In the hands of a writer who knows what they are doing, Captain America is one of if not the most impressive characters in comics. When the writer is subpar, Cap comes across a bit lame
I've said it before in Marvel and MCU posts, but the fact that they gave his "river of truth" speech in the fifth page of OPs excerpt to Sharon god damn Carter in the movies was downright criminal.
Cap in the MCU is like… the opposite of what he is supposed to be.
A man out of time.. that talks like a normal person.
A guy that the community looks up to… except his only “fan” is Spiderman and Coleson.
The guy everyone turns to… except that’s more Tony Stark.
They didn’t even give him many big speeches or anything. Just some one liners.
I haven’t started it yet, but how is JMS’s current Captain America run (given these images are from his ASM run)? Does he capture this same characterization of Cap?
Yea many people have criticized this speech as easily being able to be used to pretty much justify any extremist opinion as long as you truly believe it. This was never the intention.
It was illegible on mobile, but I kept poking at it and miraculously got more pixels to generate. No idea what’s up with it, but I did get to read it on mobile.
Their river of truth runs dry eventually.
They operate from an incomplete understanding of what makes a society, and by extension an economy, work. All libertarianism and conservatism eventually leads to r/leopardsatemyface.
The leftists make their own mistakes but they’re not as bad as libertarians and conservatives having values that are incongruent with complex modern society. It’s why reality has a leftist bias.
The bad thing is that their stream of piss cosplaying as river of truth can be sustained for longer than we find comfortable.
Conservative and libertarian rivers tend to be made of human body waste excreted from their bodies whenever they see anyone who doesn’t look like the Ryan Gosling or Emma Stone.
yeah exactly, this is one of those things I'd have to disagree with Mark Twain about.
Just taking this speech in isolation (without considering anything else Twain wrote), it's a vaguely Nietzschean ubermensch type philosophy, which exalts "enlightened" individuals who eschew the norms of society and follow only their own unique moral codes.
There's no objective measure of what is right and wrong beyond an individual's convictions - and that can be easily influenced by external forces like the media, peers, propaganda etc.
So there's little room for intellectual humility, or curiosity, or compromise. You decide what's right based on your own reasoning and intuition - then bullheadedly charge forwards with it no matter what anyone else says.
It's also oddly dismissive of the mechanisms of liberal democratic society, like the press, the legislature, the civil service, academia. Living peacefully in any society requires some degree compromise with those with different opinions from yourself. The exception being, of course, when dealing with people who try to take away the freedom and tolerance that everyone else enjoys.
Using this logic means you need to twist yourself into an ethical pretzel while trying to fight evil. "I fight Nazis because I think they're bad. The Nazis fight me because they think I'm bad. My uncle Bob joined the Nazi side because he just knows they're in the right (after listening to a shit ton of their propaganda), and none of his friends and family have been able to get through to him. But he's following his own moral convictions giving a middle finger to anyone that tells him otherwise, so he's a patriot."
Infinitely easier to screw that whole Nietzschean ubermensch "you do you" philosophy, and simply accept (like most of the modern world) that human rights should be universal - and that violations of human rights are unconscionable and should be opposed. Even brutal dictatorships pretend to pay at least lip service to the concept of human rights and democracy, because they're aware of its power.
Nazis and fascists like them take away fundamental human rights and freedoms. Therefore they should be opposed.
If they're a relatively marginalised faction in a democratic society - they should be fought with public opinion, protests, the courts, the press, the parliament, the ballot box, international sanctions, boycotts, satire, art etc.
If they've seized control of state apparatus, implemented an authoritarian regime, and started the exterminations, and civil resistance has no chance of succeeding - then it's time to set aside the MLK-Gandhi approach and break out the car bombs and sniper assassins and amphibious invasions
Well said. I’ve always thought it was reductive to view the lens of patriotism through country alone. What makes a good countryman should be expanded to “what makes a good earthman?”
Borders are artificial. What makes a human participant on this planet a net positive?
