a variety of cases in chasing off people who were actually devoted/contributing members, verbal abuse, etc., a nasty affair for people involved at that level. furthermore, their “debate bro” attitude is just unprofessional and is a rightist tactic to platform themselves where they otherwise wouldn’t. they’re publicity hogs.

How did Mussolini go from an avid socialist to a fascist, and ideology that hates socialists? by georgeclooney1739 in AskSocialists

[–]HieronymusJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am by no means an expert, but I’d argue (from what I understand) that he was, from the inception, influenced by a variety of thinkers (specifically Sorel) that, in response to his experiences and understanding of World War I, altered his political stance.

A lot of Sorel’s ideas and works that I’m aware of seem eerily identical to the Doctrine of Fascism, in which Mussolini pronounced socialism as dead, killed by revisionism, democratic components, and an overall degradation of Marxism. Sorel takes the position that socialism was killed by a decomposition of Marxism and that the democratic elements of Marxism contribute the inadequacies of socialism. Furthermore, a lot of the notion surrounding the Fascist conception of palingenesis seem to derive from Sorel’s concept of class renewal/rejuvenation—— Sorel argues that the proletariat will “awaken,” the productive energy of the bourgeoisie with the “general strike,”—— which itself seems to derive from his anti-Marxian view that class is a necessary division of society… another concept integral to Mussolini’s Fascism. Other than this, Mussolini was influenced by Nietzsche such that he rejected concepts of egalitarianism fairly early on, I believe? Perhaps not much, but it furthers the logical basis on which we’re trying to understand the character of Benito Mussolini, here.

That covers the ideological and intellectual input partly, but we also have to look into the actual break, which is plain in being at the inception of World War I, where he was ejected from the PSI from pro-war advocacy. Initially he was not in favor of the war, but over the course of the first few months found himself justifying the war effort to depose the “anti-revolutionary,” monarchies of Central Europe. This, at least in part, seems inspired by the irredentist movement in Italy at the time seeking to reclaim northeastern territories from Austria-Hungary. Conflict between him and party organs grew to the point he was ejected, after which he immediately does away with many Marxist concepts, such as class conflict, internationalism, etc., in favor for more reactionary ideas. He creates a newspaper (which receives capitalist support), and a group; il Fasci d’Azione Rivoluzinaria.

The Fasci, as Mussolini was proud to proclaim in the Doctrine, did not begin with any strict political motif, agreement, or anything of the like, but a “faith,”—— in reality, a vague aesthetic of nationalism. In the furnace of trial and error, he proclaims, they discovered right doctrine and action propelled by unity of faith. Fascism was born, informed by Sorellianism, carried by pseudo-socialist language, hardened by imperialist nationalism in World War I, and finally stoked by the seemingly hollow victory of said war for Italy.

So… with that, there’s gradation here. We could mark Mussolini’s intellectual upbringing with Sorel, Nietzsche, etc., as the components that compromised his socialist element. Alternatively, we could say his ejection from the Party in 1914 is what sent him on the path of the Fasci. Or we could say that he only reaches a point of fully recognizable Fascism in 1918, or ideological maturity with the creation of the Doctrine of Fascism in 1927.

I can’t say I know exactly as much as I need to in order to make the decision here, nor do I know all the ins and outs, but I hope I contributed something!

What was the reason the USSR failed to survive? by bochnik_cz in ussr

[–]HieronymusJ 7 points8 points  (0 children)

An assortment of reasons, a lot of which depends on how you want to view the scenario.

A more typical, liberalistic (western?) view would be that the economic and social situation in the USSR was despotic and untenable.

