nochrieaz

It's starting: http://www.youtube.com/user/Garmoco (If it's any consolation, it's fun to witness the power of the human mind to predict things once their essentials are understood).

Tonight, on CBS nightly news, of the 116 banks which took TARP funds, they singled out BB&T CEO Allison in a report about how - apparently - there has been widespread abuse of what I guess the MSM believes were clearly defined spending guidlines because banks have been buying other banks with the tax money. They broadcast an out of context quote from Allison that was from one of the BB&T's board meetings. It was something to the effect of "... well, this money is a relatively inexpensive way to raise capital." I found it quite frightening that, of all of the allegedly hypocritical capitalists who took this money, they choose to tar and feather the one individual in this whole mess who has been the most effecatious, consistent, and fundamental defender of the economic system advocated by Ayn Rand. They really did paint him as a nefarious, conniving individual. It was a little, but a very disturbing pre-emptive strike. It seems that the high-ups in the liberal media really do have organized Objectivism on their enemies list. As that socialist upstart from Louisiana, Huey Long (well, Sean Penn, at least), once said "Bring Down the Lion and the Rest of the Jungle Will Quake in Fear." It's starting.

House is not a second hander, but he isn't a flawless man stuck in a flawed world either. All that "he" is is a constantly refreshing, never ending personification of the, to use Gina Gorlin's phrase from her article, "reason-emotion dichotomy" message put across by his creators. A real person's life does not play itself in losely connected 60 minute episodes. A real person would never be able to retain his exceptional rationality if he were afflicted with House's emotional disorders for years and years. If the joy he felt (but curiously never shows) from solving a medical question could sustain him emotionally in the same way that art or friendship or love could, then he would exhibit the same disposition towards everything and everyone he encountered. Sure, he would be alone at home, but he would not be affected by it. He would have his work, and not pills, to sustain him through those hours. His personal life would be just like everyone else's, just - alone. Conversly, neither would a real person be able to retain his emotional disorders if he were imbued with House's exceptional rationality. Part of House's medical greatness is his supreme honesty regarding medical questions. In real life, that honesty would inevitably rub off on other parts of his life and cause him to seek out psychological help and philosophical enlightenment. He would resolve his issues and work to become happy. Perhaps that would involve accepting and respecting those around him (even if they're not as smart as he is) or perhaps it would involve rejecting them because he determines that their inferiority comes from evasion. Even if he were without an intellectual/spiritual equal, he would spend his free time seeking one out or at least creating one through artistic expression. But either way, he would be free enough of their influence to be happy enough to be pill, hooker, and sarcasm free. It is simply counter-productive to analyze House in the context of real life; where each "episode" bleeds into the others and determines a person's character. Any attempt to decide if House is or is not a second-hander or a lover of life in the only way possible to such an exceptional individual is pointless. All he is is his creator's attempt to evade taking a deep look at their own faulty philosophical premise. They create elaborate art over years and years, the production of which involves countless details which such suck up a huge chunks of their lives as a means of continuing to evading their confusion; and as a way to make the pain they feel because of it appear metaphysically potent. After all, why deal with it and be inspired to create good (ie: flawless) characters if House pays? They aren't capable of appreciating the damage they do by glamorously perpetuating the myth that reason and emotion are forever at odds.

They're doing exactly the same thing the Kelleyites do, it's just one step removed. I'll repeat: what good is a government run entirely by Objectivists when the culture is still altruist-collectivist? How, exactly, is getting a politician who is already in power to become an Objectivist any different than getting a politician who is trying to get into office to become an Objectivist? And besides, given his *necessary* aversion to principled (even rationalistically held principles) which got him into office, wouldn't it be easier to grow your own candidates? These are honest questions. I want to know. But there is a double-standard here, and a false distinction that relies upon a non-essential and treats it as an essential. Yes, unlike David Kelly, the ARCIR will be philosophically consistent and if they do convert a politician it will be for real... but again, so what? He won't be able to stand up against the culture. Not any more than a libertarian power-seeker, converted to Objectivism by Kelley, will be able to stand up to the politicians (who, in that context, would serve as the cultural resistance). It's a tactical issue. Do you attempt to replace or to change the people in government? But either way, both groups (ARCIR and TAS) are ignoring (and to the extent they're doing this stuff, neglecting) the public. Maybe getting an Objectivist government - the top down approach - will work to change the culture. To employ a sort of "tough love" on the people and to use the media. I don't know. But I do know that both approaches - whatever their minor differences - are top down approaches.