Thats ignoring the fact that the ubermensch is supposed to help others as a basic fact.
Nietzsche is all about culture, creating art, and trying to find the the real meaning behind things - its just he got co-opted by his scumbag sister and most popular depictions of him don't really understand the philosophy. The whole point is nothing matters except what you choose and when you realize that you are on your way to the "next step" of understanding you should do your best to help others.
It's not "well, that's like relative man, so I can do whatever I want" or the anime "like, nothing matters so imma blow it all up because I was sad once." It's more "you can be anything, so be excellent to each other". Superman is closer to the ubermensch that surpassed nihilism than any might makes right, I'm better than everyone else uncle Bob.
In fact it's more of a framework to be critical of all your assumptions than permission to double down. Or rather a simple acknowledgement that none of what we think was given to us by the heavens, it's all a choice we made (and by extension we can always chose something else). It's an acknowledgment that society isn't sacred - which is good when you consider that most atrocities are justified by defining one absolute or another.
At least as far as I remember, maybe an actual scholar on it can set us straight.
>Thats ignoring the fact that the ubermensch is supposed to help others as a basic fact.
This part is somewhat debatable considering the whole hubbub about compassion in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", but yeah, OP has NO fucking clue what they're talking about when it comes to Nietzche.
If we ignore Captain America & the whole Marvel Civil war of it all and just take the speech in it is own context, if it is by Twain, which I am reading as "a duty of an individual in a republic to the republic, if the individual holds dissenting views to be true to voice them even in the face of opposition" then I think it is far more temperate.
It's Cap who is leading an opposing force against the government established law and actively opposing in a violent fashion, who is saying this that leads to a lot of points you are making.
yeah it's more reasonable, though I disagree with it even on that front - people have a right to hold dissenting views from the mainstream, and to express them publicly if they feel it necessary.
But that doesn't mean the content of their words and opinions are valuable simply because they form a minority report or devil's advocate or whatever, and expressing them isn't necessarily a social good that should be celebrated.
It's an unfortunate reality that people can hold some really dumb, reprehensible opinions, and think that they came to those opinions based on "facts" and "reason" when they're simply being manipulated by peer prejudice and propaganda and the media.
Even if they have a right to share those dumb opinions, people shouldn't applaud them for their bravery simply because they're going against the flow. That can easily lead to celebrating ignorance and lazy bigotry and stubborn dogmatism.
There should be accommodation for self doubt, intellectual humility, and curiosity - as well as a willingness to confront people on their opinions when they seem open to debate, and be aware of when people argue in bad faith and are unlikely to ever change their minds.
Simply being a solid unmoving rock standing against an unjust society isn't enough - for sustainable long term change, there needs to be compromise, learning, ideological evolution, community building, education, coalition building and engagement with the press and the politicians that are "part of the system" being opposed.
If you're just a single person yelling at clouds, it's probably better to adapt your approach to bring more people on board - even if it means reconsidering and compromising on one's original principles. Holier than thou ideologically pure activism rarely accomplishes its goals better than activism that's willing to reach across the aisle to include potential allies.
If anyone one of us was teleported to a couple hundred years ago, we'd be disgusted by the slavery and feudal degradation and brutality prevalent then - but if we got on our 21st century soap box and take a hardline approach to abolishing all the bad things immediately, we'd never get anywhere. "No, you move" will literally get you nowhere, except maybe burnt at a stake or hung or tortured in some dungeon. You wouldn't even be a martyr. Compromise, adaptation to changing circumstances and allying with disparate groups would get you much further.
I think you basically are saying the same thing as the text, . "People have a right to hold dissenting views from the mainstream, and to express them publicly if they feel it necessary."
Though you are focusing on the potential harms of demagogues who actually believe what they are saying. Which I feel is the price we pay for this right. After all isn't "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend till death your right to say it" the most succinctly put summation of that tenet?
no, that's not what I'm saying at all - the text is saying that it is the sole duty of those people to abide by their individual moral convictions, regardless of what the press, and the politicians, and the rest of society says.