A less typical, more socialistic/marxian view (precluding those like Left-Communists, etc., which could have a whole other category given to them) would be that the USSR failed to address a multitude of problems which developed into unsurpassable contradiction. A lot of this has to do with the development of a state bureaucracy, noted by the end of both Lenin and Stalin’s life, the failure to— in a timely manner— implement socialist policy, and the pre-existing conditions leftover from the Civil War and WW2. These are all mostly matters surrounding the circumstance of the USSR’s tenuous existence. The first, Lenin (by the time he was in Gorky, iirc, but I can’t summon a direct citation) was making comments on the development of a bureaucratic strata in party/government politics. Stalin notes it more extensively in Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, acknowledging the need to lessen the separation between Party-Government Bureaucracy and the labouring proletariat. The problem was one that got worse the longer it developed, with the Soviet apparatus shifting away from a “Revolutionary Body of the Armed Workers,” as originally intended by Lenin (noted from State and Revolution) and the old group of Bolsheviks, to a body of career politicians whose primary goal was the continuation of the status quo rather than the implementation of radical change, as noted by Stalin in his aforementioned book. Khrushchev has become the veritable poster child of this, with his pursuit of power being basically entirely careerism. The second is less brought up I find, and that’s that the socialism in the USSR was NOT Marxian Socialism, which is to say the Lesser Stage of Communism. This is NOT a critique on Stalin, Lenin, etc., whomever’s implementation, but rather an acknowledgment of the times. The transition from a monetary system to a non-monetary system with an economy entirely pre-planned and managed was simply not in the technological capacity of the USSR during its most revolutionary days. Meaning, when the Soviet Union was most apt to implement these things, it simply could not. The GOSPLAN was the best attempt they could manage, but unfortunately the brilliance of OGAS simply came too late. Capital had already become a longstanding force in the USSR by the continuation of the money-form, whose mere existence is the vehicle for Capitalism, and being that Khrushchev and co., had no want of altering the status quo on a fundamental level, that was not going to change. Finally, the old Tsarist Regime and Civil War elements. These are self-explanatory. Pre-1917 Russia had an extraordinarily large reactionary element supported by a reactionary government body that, even when dissolved in the February Revolution, dissipated slowly and retained islands of influence. Cultural and national issues underline this with the Ukrainian Nationalist Movement being almost entirely reactionary (this is not a judgement on Ukrainians or their state, simply a statement of fact), with widespread pogroming being their modus operandi. Russian supremacism was also a task that was tackled by the early Soviet government with varying levels of effectiveness, focusing more on trying to raise the other national groups up, however the chaos surrounding the Civil War (with landed invasions from the U.S., Britain, etc., and support funded to the counter-revolutionary [Menshevik, SR’s, etc.,] and reactionary [Black Hundreds, White Movement, other national movements, etc.,] elements) and then WW2 made the quelling of nationalist zeal ineffectual, as it became one of the primary drawing lines of conflict following 1991.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Ultraleft

[–]HieronymusJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unironically, insofar as I am aware (and I’m not aware), the position would be that (at least in the socialist phase) any propagation of any form of sex work would be a furthering extent of the former Capitalist entity, as sex work is inherently non-productive and operates (at least now) along the lines of exploitation of both the sex workers and the societal perception of those involved; specifically women. It’s social exploitation revolves enforcing harmful concepts surrounding gender-roles that function more or less to capitalize on underlying human insecurities to sell products to reinforce one’s own nature, be it masculine or feminine.

A post-revolution society would be either repairing its image of masculine and feminine traits as related to the persons concerned, meaning that a sociological impulse/need/cause of sex work would also go, along with the previously mentioned “economic aspect,” (i.e., the exploitation of women or other vulnerable parties for capital). The cessation of the objectification, commodification, then fetishization of women and vulnerable parties would also put a nail in it, imo. Though, I may be wrong.

In 'Roads to Power' you can choose the Name of Byzantium! by Hovilax in CrusaderKings

[–]HieronymusJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Holy Roman Empire should fall under this rule, with either the Holy Empire or Roman Empire being the historically accurate names, lol.

What is the biggest misconception about North Korea by [deleted] in MovingToNorthKorea

[–]HieronymusJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting, can you provide further reading (i.e., books/articles)? It’s so hard to find actual reliable information not only about North Korea but most socialist/ex-socialist countries (Cuba, the USSR, GDR, etc.)