KendallJ, In regards to the part of my second post which you had no idea about, what I did there was to explain (through example) how the distinction you made directly above your quotation of it is false. Yes, David Kelley will compromise his ideas in order to get into power. He's already tried it and fortunately failed. What I'm wondering is how the ARCIR's tactic of getting the right ideas to people in power does not compromise those ideas. Certainly the ideas themselves do not change, and the righteousness of any offical or policy maker working to implement them is without question, but so what? What would be the result of the government taking a radically hard line in favor of Objectivist political goals? How would the altruist-collectivist public react? I'll tell you: in the best case scenario it would be massive backlash at the polls. Those Objectivist politicians would be voted out of office before they could achieve anything. This (from what I can tell small, but still real) part of the ARCIR's mission statement fundamentally conflicts with the rest of it. It burns the candle at both ends. It conflicts with all of the ARI's mission statement. Also, you have misconstrued my statements regarding the value of political activism per se. I never claimed, nor implied, that "it on principle was somewhere that one shouldn't go." I merely reported upon Brook's and Peikoff's (collectively ARI's) well-documented position that any degree of political activism is only proper once a proportional amount of philosophical and cultural change has been achieved. The ARI establishing a permanent physical office in the nation's capital in order to reach out to, and change on the deepest, most personal level possible, elected officials and policy makers within the Federal Government is a far more than a far cry from Diana Hsieh helping to defeat Colorado's Amendment 48. That was a state-level issue and her position already had widely-held (and, compared to other issues, far less irrationally grounded) support. The ARI has not yet succeeded in changing the culture - let alone the politics - of California, or New York, or any other state. In expanding to Washington, the leaders of ARI have not decided to focus on ad hoc issues in the hopes that an elected official, in a rare spark of objectivity, becomes convinced of the rightness of ARCIR's position long enough to cast the correct vote. That has never been the goal of such activities. Until now. Now, (as least this part of) the ARCIR is specifically, permanently committed to going after the whole politician. To remake him from the ground up. But why? What good is he if he is going to be voted out of office (if not personally destroyed) by a morally outraged public? That is exactly the criticism that has been levied against David Kelley and The Atlas Society for nearly twenty years. softwareNerd, I do not object to this segment of activity per se. I am undecided about this extremely complicated issue. I merely find it pitifully hypocritical and underhanded on the part of ARI's leadership. Their words say they're decided; they're actions say the opposite. Also, as a footnote, I would like to point out that ARI op-eds, speeches about current events, et cetera are markedly different than what the ARCIR's mission statement described in regards to elected officials and policy makers. See my reply to KendallJ directly above for an elaboration.

From The Ayn Rand Institutue's website. "About ARI" Section, "Overview" page, Introduction (Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4): The terms "elected officials" and "policy makers" are both conspicuously absent. Assembling a cabal of "elected officials" and "policy makers" to foist Objectivist political principles onto the public with the explanation "because I said so" is somehow less of a seperation of philosophical fundamentals from their resultant values than wrongly and desperately exclaiming that freedom of the press is a self-evident value that can "transcend religious and cultural differences"? Not to imply that I have a decided opinion on such a tactic, but the ability of an ARCIR influenced policy maker to intimidate a politically-active Marxist through something like stepped-up police surveillance is not going to do anything to reshape and then integrate his ill-conceived reverence for reason into a consistent set of philosophical principles. It's certainly not going to do it for those quasi-Marxist, quasi-religious every day altruists who read about it in the newspaper. And don't tell me the ARI is doing this because politicians have the spotlight and the mainstream's attention. That they can influence the moral atmosphere of the culture. David Kelley, before he (I agree) went off the deep end, was open to talking to libertarians, paleo-conservatives, and anyone else of noteriety else for that very same reason. Just as Diana Hsieh, in the first blog post of hers you cited, explained that a culture founded upon anything other than reason and individualism will not tend to, but will produce nothing but superstition, duty and sacrifice, stagnation, violence, and oppression - so will an organization founded upon anything other than a commitment to fight the philosophical (and only the philosophical) war produce nothing but more and more Kelleyites. At least, that's what the powers that be at ARI have been saying since 1989. Until recently, that is. When they created the ARCIR.