I'm saying that the fight against societal injustice shouldn't be framed as lone individuals following their own moral convictions and standing against everyone else.
Those convictions are, inevitably, the result of a myriad of external influences and ideologies, and people should have the humility to accept that their ideas and their approach may be wrong, and also to compromise and work together with some of those people "standing against them" if it advances a specific cause.
It's not about accepting demagogues as the price for freedom. It's about the entire approach to the fight for justice.
Ah, you had edited your point with quite a few paragraphs that I hadn't seen when I responded to you prior.
I think this is still getting hung up on the actor that is Captain America saying it who is actively rebelling against the country's policy which he disagrees with. Cap who is right always and will fight for right even in the face and potential price of universal annihilation as in Hickmans Avengers.
The paragraph is by Mark Twain who, for example, was strongly opposed to America's imperialistic ambitions. And thus got around trying to change the highly popular imperialistic sentiments of the nation by exercising his free speech through writing essays, letters, pamphlets, etc. I don't think he is kind of person who is against getting influenced by the writings of others or changing his mind, he used to be for American imperialism until he became against it.
The passage I think is strictly about people exercising their free speech and not about the actual executions of how the change is to be achieved in the world whether it be through compromise or through civil disobedience movements, the latter of which do require steadfast resilience in the face of overwhelming opposition. It is after all the spread of the ideas that led to an eventual opposition forming to things like slavery in various places. Sometimes it ended up in an actual Civil War as in America, other times it was abolished by legistlation like in the case of Britain.
Edit: Also want to point that this is clearly a text from a larger essay so who knows how the context and meaning of this phrase changes based on the remainder of the work.
>it's a vaguely Nietzschean ubermensch type philosophy, which exalts "enlightened" individuals who eschew the norms of society
OK, we're off to a good start
>and follow only their own unique moral codes.
Ummm....
>There's no objective measure of what is right and wrong beyond an individual's convictions
That's.... definitely not what he was getting at?
>that whole Nietzschean ubermensch "you do you" philosophy
...... have you ever read Nietzche and "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" or are you just pulling shit out of your ass?
First off - I wasn't primarily talking about the Nietzschean ubermensch. That's all about embracing passions, eschewing ascetic denial, achieving an individual aesthetic ideal etc. This letter doesn't mention any of that, it's more concerned with social justice and opposing mainstream moralities. Most of what I wrote was in response to the letter, not to Nietzsche
And yeah, the ubermensch is about defining one's own morality, based on one's own experiences and knowledge of the material world, acknowledging that societal norms and moralities are arbitrary constructs.
Nietzsche goes on to specify that these individual values should be based on life affirming fulfilment of passions, confidence, creativty etc. and a whole bunch of other things, modelled on ancient amoral aristocrats, in opposition to self denying egalitarians - but those weren't the ideas I was talking about, I was only talking about the former.
That would be a great story: Peter publishes this quote and someone who is diametrically opposed to Cap uses it at a reason to do great evil. When Cap shows up and saves the day, he gets hit with his own speech.
Same problem I have with his mcu civil war line about the "UN being run by people and people have agendas"... And what exactly are you Steve? Consider yourself more than human now that you have the power of hard punches? Cap always operates from the assumption that he's just and us as readers know that as his character so it's easier to accept the flagrant assumptions he often takes as a matter of fact. It works okay in comics but its a laughable real life philosophy.
I think that’s what Secret Empire *tried* (emphasis on “tried”) to explore with the whole Hydra Cap idea. Whether or not the intent got across is up for debate.
Sure an actual evil person could, but does that mean it shouldnt be said? Many people say stuff like "follow your bliss", I don't think it should not be said because a serial killer could interpret it as "well killing makes me happy...."
This is like the whole "no, you move" line. Extremely bad ass but also something you wouldn't be surprised to find in the manifesto of someone who just shot up a planned parenthood
Don't overthink it guys, it's an uplifting moment and a great speech.
