this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
302 points (93.4% liked)

Lovecraft Mythos - Cosmic Horror

667 readers
19 users here now

H.P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos is a shared universe far larger and more terrifying than that of humanity, where ancient, malevolent beings known as the Great Old Ones slumber in the depths of space or time. After Lovecraft's death, the Mythos has been expanded and developed by many authors, including August Derleth, Clark Ashton Smith, and Robert E. Howard. These and many other authors have helped to flesh out the Mythos into a rich and complex Dark Universe.

Rules:


🐙 For more cosmic horror: !cosmichorror@lemm.ee 🐙


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works -1 points 4 days ago (10 children)

"you seem like the kind of person that appreciates hyper-literalness"

not really, I'm more of a stickler for accuracy, consistency and intention, and you really noodle around with those.

"Do you intend to imply..."

nope

"why do you have a problem with what I said"

you were defending the reasoning for global genocide(I know you're whistling a different tune in later comments, I'm talking about why I refuted your earlier defense of genocide) as a response to me saying that global genocide is not an appropriate punishment for humanity's failings.

I don't have a particular problem with you as a person, I'm pointing out flaws in your reasoning and I feel that your affirmation of genocide as a viable punitive response to humanity is disgusting.

maybe distasteful now, rather than disgusting, since you've backpedaled your support for genocide in recent comments.

it's not you in particular, I feel the same way about everyone in this thread who are cynically giving genocide the thumbs up as a concept or "joke" while probably posting "supportive" Palestinian flags and comments on social media.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (9 children)

I’m more of a stickler for accuracy, consistency and intention,

Same thing. Most people find it abrasive and unnatural, but I can roll this way too.

you were defending the reasoning for global genocide(I know you’re whistling a different tune in later comments, I’m talking about why I refuted your earlier defense of genocide)

Please quote the earlier defense of genocide.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (8 children)

"Please quote the earlier defense of genocide."

it's kind of long, but sure.

bear in mind that the topic is global genocide, the context to your comment is my disagreement that global genocide is justified, and you are arguing that cthulhu's reasoning is valid:

"...the only counter to this is that we’ve toned down the war, slavery and brutal exploitation over the last 200 years. The last 10,000 before that and probably the last 200,000 before that are kind of the same thing happening over and over again. What’s more, nobody can adequately explain why it’s suddenly started to improve, or if it will stay that way. For all we know, we live in the turbulent transition period between agrarian hereditary autocracy and dystopian high-tech hereditary autocracy.

All in all, humanity is (morally) shit...

you further claim that humanity is shit by humanity's standards, but are speaking only for yourself and by your own reasoning, thereby identifying your own personal and singular standards, rather than "humanity's".

you have robustly defended the reasoning for global genocide.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I robustly defended humanity being unsavory. I did not robustly defend genocide. To justify Cthulhu's premise is to not to justify his conclusion. I left the logical connection between the two unexamined.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

"I robustly defended humanity being unsavory."

defending a position that nobody is attacking.

"I did not robustly defend genocide."

The comic is making the joke that because humanity is so bad, cthulhu will commit global genocide.

your argument, in response to my comment that condemns global genocide, is that cthulhu largely makes good points points.

for global genocide.

you're defending the reasoning for global genocide.

"To justify Cthulhu's premise is to not to justify his conclusion."

his conclusion is inextricably tied to his premise, and you pointedly did not separate the two in your comments until I pointed out to you that you are defending genocide.

"I left the logical connection between the two unexamined."

you say "all the rest could theoretically apply" referring to your agreement with cthulhu's reasonings for global genocide.

you explicitly make that connection.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

his conclusion is inextricably tied to his premise, and you pointedly did not separate the two in your comments until I pointed out to you that you are defending genocide.

It is not inextricable. From a utilitarian perspective, for example, humanity could still produce far more utility that it's many indiscretions remove.

It was not pointed - it was merely omitted for the sake of expediency, along with commentary on the fictional nature of Cthulhu, or the fact that in cannon he does not speak English.

you say “all the rest could theoretically apply” referring to your agreement with cthulhu’s reasonings for global genocide.

To say "could theoretically" is not the same as "does" - there are many ethical systems that have been proposed.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

"It is not inextricable."

it is within the context of the comic and my comment, which your comment is responding to.

"it was merely omitted for the sake of expediency..."

you made a whoopsie and defended genocide, that is what I've been saying.

I don't think you're a terrible person, you got caught up in the hip cynicism of the mob in the comments and agreed with them that genocide is justifiable.

I disagree.

"...there are many ethical systems that have been proposed."

and yet you identified with the justifications for global genocide.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

At no point in the past week have I supported genocide, and defending part of an argument is not defending the whole. Nor do I expect most to read it that way in such a jocular setting.

I don't think you're a terrible person either.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Yes you have, and yes it is in the context of what you're defending.

it's good that you have faith in people to misunderstand what you've written for what you have come to assert you mean.

"...in such a jocular setting."

The jocular context of punitive global genocide based on reasoning you and other commenters find "actually" sound.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

I mean, supported in the personal belief sense. I can assure you that it was never intended, even if that was accidentally conveyed.

Natural language is inherently imprecise. It only works because there's shared background to interpret it on.

Dark humour is a thing, you'll see it everywhere on the internet - I'm sure you know that. This is no exception.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago

there is not much of a joke here.

cthulhu decides to commit indiscriminate genocide because of humanity's violent acts.

a human agrees.

that is the comic.

because cynicism is hip and internet comments are supposed to be edgy rather than thoughtful, people are defending genocide without understanding what they are agreeing with, as you have.

most people don't realize what they're doing, but you and the other commenters are nodding along with the non-joke that everybody should be killed because humanity has problems.

that's not a joke, that's irresponsible defeatist anxiety.

I prefer to rage against the dying of the light.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)