Even if one believes (as I do) that some form of professional constabulary is preferable to vigilantes and partisans extracting their own justice, that is precisely what most cop shows actually depict.
If we're talking about the genre's dramatic use for policing, Hot Fuzz is possibly the most honest cop movie ever mad.
The traits that make Nicholas a "good officer" - his restraint, minimal force, & bureaucratic diligence - are exactly what the film wants him to throw away.
Nicholas wants to be a civic-minded clerk. Somewhat bossy and obnoxious, but far more concerned with making sure the rules are followed without bias, crime is kept from hurting people, and every alteration rigorously investigated.
@Nymphomachy Alright so:
CW: discussion of sexual violence
After that implicitly awful scene which Rowling deliberately *alludes*, in a sort of coy and winking way, to the prospect of centaurs assaulting Umbridge, her protagonists later mock and exploit the woman's triggers later. (cont)
@Nymphomachy They exploit Umbridge's issues related to her experience with the centaurs - which let's give Rowling a benefit of the doubt and assume is "just" a violent & terrifying flight. It's still clearly a traumatic experience, & the protags exploit it by feigning the sound of hooves.
@Nymphomachy This is justified, in the narrative, by the fact that Umbridge is herself an utterly wretched and bigoted person - exploiting her triggers is treated the same way as any other undercutting a villain's pompous grandeur or exploiting a monster's One Weird Weakness.
Bloodborne's thesis really feels like, partly, less "this is what happens when you worship the great old ones," and more "this is the fail state of when man sets out to supplant the gods because he can."
it's Enlightenment Prometheus as grotesque horror.
There's something particularly grotesque about Bloodborne's "religious" iconography - it's like the lurching pantomime of religious ritual without its core of reverence.
Because the Healing Church - and the School of Mensis - doesn't worship the gods, it wants to eat them.
So they're going through the motions - shrines and icons, votive candles, "communion" - but in a horrific, literalist, "rationalist" sort of way where they feel like if they just do the rites it'll bring the Great Ones into reach so they can be devoured.
"It's only a model."
"I can see the wires."
"Why didn't you shoot Sailor Moon when she was transforming?" (This one in particular is like one of the oldest and most persistent of contemporary geek jokes.)
The critical audience - or just the jaded one, and a lot of geeks and critics both are extremely enmeshed in genre traditions - are very aware of the tropes and the implicit vulnerability to mockery in simply playing them straight.
Related: if Wicked Abrahamic Religion in general manifests, it may CLAIM "oh it's Catholicism," but odds are the big bad is gonna be G-D, not Jesus; reluctance to confront specific Christian doctrine ends up making it feel de facto anti-Jewish instead by giving Christians an out.
Since - as I have mentioned - for many whose primary interaction w/Abrahamic imagery & culture is Christianity, Judaism registers as "Christianity minus Jesus," therefore subtracting Jesus is all Christians seem to need to make it Not About Us (cont)
And since Jews are defined as Christianity -, Christianity 0.5, subtracting Jesus therefore almost immediately seems to place a religious image or fictional institution resembling Abrahamic doctrine into the "Jewish" zone, ESPECIALLY given the Christian assumption of Jews = power
We would have a lot healthier discussions about firearms if we all dropped hunting as a talking point, or at least acknowledged hunting is a somewhat orthogonal culture war element used as a smoke screen.
Every nation with the space to do so allows hunting & weapons for that purpose. That's not why we argue.
Ultimately the liberal vs revolutionary argument over firearms is about whether the threat to kill your fellow citizens is considered acceptable political leverage.
And that's really the long and short of it.
This is not a left vs right thing, per se! There are lots of leftist (revolutionary) arguments for an armed and HIGHLY militarized population who are absolutely ready to start slitting throats and shooting people to guarantee liberty.
Sigh. Really not a fan of our new Think Piece Genre: "listen up you stupid women, I as an Enlightened Historian of Military History will now lecture you about how This Was Totally How GoT was Going to Go."
A: dragons motherfucker
B: history is not purely ruled by fear
C: so apparently realism doesn't matter when the people in a city who have *literally torn their pope limb from screaming limb and ate him* are somehow not rioting when their murderess Queen (who blew up their holy sites) decides to *invite a siege of dragon fire*
Oh and most important of all, D:
Ok so you're making a decent case for why Danaerys has been forced into Machiavellian rule by terror, and you've even made the reasonable observation that *all her allies betrayed her* to push her to do it. Good. So why is *she* the villain?
Mostly ppl want to be engaged and feel like they've accomplished something. We don't want to "work" in the sense it's used today, and I feel like even using that terminology is risky concession to protestant work=virtue ethics.
Bc ultimately, comfort is not immoral. A life spent meaningfully is not immoral. A life spent connecting with community and each other is not immoral.
We know this to be true. Bc not only our art but our most powerful obviously aspire to it.
We gaslight ourselves. Deeply. Incessantly.
I've had jobs I enjoyed, but real talk, I don't think I always needed to be in the office 8 hours a day to perform them!
Redcoats always get unfairly demonized in American media bc a lot of our identity is based on the ignorant smug belief that our clever militiamen and minutemen fought with CUNNING shooting officers and hiding behind trees while those silly redcoats fought like posh types in rows!
And let's be clear - a lot of people who really do not understand how war worked in the Early Modern Period love to imagine themselves as John Rambo cleverly and sneakily playing commando and racking up kills from the foolish redcoats in their rows! It's just bullshit.
A lot of Gentiles commenting on Nazi perspectives tend to be American or activists against racism, and are strongly influenced by Neo-Nazism's role as the foot soldiers and brownshirts of modern white supremacy, so this is understandable. But it is WRONG.
The OG Nazis do not care, specifically, about color based racism. Oh sure, they were racist, they would have and did turn on black people when the opportunity presented itself, and they took inspiration from American racial hierarchies and systems of persecution. But.
My main problem with this piece is that leftist and centrist Jews have lead the charge against Farrakhan. This is not a "right wing issue," and leftist Jews were angry about the antisemitism of the Women's March leaders long before Bari Weiss published.
I am TIRED of people taking the aNtIzIoNiSt-NoT-aNtIsEmItIc camp's claims as objective fact when SO MANY Jews have consistently pointed out the patterns of antisemitism common in leftist circles.
At this point, literally nothing could convince people otherwise. The sanctity and purity of the antizionist cause is so absolute claims that would be laughed out of any other issue - "I have (minority) friends! I donated! I can't be bigoted!" - are swallowed wholesale.
See, here's the problem with some people I have seen trying to say "well actually Israel and Zionism and Judaism have no connection!"
They totally fucking do. This line is at best credulous, if well intentioned.
This doesn't mean that Jews worldwide are responsible for Israel, or that Israel is excused for what it does by dint of the Shoah.
But to act as if there is no connection, no link? It's absurd.
Israel does what it does because of their interpretation of the lessons of Jewish history, which do not teach kindness and compassion and trust in cosmopolitanism. And because of the lessons of Israeli history, which I feel this line is an attempt to ignore or shove under the rug