Don't confuse omnicience with incompetence. How were you to know how long it would take to perform a task you, nor anyone readily accessible to ask, had performed before. I wouldn't even call it a mistake. Now, if you determine (as it seems you have) that there is no practical (ie: efficient) reason for this extra task to become part of your job description, and yet you fail to ensure that it is kept as part of the warehouse guy's, and assuming your boss is open to reasoned argument, then I would say you were being incompetent. Furthermore, if you attempt all of that and still remain saddled with this task, then you are mistaken in your evaluation of your colleagues; and possibly even your association with the company. And finally, if you determine that your position in the company is dependent upon appeasing incompetence and/or irrationality displayed by your superiors and colleagues, and you fail to act, then you are incompetent in your practice of the virtues of integrity, justice, and possibly productivity.

Yes, he said that. He also said (at least implicitly) that the bank steals from everyone. He said that when he advocated a prohibition on FRB on the basis of it being theft. If the depositors consent to be "stolen" from, then if not them, someone else must be the victim for it to still constitute theft.

Mr. McKeever's main complaint against private FRB is that by issuing currency which does not represent actual wealth, that bank is stealing the wealth of everyone else in the nation (via inflation). What he fails to realize is that he is looking at the issue through a very contemporary lens. One in which the inflation of the money supply - by a government run central bank - does constitute theft. However, in a free economy - one in which banks issue their own currency - it quite literally is none of my business what two other people (the banker and his creditor) do. If I do not hold currency issued by that bank, the wealth which I possess (possibly in the form of currency issued by another bank) is not affected in the least. To me, that seems to be most obvious flaw in his argument. I like Mr. McKeever and I wanted to agree with him as I so often do. But unfortunately on this issue I cannot.

From The Center's new website (bold mine): Elected officials? Policy makers? Why would people like Yaron Brook and Leonard Peikoff - who have for years been saying that to engage in any form of Objectivism-promoting activism beyond the intellectual kind is counter-productive and even dangerous - put their names behind this new wing of the ARI? Why put this center in Washington, DC? Isn't this tantamount to doing what David Kelly and his ilk have been doing for years now, albeit in a far more begrudged, drawn out, and subtle way? Is the leadership of the ARI finally taking Kelly's advice: talking to people who have (or are actively trying to attain) the power to wield force, in order to get them to wield it properly; regardless of any previous understanding or consent from the general public?

What to say about this piece? The New York Times said that it made too big of a deal out of September 11th.

The Founding Fathers believed heavily in what they called "natural law." That is: identity and causality. That A is A and there's no getting around it. The purpose of the entire Constitution is a means of "regulating" the government. Of keeping it bound by natural law - one of these laws being the individual's "God given rights." That these rights, on a metaphysical level, can never be taken away - that they are a part of him. That it is "right" for a man to be free. It is "right" for a man to own property, etc. They can be violated, sure, but by violating them a wrong is not made a right. The word "militia" was synonomous with the words "military" or "army" at the time of the country's founding. After all, America's military was born out of a bunch of militias. The Minutemen, for example. Therefore, the use of the word "militia" in the 2nd Ammendment refers to the government run military. Volunteer, conscripted, full time, ad hoc - which ever. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." means: The military - and by extension the government - of a free (state of) people must be afraid ("well regulated") of it's citizens in order to maintain the state's identity as a free one (aka: in order to preserve the rights of the citizens). The Founders then merely went on to point out that possessing weaponry was the best means by which the people could keep the government afraid of them. Or, at least, revolt against a government which was no longer afraid.

