Today I Learned
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
view the rest of the comments
You're describing the early days, though. That's what most people see remarked on. The point is about what this all turned into. He can quite specifically be quoted as referring to how toxic things seem to have become.
He wrote a whole piece, though I'm not sure how to quote it considering his verbal vibes.
This piece criticizes people who vote for Trump and Boris Johnson because they identify as "fans" of these politicians vs being aware of policy and voting based on that policy. It says that fans who come together to celebrate are fine. It is the fandom of Trump that disrupts peoples lives, and he does not like how "fandom" is used in politics that impact millions of peoples lives.
It came off as a kind of blanket piece the way I absorbed it, like it could apply to Trump and Johnson but it could also apply to political movements in general as well as his fictional genres, hence the first part where he mentions his first experiences with comic book clubs.
In the world of Alan Moore, fandom intertwines with political movements. Anonymous literally uses his Guy Fawkes Mask as its sole symbol. Have you never watched V for Vendetta or read up on Anonymous?
I was saying that to demonstrate it's not just "some fandom" or "some movement", as opposed to something that challenges they can mix. The point being he denounces a large swath of the things done by those who cite him as inspiration, whether by name or not depending on the exact movement or act. And the book was where the symbol originated, not the movie. He didn't make the movie.
You say that like Anonymous isn't an example. I've mentioned a few.
I'm not "citing my post", I'm showing you that I've done what you say I haven't. You're looking an awful lot more into what I say than what Alan Moore has been shown to have said.
If it was where we already were, you'd think questions wouldn't have to be asked that the things I redirect to answer. You otherwise demonstrate exactly what I just said in your words just now.
Spoken as if listening to yours doesn't just sound like someone who just wants to defend the recent anti-establishment sentiments from the one guy with some power to point out their questionable validity, as also shown by the fact I have obliged when previously asked the kinds of you are asking now, which would make me the one who isn't a simp.
Rule of thumb, if it comes from the ocean, it's not an amphibian, as they are 100% freshwater creatures, something even amphibians that come out of Lake Champlain here know. The fact you are comparing my intelligence to something which makes us all question what planet you are from (in a place where everyone else is down to Earth) as an ad hominem raises eyebrows more than it illustrates a point or sentiment.
You say that like that invalidates my takeaway from it. In the world of Alan Moore, the two topics are mixed by default, with one often used as a proxy discussion for the other. Given this context, you could easily go to those who are acting on behalf of either a fandom or a movement and say "heed this person's caution" and it wouldn't be out of place.
You say that like anyone has to be specific about it, and even then it ignores Anonymous (which is a movement) takes the spotlight here. You can infer a few things if you take his words and apply them to different movements. In fact, it can be applied to your approach to his criticism here. Unless, of course, Alan Moore is inconsistent as a political thinker in the first place.
Says who?
What part of what I said are you getting that from?
Inferring means taking two or more details and coming up with (one might phrase it as triangulating) a new realization based on them. For example, if someone said "I live in Andorra" and then elsewhere said "my phone number is six digits long", you can infer they use a cell phone because immobile phones there use seven digit phone numbers.
This is inference, the stuff of Sherlock Holmes, which is different from how we apply the words "assuming" (which one might say would mean concluding something based on false interpretations of details, e.g. if they said "I live in Andorra" and you think they speak Catalan based on it being the official language since not everyone has to speak the official language), "reading between the lines" (which one might say is the same thing but based in themes, e.g. saying someone must be Andorran if someone dressed like an Andorran, spoke like an Andorran, etc. when they could be French and just happen to do things like an Andorran), and "reading the room" (which one might say refers to vibes, e.g. someone saying they're from Andorra and they say it in a shy tone so it registers to you as a sensitive topic for them even if the tone is actually circumstantial).