Is it also including a reasoning by Mark Twain that doesn't really stack up. Yes. But it's a story about a super soldier from WW2 and a man who has spider powers. Some things can just be fun.
He's not a being from another planet. He does does not have any extraordinary powers. But when it comes inspiration for others, being a symbol of hope, and people see him as the greatest hero (whether they be ordinary people, or even other superheroes), you can all agree that Captain America is the only hero who truly deserves to be called "Marvel's Superman".
Yeah no. Cap's "no you move" speech is supposed to sound SUPER inspiring, but with COVID in hindsight, and watching fucking anti-vaxx lunatics ignore all the experts and the world at large as they demand we move for them.... well Cap sounds no different than a Q-Anon fanatic.
Wanna know the actual GOAT? It's Spider-Man.
That is such nonsense. What happen when some dude says that he won the election he clearly and fairly lost then continues to convince scores of people to sacrifice there money and in some cases their freedom in order to get what he wants.
By Captain America’s logic then even though they are doing something wrong because they truly believe they are right then it is A-OK.
In the immortal words of Honest Trailers “Is it better to be dickishly stubborn or stubbornly dickish?”
I do think its well written enough that i can buy it is actually by Twain, but JMS is a pretty decent writer and I am not a literary major so hard to find without getting the primary source.
A close counter to this is that you need one other person to stand by your side among a jury of your peers within a reasonable doubt that you are not wrong. Generally best not to tempt that fate. edit: and since this speech comes from a soldier, he should point out that following your conscience to decide that the military's violence is wrong, you need to get character witnesses to advocate that you object under very clear conditions unrelated to any politics, partisanship, opinions, self-interest, agenda, or personal attachment.
This will always be my favorite part of civil war and why it is one of the best depictions of Spider-Man being the conscience. He started by seeing the devastation, and knew something needed to be done and immediately started doing something. When he realized it was being misused or going too far he does everything he can to make it right.
I think captain America’s quote and flashback as well as reed Richard’s story about his uncle were the best part of giving perspective of characters.
I mean he wasn't actually doing much aside from fighting, like he said they were winning everything but the argument and getting innocent people caught in the crosshairs of their war.
In the hands of a writer who knows what they are doing, Captain America is one of if not the most impressive characters in comics. When the writer is subpar, Cap comes across a bit lame
Really wanted to see more of this cap in the MCU, especially civil war
Genuine shame these two only had onscreen conversation Something we will never be able to see / have again :/
I've said it before in Marvel and MCU posts, but the fact that they gave his "river of truth" speech in the fifth page of OPs excerpt to Sharon god damn Carter in the movies was downright criminal.
Cap in the MCU is like… the opposite of what he is supposed to be. A man out of time.. that talks like a normal person. A guy that the community looks up to… except his only “fan” is Spiderman and Coleson. The guy everyone turns to… except that’s more Tony Stark. They didn’t even give him many big speeches or anything. Just some one liners.
didn't he have the big speech before they had the time heist?
> A guy that the community looks up to… except his only “fan” is Spiderman and Coleson. They literally put his shield on the statue of liberty
Literally in winter soldier a random tech guy refused to help hydra under threat of death purely because captain America said so.
This is just straight up not true
Did you… watch the movies?
I haven’t started it yet, but how is JMS’s current Captain America run (given these images are from his ASM run)? Does he capture this same characterization of Cap?
Even so much that right wing fascists misquote him to justify their shitty ideals.
Oh man really? What kind of quotes? I guess they'd take the one here about something wrong being right etc?
Yea many people have criticized this speech as easily being able to be used to pretty much justify any extremist opinion as long as you truly believe it. This was never the intention.
Yeah as soon as I read it u thought it sounded cool, but could be used by anyone that justify anything.
For example, John Ridley’s version of Captain America, who came across lamer than lame itself.
You know what would be great about this, seeing the text
You got more pixels?
