On the net v In the joint

[Steve James]

Another one of my favorite characters, Otis from the Expanse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dn76ZPt_Y0

[origami_itto]

I have a basic humanities education, I get the antihero. As a culture we grew tired of morally perfect and invulnerable heroes and find it easier to identify with protagonists with feet of clay. We've even seen the huge success of stories that humanize traditional villains like Wicked and Maleficent.

Otis is endearing, but at the end of the day he's an absolute savage psychopath who struggles to relate to other human beings and again, doesn't have much in his toolbox to solve problems beyond violence.

So again, it gets to a place where we're sort of romanticizing this absolute moral code that enables this character to navigate this "grey area" with some stability and we are on their side when they commit these acts of savagery so long as they are acting within the bounds of that established ethic.

It's a trope as well-trodden as The Hooker With a Heart of Gold.

But in reality, that Hooker will smile in your face and steal your wallet if she thinks she can get away with it. The noble criminal with his absolute code about the use of violence will break your nose as quick as look at you if you look at them wrong in the right setting.

Let's not beat around the bush, though, right, all power is ultimately violence. What is power if there is no ability to enforce one's will. Robert Heinlein made that observation.

“When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers

But I believe that as we progress as a civilization, hopefully to a more perfect state, that if we're enlightened enough to be capable of making the choice to abstain from violence where possible and avoid glorifying the use of violence at all costs, we can distance ourselves from violence as a means of enforcing our will on each other in the day to day trenches of society. Which then helps us to establish community where those other than the most capable of committing violence are steering the culture.

I mean, some people don't understand anything but a smack in the mouth, and we have that available for them, but, like feeding the family at Taco Bell, just because it works doesn't mean it isn't a failure.

[origami_itto]

I have a basic humanities education, I get the antihero. As a culture we grew tired of morally perfect and invulnerable heroes and find it easier to identify with protagonists with feet of clay. We've even seen the huge success of stories that humanize traditional villains like Wicked and Maleficent (and the Grinch!) by exploring how society failed them to cultivate the antagonistic relationship.

Otis is endearing, but at the end of the day he's an absolute savage psychopath who struggles to relate to other human beings and again, doesn't have much in his toolbox to solve problems beyond violence.

So again, it gets to a place where we're sort of romanticizing this absolute moral code that enables this character to navigate this "grey area" with some stability and we are on their side when they commit these acts of savagery so long as they are acting within the bounds of that established ethic.

It's a trope as well-trodden as The Hooker With a Heart of Gold.

But in reality, that Hooker will smile in your face and steal your wallet if she thinks she can get away with it. The noble criminal with his absolute code about the use of violence will break your nose as quick as look at you if you look at them wrong in the right setting.

Let's not beat around the bush, though, right, all power is ultimately violence. What is power if there is no ability to enforce one's will. Robert Heinlein made that observation.

“When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers

But I believe that as we progress as a civilization, hopefully to a more perfect state, that if we're enlightened enough to be capable of making the choice to abstain from violence where possible and avoid glorifying the use of violence at all costs, we can distance ourselves from violence as a means of enforcing our will on each other in the day to day trenches of society. Which then helps us to establish community where those other than the most capable of committing violence are steering the culture.

I mean, some people don't understand anything but a smack in the mouth, and we have that available for them, but, like feeding the family at Taco Bell, just because it works doesn't mean it isn't a failure.

I've been toying with the idea of a story, working title "Mom Wick", basic idea an older woman looses her son to some criminals and she takes out the whole organization primarily through subterfuge and sabotage with a minimum of direct violence. Guaranteeed hit which I'm going to get started on as soon as this damn strike is over.

[everything]

I guess various philosophers say that knowledge/information and money are other kinds of power. I don't think Bill Gates can defeat Fedor (drink), but he has vastly more power from knowledge (and knowhow applied to new technology to impact the world) and money. Sure if we dig and dig, there are legal constructs/fictions behind things like "Microsoft shares" that everyone agrees to, and behind those stories are police and military and so on. So there are "layers of power". Arguably we are mostly not in the "Neanderthal" realm of h2h physical power at the moment. Even more so, homo sapiens is a non-powerful (for physical violence) species, unlike say gorillas or lions. So our "power" comes much more from information and communication ability, ultimately.

Those elements (and much, much more) should be in these stories. Otherwise let's just watch Jon Jones fight.

[origami_itto]

Bill Gates exercises violence by proxy through the state and police. If Fedor threatens him he can have him thrown in jail. No fiction or theory or shares involved. He just has money, therefore status, so the cops are more likely to do what he wants. Particularly with something as crude and obvious as direct physical violence.

I'm just making conversation here, btw, not trying to argue with anybody.

Bill Gates knows that when Bill Gates calls the police they are going to come and listen to him attentively, take notes, and take action about his complaint. Therefore threats of violence against his person are easy for him to have the police deal with.

Now contrast that to someone of lesser means. When they call the police they are taking a risk. The police likely won't do ANYTHING unless an actual battery has occurred. If actual violence does occur they only follow up 40% of the time. It's much easier for the cop to look for something in the poor person's home to charge THEM with as long as they're in the neighborhood. No risk, credit for a bust. Win win plus payback for making them do paperwork.

So for those people, even though the apparatus of state exists to protect them from being ruled by direct violence by their fellow citizens, the Rays and Otises, it doesn't serve them. The state violence is instead turned against them if they dare to approach it.

So the violence DOES rule the community, h2h and weaponized, and it takes a toll. And while some stability and equilibrium can be established to limit the damage because it's good business, being left to the tender mercies of the feudal influence of local criminals is no position to envy or glorify.

Power corrupts and when might makes right this idea of the noble antihero and their iron code of ethics falls apart. A predator is a predator and human predators see everyone as prey.

For my money I have no interest in whoever can deliver the most effective beating being the arbiter of speech and manners. Let's engage the rational brain and address the human instead of beating on the animal.

[Steve James]

Ray's issue isn't that he's a psychopath (incapable of empathy) or a sociopath who pretends to be pleasant, but is just waiting for the opportunity to stab you in the back. He's a hitman. He's not heroic. What he lacks at times is impulse control. He can react violently to something mildly offensive, like blocking a parking space, as long as Ray knows it's being done on purpose.

Again, he's a character. We don't meet people like him, unless we're in the same context or environment. But, fwiw, when Ray uses his violence on pedophiles or wife-beaters, I approve. It's satisfying because it often doesn't happen in real life. However, ask the average person what they'd like to do to someone who's raped their child. Yep, I know that's what courts are there for.

Otis is the "strong man" of the Rocinante crew. Yep, he's the one who doesn't mind doing what has to be done. He doesn't steal or bully the weak. I wouldn't consider him an antihero. He's technically a protagonist, moreso than Ray, because he only stands up "for" the "agon" (the one who is suffering). That's more like a warrior than a villain.

[everything]

nobody is giving Gates power because otherwise they may be "forced" to go to jail or whatnot. well, ok maybe you are "forced" to use Microsoft Teams or some such stuff. but not really. humans and chimps (but not gorillas) have made the social constructs the most powerful. we are wired this way.

[Steve James]

I had to think about whether Ray was an anti-hero, or not. I'd say that he's mostly not. For ex., Batman and the Punisher, or Bronson in Death Wish, are anti-heroes --who out of their need for revenge (i.e. wrong motive) turn to fighting crime. None of them are psychopaths, though the dark knight does seem to be psychologically scarred.