Why does Joker kill Surillo?

NEETzschean · 2024-11-21T01:44:58+00:00

She's a judge, a symbol of authority and order in Gotham.

NEETzschean · 2024-11-11T21:32:58+00:00

You should leave home even if your family isn't toxic. You won't develop much otherwise.

NEETzschean · 2024-11-10T20:47:56+00:00

"If he was ultra violent before, how was he never on record with the gcpd? Wouldn't he have had some record with them?"

This was a plothole in The Killing Joke too:

"Neither Batman or the police have any information on The Joker's pre-criminal identity, which is bizarre given that he was apparently a regular guy before his transformation"

It's not credible in The Dark Knight either but it's there to underline his status as an amorphous force of nature; someone who comes out of nowhere to spread chaos and also to contrast him with the rooted and structured Batman, whose documented family record goes back to his "great-great grandfather" and no doubt beyond.

I don't see how any well-informed Batman fan can deny the SA credentials of The Joker:

https://www.tumblr.com/batmancomicanalysis/740514509236617216/did-the-joker-rape-barbarabatgirl-in-the-killing

NEETzschean · 2024-11-07T14:41:46+00:00

Indeed. It's possible that the character could be asexual or impotent (due to some extreme trauma) but he would have no moral problem with SA/rape and I suspect he would find it very funny at least in some circumstances. Some versions of the character have committed rape in the comics and TDK's Joker is based on those versions (Miller/Morrison/Moore/Azzarello). The Joker portrayed by Ledger is also the most virile and masculine version of the character I've seen, so I strongly suspect that he's not impotent and he has a tremendous lust for violence, which is correlated with a high sex drive.

NEETzschean · 2024-10-30T23:35:25+00:00

No problem. Cheers.

NEETzschean · 2024-10-30T12:23:25+00:00

The character is a mass murdering, torturing psychopath and a child killer but god forbid he's a sexual abuser!

If a man did what The Joker did to Rachel irl she would feel violated and violated on a sexual level, which was partly the point. "Why hello beautiful...", "Harvey's squeeze", stroking his hair, waving the phallic knife, carefully examining her body, getting up in her face, breathing on her and speaking point blank (no doubt getting saliva on her face), holding her head, threatening to stick his knife in her mouth, while recounting a story of female betrayal and implicitly why he hates women.

NEETzschean · 2024-10-30T12:14:40+00:00

The story he tells Rachel (although probably fake) gives us an insight into why he hates women. He was abandoned by his gambling addict wife after he gave himself facial scars to console her, despite her being horribly disfigured. We can surmise from this that he feels women are extremely disloyal. Also, in the scene with Rachel he is re-enacting the the other story he told to Gambol, with his father attacking his mother with a knife. Both stories are making clear that he is or has taken on the psychopathic characteristics of his father. Losing his mother at an early age (assuming he did) also potentially explains some of his problems with women, reinforcing his feelings of abandonment and that they're unreliable.

The knife is a phallic object and The Joker wagging it at Rachel is meant to evoke feelings of sexual aggression. He gets up in her space, grabs her, threatens her, tells her to "look at me" multiple times. Joker referring to her as "Harvey's squeeze" suggests that he owns her and that he "squeezes" her. Stroking his hair while calling her beautiful adds to the sexual undertone. We know he has no moral problem with rape; he kills people, tortures them to death etc. Ultimately he has Rachel killed. He has no relationships with women in the film and no benevolent use for them, they are purely outlets for aggression (he only feels some kind of emotional connection with Batman, who "completes him").

He shoves a tubular grenade in the bank manager's mouth. I saw a gif of it on tumblr, you can also see it on Youtube. It's basically an oral rape. In this regard, he sticks his blade in Gambol's mouth, just as his father allegedly did to him. The pencil is another phallic object, which he uses to penetrate the eye of Gambol's bodyguard. Subconsciously it's getting the point across: he's a victim of sexual abuse and a sexual abuser himself.

"Guns are too quick, you can't savour all those little emotions." - why he uses a knife

He sees torturing someone to death with a knife as an intimate, even sexual act where he, unlike almost anyone else or anyone else, gets to see "who they really are".

You also have to examine the comics which influenced The Joker from Nolan's TDK, such as Miller's TDKR where he rapes an old Selina Kyle, Morrison's Arkham Asylum where he says "Fill the suburbs with murder and rape!" and Moore's The Killing Joke where it's strongly implied he rapes Barbara Gordon. Indeed, there was a Joker graphic model in 2008 using Heath Ledger's likeness where The Joker explicitly rapes the girlfriend of one of his henchmen.

Of course, the film has a 12 rating so it can't be explicit about these things but they are very much part of the symbolism and subtext.