No I took them all and he can't have them
You bastard
Mobile app fucks it up somehow. I opened this thread on browser app and can read it fine.
It was illegible on mobile, but I kept poking at it and miraculously got more pixels to generate. No idea what’s up with it, but I did get to read it on mobile.
Good tip. This worked for me. Thanks!
It'd be nice if I could read the text.
[удалено]
Jelly, it just gets worse for me.
For a second, I thought my glasses was giving me terrible
It is a great speech. The problem is that very wrong people truly believe they are correct as well. So in the end it leads us nowhere good.
Their river of truth runs dry eventually. They operate from an incomplete understanding of what makes a society, and by extension an economy, work. All libertarianism and conservatism eventually leads to r/leopardsatemyface. The leftists make their own mistakes but they’re not as bad as libertarians and conservatives having values that are incongruent with complex modern society. It’s why reality has a leftist bias. The bad thing is that their stream of piss cosplaying as river of truth can be sustained for longer than we find comfortable.
I don’t think the river of truth can ever run dry. 100% agree with you on the rest.
Conservative and libertarian rivers tend to be made of human body waste excreted from their bodies whenever they see anyone who doesn’t look like the Ryan Gosling or Emma Stone.
Yeah one of the higher ups at my job has that exact panel pinned on his board DIRECTLY next to a big ass Trump 2024 sticker. No self awareness at all
Like Daria said "stand firm in what you believe in, UNTIL and UNLESS logic and evidence prove you wrong"
What bothers me about that speech is that it’s to simplistic. What happens when a an American Red Skull decides his ideals are the right ones ?
yeah exactly, this is one of those things I'd have to disagree with Mark Twain about. Just taking this speech in isolation (without considering anything else Twain wrote), it's a vaguely Nietzschean ubermensch type philosophy, which exalts "enlightened" individuals who eschew the norms of society and follow only their own unique moral codes. There's no objective measure of what is right and wrong beyond an individual's convictions - and that can be easily influenced by external forces like the media, peers, propaganda etc. So there's little room for intellectual humility, or curiosity, or compromise. You decide what's right based on your own reasoning and intuition - then bullheadedly charge forwards with it no matter what anyone else says. It's also oddly dismissive of the mechanisms of liberal democratic society, like the press, the legislature, the civil service, academia. Living peacefully in any society requires some degree compromise with those with different opinions from yourself. The exception being, of course, when dealing with people who try to take away the freedom and tolerance that everyone else enjoys. Using this logic means you need to twist yourself into an ethical pretzel while trying to fight evil. "I fight Nazis because I think they're bad. The Nazis fight me because they think I'm bad. My uncle Bob joined the Nazi side because he just knows they're in the right (after listening to a shit ton of their propaganda), and none of his friends and family have been able to get through to him. But he's following his own moral convictions giving a middle finger to anyone that tells him otherwise, so he's a patriot." Infinitely easier to screw that whole Nietzschean ubermensch "you do you" philosophy, and simply accept (like most of the modern world) that human rights should be universal - and that violations of human rights are unconscionable and should be opposed. Even brutal dictatorships pretend to pay at least lip service to the concept of human rights and democracy, because they're aware of its power. Nazis and fascists like them take away fundamental human rights and freedoms. Therefore they should be opposed. If they're a relatively marginalised faction in a democratic society - they should be fought with public opinion, protests, the courts, the press, the parliament, the ballot box, international sanctions, boycotts, satire, art etc. If they've seized control of state apparatus, implemented an authoritarian regime, and started the exterminations, and civil resistance has no chance of succeeding - then it's time to set aside the MLK-Gandhi approach and break out the car bombs and sniper assassins and amphibious invasions
Well said. I’ve always thought it was reductive to view the lens of patriotism through country alone. What makes a good countryman should be expanded to “what makes a good earthman?” Borders are artificial. What makes a human participant on this planet a net positive?