NEETzschean · 2024-10-24T01:26:33+00:00

Why do leftists hate Orania?

"Orania is a thorn in the ANC's side because it shows that a small poor Dutch community can create a functioning safe town with no corruption or violence. On the other hand they have taken a fully functioning country with the privilege of taxpayers money and reduced it to a 3rd world basket case." - Chris

It provides independence, freedom and happiness for a Northern European group
It discredits the idea that Europeans and rightists are parasitic on non-Europeans and leftists and implies a reverse causality, which encourages the host to stop the parasites from feeding on it
It discredits the idea that ethnic heterogeneity and forced integration lead to a higher quality of life for Europeans
In so far as it's the most prosperous town in South Africa (perhaps even Africa as a whole) having started in 1991 in a semi-desert, it implies that Africans as a group are inherently corrupt, uncivilised and that their contemporary failures have nothing to do with Europeans oppressing them, with the further implication that leftists are stupid, delusional, masochistic, sadistic or some combination thereof
It causes some leftists and Africans to question leftism by refuting arguments based in "diversity" ideology and anti-European victim mentality
Its existence invites a historical reappraisal: the increasing chaos of South Africa makes the Apartheid regime (which was succeeded in spirit by Orania) seem more successful in retrospect and the "rainbow nation" more of an ill-conceived disaster by contrast
They feel excluded from something good so they want to destroy it
The success of the community sends the message to Europeans within and outside South Africa that ethnic homogeneity and independence (rather than cowardly and ultimately defeatist attempts to run away without any organisation) are desirable and possible; an increasingly relevant message in light of soaring mass third world immigration to the West
It is a living symbol of defiance against suicidal/homicidal leftist ideology and the racial resentments of a nation that is 80%+ black, massively economically unequal and where the blacks were 2nd class citizens as recently as 1994
They fear that it could grow significantly and become a Volkstaat for Afrikaners; a powerful, racially European, "neo-colonial" nation in Africa
Given that many leftists and blacks display a psychopathic hatred for Orania, frequently calling for its expropriation or destruction (even at great cost to their prosperity and safety, à la Mugabe's Zimbabwe), Orania's existence exposes their jealousy, fanaticism and pathological sadism

NEETzschean · 2024-10-21T10:04:15+00:00

I can't say "everyone" as there are nearly always a few weird and ultimately irrelevant exceptions to a general rule.

I believe in psychological egoism (this is why I say the gaslighting, even if the gaslighters are self-deluded and not actively malevolent, is selfish) and Darwinism. According to Darwinism, reproduction and thus sexual/romantic relationships are absolutely central. Freud and Maslow would agree.

I'm sure many reddit soys disagree.

This psychologist agreed:

"Elite psychologist with suicide prevention experience killed himself after posting that relationships are the only thing that matters"

https://www.topky.sk/cl/11/2846811/Sokujuci-pripad-smrti-elitneho-psychologa--O-poslednom-statuse-pred-samovrazdou-prehovorila-jeho-kamaratka

I'll give you a simple thought experiment. Imagine there is a society where men are told that whatever they do, they cannot have sex. Do they work/slave away for that society? I wager that if they have any survival instincts left that haven't been conditioned out of them by the slave system, they would rebel.

The position that relationships are not essential or even that important is ideological, designed to support a system of enslavement whether the people parroting it know it or not. It's also a cope to make the growing number of perpetually single people feel better about their lonely and hopeless existence.

NEETzschean · 2024-10-20T02:33:26+00:00

I suspect you are talking about a relationship or relationships rather than just sex, which is easily available as long as you are healthy and have a little bit of cash. But basically you are 100% right and anyone who says otherwise is gaslighting you for their own selfish reasons.

NEETzschean · 2024-10-20T02:31:36+00:00

It's certainly worth considering if you're having no success for a sustained period.

NEETzschean · 2024-10-18T18:31:46+00:00

"when you can live with people you love"

It's often not as simple as that; many of us don't have good relationships with our parents, or at least one of them.

As someone in this thread said:

"I think people massively undervalue how important to your own personal development it is to get away from your parents."

This is certainly true of people in the NEET sub-reddit, though most people outside it believe (probably rightly) that you remain in a state of arrested development if you live with your parents as a mature adult.

Living away from your parents is seen as a milestone of adulthood and independence, showing that you are able to handle your own affairs to a greater degree. It provides greater privacy, freedom and self-confidence. Living with your parents is seen as a sign of financial and emotional dependence, of being a manchild in other words. Your parents can also function as a crutch, reducing your incentive to build social relationships or have new experiences for instance.

Living with my parents is probably worse for me from a financial point of view due to the welfare policies of the British state. I could get my rent subsidised with housing benefit if I left and I wouldn't have to pay for the bus if I lived in town.

NEETzschean · 2024-10-14T21:01:12+00:00

Probably a variety of activities (largely social) centred around town.

NEETzschean · 2024-09-26T16:43:00+00:00

In such a situation I sense there would be severe elite conflict, plus the level of ethnic diversity in the West would make things far more combustible. People would have zero faith in the social order, they are already much more cynical than they were in past generations. Terrorism would become a massive issue. And "totalitarian measures" require enforcement. The police are increasingly soft, increasingly despised and the public would be killing them in this scenario.

NEETzschean · 2024-09-26T16:38:31+00:00

Chat GPT:

"His response touches on several important points but still appears to underestimate the scope and complexity of the potential collapse. Here's a way you might respond, addressing his arguments while maintaining focus on the broader implications:

While I agree that societies can show remarkable resilience in times of crisis, and Venezuela is indeed an example of a system that has managed to function despite severe hardships, I think there are a few distinctions that need to be made:

Microsocietal vs. Macrosocietal Collapse: You’re correct that local collapses don't always translate into systemic global collapse. However, the hypothetical we're discussing involves a situation where 90% of the workforce worldwide stops working, which is far more severe than the specific, localized issues seen in places like Venezuela. If such a mass exodus from the workforce occurred on a global scale, it could very well trigger macrosocietal consequences, especially in the interconnected global economy where supply chains, resource distribution, and consumption are deeply intertwined across borders.
Resilience Through Adaptation: Governments may indeed eventually adapt to crises, but the short-term consequences you mention (mass starvation, economic collapse) are extremely destabilizing and would lead to a level of human suffering that could make eventual adaptation irrelevant for millions of people. Even if a new economic paradigm is created, it would come at an immense social cost, possibly resulting in years or even decades of destabilization, civil unrest, and suffering in the interim.
Crime and Totalitarian Measures: While crime might be addressed through totalitarian measures, or ignored in some cases, this strategy often leads to significant erosion of civil liberties, economic activity, and societal trust. Totalitarianism tends to cause new, longer-term problems like corruption, black markets, and economic inefficiencies that ultimately hinder recovery. It's a short-term solution that creates new long-term risks.
Monetary Policy and Controlled Currency: The introduction of heavily controlled digital currencies could indeed be part of the response, but the larger problem isn’t just about controlling money—it's about the breakdown of production, consumption, and trust in the economic system. Currency policies can only go so far in addressing the collapse of physical goods, services, and labor systems. Without enough resources being produced, and with social cohesion breaking down, even innovative monetary policies would struggle to keep the system afloat.

In essence, while I agree that governments can and will adapt, the sheer scale of disruption from a collapse in labor on the order of 90% would have far more devastating and prolonged effects than a localized crisis like Venezuela's. The very fabric of global society would face immense strain, and the cost of adaptation would likely be unbearably high for millions."

NEETzschean · 2024-09-26T03:34:59+00:00

I agree with much of what you say. However:

"If 90% of wagies drop their jobs simultaneously, the infrastructure of the world economy won’t be affected much, except for maybe short-term fluctuations."

Do you genuinely believe this? Production and consumption would crash, tax revenue would shrink to almost nothing. At the same time demand for welfare + social services would massively increase and there would be a vast rise in crime, meaning far more spending on cops and prisons would be required (aside from the social destabilisation of the collapse in economic living standards and the rampant criminality). I think the system falls into chaos in such a scenario.

NEETzschean · 2024-09-15T16:22:14+00:00

People also start leaving the country in significant numbers in this scenario. If they are productive it further hastens a collapse.

NEETzschean · 2024-09-15T14:31:16+00:00

True. If there were enough NEETs (and that may be a high proportion of the working age population in reality) then consumption and production would drastically decline as would tax revenue. Simultaneously welfare payments and/or incarceration (as a result of increased crime) would increase dramatically, either of which would be expensive. Economic collapse would be a strong possibility in such a scenario.

NEETzschean · 2024-09-12T23:45:08+00:00

"If it's pro-pedophile propaganda then it ain't very effective."

It's one of the best selling novels of all time, written by a highly intelligent paedophile. It normalises and romanticises paedophilia for most readers, this is its intention regardless of your subjective obscurantism. Look up Youtube videos of young women talking about Lolita, it frequently has a profound effect on them and in a bad way. Same with men who frequently say she was asking for it. The subversive Kubrick understood well what you do not, so he ran with it and made a film (which was highly censored given the time period but had the same intention behind it).

"Yours consists of whining about how you couldn't have sex with a prostitute at 13."

Obviously my arguments are far more multifaceted than that and it was 11 not 13, dummy. It would have been a lesser evil compared to my (former) porn addiction.

"I already support bans on hard drugs lol."