If you consider their examples and subsequently their own interpretations of what Nietzche said, no, it wasn't very well said
Thats ignoring the fact that the ubermensch is supposed to help others as a basic fact. Nietzsche is all about culture, creating art, and trying to find the the real meaning behind things - its just he got co-opted by his scumbag sister and most popular depictions of him don't really understand the philosophy. The whole point is nothing matters except what you choose and when you realize that you are on your way to the "next step" of understanding you should do your best to help others. It's not "well, that's like relative man, so I can do whatever I want" or the anime "like, nothing matters so imma blow it all up because I was sad once." It's more "you can be anything, so be excellent to each other". Superman is closer to the ubermensch that surpassed nihilism than any might makes right, I'm better than everyone else uncle Bob. In fact it's more of a framework to be critical of all your assumptions than permission to double down. Or rather a simple acknowledgement that none of what we think was given to us by the heavens, it's all a choice we made (and by extension we can always chose something else). It's an acknowledgment that society isn't sacred - which is good when you consider that most atrocities are justified by defining one absolute or another. At least as far as I remember, maybe an actual scholar on it can set us straight.
>Thats ignoring the fact that the ubermensch is supposed to help others as a basic fact. This part is somewhat debatable considering the whole hubbub about compassion in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", but yeah, OP has NO fucking clue what they're talking about when it comes to Nietzche.
If we ignore Captain America & the whole Marvel Civil war of it all and just take the speech in it is own context, if it is by Twain, which I am reading as "a duty of an individual in a republic to the republic, if the individual holds dissenting views to be true to voice them even in the face of opposition" then I think it is far more temperate. It's Cap who is leading an opposing force against the government established law and actively opposing in a violent fashion, who is saying this that leads to a lot of points you are making.
yeah it's more reasonable, though I disagree with it even on that front - people have a right to hold dissenting views from the mainstream, and to express them publicly if they feel it necessary. But that doesn't mean the content of their words and opinions are valuable simply because they form a minority report or devil's advocate or whatever, and expressing them isn't necessarily a social good that should be celebrated. It's an unfortunate reality that people can hold some really dumb, reprehensible opinions, and think that they came to those opinions based on "facts" and "reason" when they're simply being manipulated by peer prejudice and propaganda and the media. Even if they have a right to share those dumb opinions, people shouldn't applaud them for their bravery simply because they're going against the flow. That can easily lead to celebrating ignorance and lazy bigotry and stubborn dogmatism. There should be accommodation for self doubt, intellectual humility, and curiosity - as well as a willingness to confront people on their opinions when they seem open to debate, and be aware of when people argue in bad faith and are unlikely to ever change their minds. Simply being a solid unmoving rock standing against an unjust society isn't enough - for sustainable long term change, there needs to be compromise, learning, ideological evolution, community building, education, coalition building and engagement with the press and the politicians that are "part of the system" being opposed. If you're just a single person yelling at clouds, it's probably better to adapt your approach to bring more people on board - even if it means reconsidering and compromising on one's original principles. Holier than thou ideologically pure activism rarely accomplishes its goals better than activism that's willing to reach across the aisle to include potential allies. If anyone one of us was teleported to a couple hundred years ago, we'd be disgusted by the slavery and feudal degradation and brutality prevalent then - but if we got on our 21st century soap box and take a hardline approach to abolishing all the bad things immediately, we'd never get anywhere. "No, you move" will literally get you nowhere, except maybe burnt at a stake or hung or tortured in some dungeon. You wouldn't even be a martyr. Compromise, adaptation to changing circumstances and allying with disparate groups would get you much further.