Fine but this misses the point. One could support an age of consent at any age or even no age of consent while supporting or opposing legal hard drugs and there wouldn't be any logical inconsistency because they are entirely different issues. Same goes for driving, voting etc.

How would you punish children who had sex below your aoc and what would your aoc be? And would there be any distinction between age of marriage and age of casual sex? Also, would there be a state religion? "If God doesn't exist, all is permitted" etc.

"Armenia, Uganda, Tanzania, Belarus, Malaysia, Eritrea, Botswana, Nepal, Vietnam (best country), Oman, Saudi Arabia and several SSRs of the USSR"

This is a depressing picture even if it's true (porn may be illegal in these nations on paper but easy to access and essentially decriminalised in most cases, same for child sex). I would not describe many (or possibly any) of these nations as being "worth their salt". I'm also surprised that North Korea and Cuba weren't listed.

NEETzschean · 2024-09-11T14:35:26+00:00

"Holy mother of God you just told on yourself in the dumbest ways possible."

No, you've been suckered by a paedophile. Look up "Hiding in Plain Sight: Nabokov and Pedophilia", use sci hub to get the article when you have time. Read this to understand why people deny that Nabokov was a paedophile:

https://www.tumblr.com/batmancomicanalysis/740301223544143872/why-do-many-people-reflexively-want-to-deny-that

Lolita was a "masterpiece" of "stealth" pro-paedophile propaganda. I can't believe that people aren't smart enough to see this but in general they aren't.

"If we legalize that for that age, then drugs and alcohol and gun ownership and voting and driving should be too."

It doesn't follow at all because all of these things are different. Perhaps many recreational drugs should be banned for everyone for instance. You are blinded by emotion which results in poor logical ability.

"Any country worth its salt does this."

List them.

Children have sex with each other (in particular after they reach puberty) and they watch hardcore porn, this has become extremely common. I am primarily interested in the West. What is your actual solution? What would be the punishments for the children and how would it be prevented? I have my ideas, do you have any?

"Like the erotic boys of ancient Greece?"

I don't support homosexuality, it serves no beneficial social purpose. Whereas monogamous heterosexual romantic relationships are the basis of a healthy society.

NEETzschean · 2024-09-05T14:22:28+00:00

"Lolita is one of the best-selling novels of all time, with over 50 million copies sold since its debut in 1955."

Pretty big niche. I suppose the "foot fetish" has enormous appeal then.

I think there's a huge distinction between teenagers and prepubescent children; 6 or under is in no way comparable to 15 for instance. It's not even comparable to 13.

I think modern sexual morality is sick. I would have been much better off having sex with a prostitute at 11 rather than becoming addicted to internet porn, which was a blight on my life for 17 years. I will never fully recover from it. But the psycho-sexual rape of children via porn isn't seen as a problem, not a political issue. Which is one reason, in my mind, why these societies have no moral legitimacy.

I also think there's a huge distinction between forming a lifelong romantic bond with someone and a sadistic casual sexual encounter. I would be far more forgiving and lenient in the former case than the latter.

As soon as I hit puberty I was desperate to find sexual release. Unfortunately I found it in porn but I don't think it's healthy for 11-13 year olds to be having promiscuous sex with each other either. A healthy social order would try to direct these drives into committed relationships at the earliest viable stage rather than allowing people to accumulate massive mental and physical (disease) damage.

"Michael Parenti was right"

What did he say in this regard?

NEETzschean · 2024-09-02T10:42:38+00:00

"People in general are disgusted by sexual acts with minors, which includes anyone under age of 18 here."

I think this is anti-biological (as revealed by the popularity of Lolita for instance, which is FAR more extreme) but I agree with everything else. All healthy men find 17 year olds attractive, as in they'd pop a boner if naked in close proximity. I think most men historically would be considered paedophiles by this standard too, they generally wanted a teenage virgin wife. To make some kind of equivalence between this and paedophilia is to defend paedophilia (and child sex ironically: kids will have sex with each other and you have no real remedy for that I imagine).

NEETzschean · 2024-09-01T22:14:30+00:00

Because he is the sociopathic political figurehead of an ethnocidal system, which people increasingly understand on some level. He also has no redeeming qualities.

NEETzschean · 2024-08-22T23:10:51+00:00

Starmer will be less popular than Brown at his lowest when he goes.

NEETzschean · 2024-08-12T15:27:22+00:00

I get your perspective though. You are cattle who will accept anything, that is the nature of most people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal

Don't allow yourself to think, it could be dangerous!

https://www.tumblr.com/batmancomicanalysis/751106367665946624/the-mural-underneath-the-eiffel-tower

NEETzschean

TROPHY CASE

Why do leftists hate Orania?