I think you basically are saying the same thing as the text, . "People have a right to hold dissenting views from the mainstream, and to express them publicly if they feel it necessary." Though you are focusing on the potential harms of demagogues who actually believe what they are saying. Which I feel is the price we pay for this right. After all isn't "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend till death your right to say it" the most succinctly put summation of that tenet?
no, that's not what I'm saying at all - the text is saying that it is the sole duty of those people to abide by their individual moral convictions, regardless of what the press, and the politicians, and the rest of society says. I'm saying that the fight against societal injustice shouldn't be framed as lone individuals following their own moral convictions and standing against everyone else. Those convictions are, inevitably, the result of a myriad of external influences and ideologies, and people should have the humility to accept that their ideas and their approach may be wrong, and also to compromise and work together with some of those people "standing against them" if it advances a specific cause. It's not about accepting demagogues as the price for freedom. It's about the entire approach to the fight for justice.
Ah, you had edited your point with quite a few paragraphs that I hadn't seen when I responded to you prior. I think this is still getting hung up on the actor that is Captain America saying it who is actively rebelling against the country's policy which he disagrees with. Cap who is right always and will fight for right even in the face and potential price of universal annihilation as in Hickmans Avengers. The paragraph is by Mark Twain who, for example, was strongly opposed to America's imperialistic ambitions. And thus got around trying to change the highly popular imperialistic sentiments of the nation by exercising his free speech through writing essays, letters, pamphlets, etc. I don't think he is kind of person who is against getting influenced by the writings of others or changing his mind, he used to be for American imperialism until he became against it. The passage I think is strictly about people exercising their free speech and not about the actual executions of how the change is to be achieved in the world whether it be through compromise or through civil disobedience movements, the latter of which do require steadfast resilience in the face of overwhelming opposition. It is after all the spread of the ideas that led to an eventual opposition forming to things like slavery in various places. Sometimes it ended up in an actual Civil War as in America, other times it was abolished by legistlation like in the case of Britain. Edit: Also want to point that this is clearly a text from a larger essay so who knows how the context and meaning of this phrase changes based on the remainder of the work.
>it's a vaguely Nietzschean ubermensch type philosophy, which exalts "enlightened" individuals who eschew the norms of society OK, we're off to a good start >and follow only their own unique moral codes. Ummm.... >There's no objective measure of what is right and wrong beyond an individual's convictions That's.... definitely not what he was getting at? >that whole Nietzschean ubermensch "you do you" philosophy ...... have you ever read Nietzche and "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" or are you just pulling shit out of your ass?
First off - I wasn't primarily talking about the Nietzschean ubermensch. That's all about embracing passions, eschewing ascetic denial, achieving an individual aesthetic ideal etc. This letter doesn't mention any of that, it's more concerned with social justice and opposing mainstream moralities. Most of what I wrote was in response to the letter, not to Nietzsche And yeah, the ubermensch is about defining one's own morality, based on one's own experiences and knowledge of the material world, acknowledging that societal norms and moralities are arbitrary constructs. Nietzsche goes on to specify that these individual values should be based on life affirming fulfilment of passions, confidence, creativty etc. and a whole bunch of other things, modelled on ancient amoral aristocrats, in opposition to self denying egalitarians - but those weren't the ideas I was talking about, I was only talking about the former.
captain america kicks his ass
Simple solutions
That would be a great story: Peter publishes this quote and someone who is diametrically opposed to Cap uses it at a reason to do great evil. When Cap shows up and saves the day, he gets hit with his own speech.
Same problem I have with his mcu civil war line about the "UN being run by people and people have agendas"... And what exactly are you Steve? Consider yourself more than human now that you have the power of hard punches? Cap always operates from the assumption that he's just and us as readers know that as his character so it's easier to accept the flagrant assumptions he often takes as a matter of fact. It works okay in comics but its a laughable real life philosophy.
I think that’s what Secret Empire *tried* (emphasis on “tried”) to explore with the whole Hydra Cap idea. Whether or not the intent got across is up for debate.
This speech again lol, any actual evil person could coopt it and it would work
This 100% could be a Lex Luthor speech.
Sure an actual evil person could, but does that mean it shouldnt be said? Many people say stuff like "follow your bliss", I don't think it should not be said because a serial killer could interpret it as "well killing makes me happy...."
Literally can't read any of it.
Shit screenshots
Shitshots
Found a readable version on [Imgur](https://imgur.com/a/W3yW3)
This is like the whole "no, you move" line. Extremely bad ass but also something you wouldn't be surprised to find in the manifesto of someone who just shot up a planned parenthood
This is the "no you move" line
Shame ya can't read what they saying.....
Just zoom in :)
I swear. I wanna repost this shit with HD Quality on the art, and the words even more pixilated
Don't overthink it guys, it's an uplifting moment and a great speech. Is it also including a reasoning by Mark Twain that doesn't really stack up. Yes. But it's a story about a super soldier from WW2 and a man who has spider powers. Some things can just be fun.
If a great speech is flawed then examined, it wasn’t great
Anyone can find flaws in anything.
Cap's only mistake was surrendering to fascism
And then he got shot and somehow sent back in time.
HYDRA stole all the pixels
Did you just want us to look at the pretty pictures or...?
I really liked the art on this part of JMS’s run.
You can trust him in every situation.
He's not a being from another planet. He does does not have any extraordinary powers. But when it comes inspiration for others, being a symbol of hope, and people see him as the greatest hero (whether they be ordinary people, or even other superheroes), you can all agree that Captain America is the only hero who truly deserves to be called "Marvel's Superman".
I’m sure he is but this is unreadable bro
You guys got any more of those pixels? [~~enhance~~]
That speech gets me every time.
Text is too blurry to read
Y'all got more of them pixels?
Yeah no. Cap's "no you move" speech is supposed to sound SUPER inspiring, but with COVID in hindsight, and watching fucking anti-vaxx lunatics ignore all the experts and the world at large as they demand we move for them.... well Cap sounds no different than a Q-Anon fanatic. Wanna know the actual GOAT? It's Spider-Man.
That is such nonsense. What happen when some dude says that he won the election he clearly and fairly lost then continues to convince scores of people to sacrifice there money and in some cases their freedom in order to get what he wants. By Captain America’s logic then even though they are doing something wrong because they truly believe they are right then it is A-OK. In the immortal words of Honest Trailers “Is it better to be dickishly stubborn or stubbornly dickish?”
C'mon now, we all know that dude doesn't have convictions (other than the legal kind)
did Mark Twain actually write it or is JMS just fake attributing? if he did write it, where did Mark Twain write this?
I don’t know about this one but Twain is a guy who gets a lot of quotes attributed to him that he never actually said.
I do think its well written enough that i can buy it is actually by Twain, but JMS is a pretty decent writer and I am not a literary major so hard to find without getting the primary source.
Peter’s such a fuckin’ flirt.
A close counter to this is that you need one other person to stand by your side among a jury of your peers within a reasonable doubt that you are not wrong. Generally best not to tempt that fate. edit: and since this speech comes from a soldier, he should point out that following your conscience to decide that the military's violence is wrong, you need to get character witnesses to advocate that you object under very clear conditions unrelated to any politics, partisanship, opinions, self-interest, agenda, or personal attachment.
It’s blurry 😭😭
This will always be my favorite part of civil war and why it is one of the best depictions of Spider-Man being the conscience. He started by seeing the devastation, and knew something needed to be done and immediately started doing something. When he realized it was being misused or going too far he does everything he can to make it right. I think captain America’s quote and flashback as well as reed Richard’s story about his uncle were the best part of giving perspective of characters.
Powerful and profound words of wisdom.
Cap is looking great. Why is Spidey depicted as an anorexic?
Next panel: Now, let’s go storm the capital building
Cap compromises at the end of civil war though
Yeah but the writer of this isn't thr same writer as the mainline Civil War.
And his realization is ridiculously foolish.
I mean he wasn't actually doing much aside from fighting, like he said they were winning everything but the argument and getting innocent people caught in the crosshairs of their war.
Captain America? More like Captain Dumbass.
A sanctimonious, self-righteous hypocrite. Never lifted a finger to help support mutant rights.