The appropriate (read: egoist) way to approach this question is to ask yourself which is more important to you: a book or law and order? By never returning the book you have declared, implicitly and by precedent, war against the government. Now, logic would tell us that if a government is so out of control that guerilla warfare is a man's only recourse, there are certainly more important governmental targets than a book inside a library. Taking that book and never returning it violates a rational man's hierarchy of values. Like I said, it places some minor, incidental knowledge above (albeit some minor, incidental amount of) law and order. Unless the book we're talking about is the last known copy of Atlas Shrugged left in existence, law and order is clearly a more broadly applicable, and thus more important, value. But more importantly than law and order even, assuming one understands and agrees with the above, by taking the book out of some duty to the "principle" of private property, one is sacrificing his rationality for a lesser value. He is giving up his understanding of the hierarchical nature of philosophical principles for the sake of whatever emotional pleasure he will get because of his fidelity to private property. At that point, he is not following principles; he's following rules.

I agree with the environmentalists in this thread that the Earth has a natural balance. That's precisely why I'm not worried about anything humans are doing. If even the most dire predictions by environmentalists about the effects of unregulated production are correct, what will that mean for humanity? Well, frankly, mass death. First the sky will fall and the seas will boil. Then the plants and animals will die out. Then people will die from new diseases and starvation. When that happens, there will be fewer people producing as much as they possibly can; but not threatening the environment any more. How is this any different than more people right now - because of environmental regulations - not producing as much as they possibly can? Furthermore, if the reason why there are so many people today is because in the past people, free of regulation, were able to produce as much as they possibly could, what makes environmentalists think that once the regulations take effect, eventually that technology, because it will not longer be profitable, will be abandoned and forgotten; thus making civilization once again less able to support as many people as it does now?

The guy is basically saying "Don't expose to me the essence of what I am advocating. Help me pretend that duty-oriented ethics is the just as respectable as value-oriented ethics by giving it your 'consent'" Like John Galt explained, some times the best way to defeat evil is to comply with it fully. The quote you provided would be funny if you hadn't informed me that he is putting over this trick on young, impressionable minds who won't know that all of his empty rhetoric about independent thought is just that; rhetoric.

What do you think my answer will be? Is there some magical content within this example, among all the others, which prima facia shows my position to be absurd? Furthermore, if I am being absurd, why aren't you laughing at me? My nihilistic hatred of the "good natured" laughers is likely to affect you just as much as the Joker's fictional antics. I don't know about you, but Nyronus certainly didn't think my position funny at all. Why would you ask such a question?

Nyronus, I made a pscyhological judgement of anyone who laughed, not a moral one. The evidence within my posts - which you will not deal with in it's entirety - supports this. Instead, you have erected a straw man argument and accused me of moralizing. My position, succintly, is this: I maintain that ALL nihilism is subconcious. Concious nihilism is not possible. Not even the Joker, it's closest approximation, could be free of the need to, at least periodically, maintain a semblence of purpose and conviction in his actions. That that purpose and those convictions were perveted is irrelevant to my point. They are mere rationalizations to cover up something he was lacking; just as your explanations for why you laughed is, I believe, a rationalization in place of a full understanding and appreciation of the role of art in man's life. Possibly a lack in regards to deeper, more important values, but I could not say. Laughing at displays of violence on screen - at least, the graphic violence in this film - is indicative of nihilism towards art. Joker had proven himself evil enough, and silly enough already, that doing tricks and wearing drag were not significant enoguh to distract from the gravity of the situation. They were nothing new; they were to be expected. Trickery and absurdity is the Joker's modus operandi. The serious tone of this film had already been set. The only way to be distracted by his antics was not to appreciate the gravity of the message Joker represented. To not be in wrapt attention - to be capable of a light-hearted moment - is to not possess a reverence for this film which it deserves. (it doesn't matter if the director did not posses it either) Joker does refer to something in reality, but it isn't necessarily extreme cases of amorality. Instead it is the potential for the nihilism in even the best of us. Ironically, Bruce Wayne's struggles with revenge, with honor/recognition, with committment to justice all represent this struggle. This is the central theme of this entire series of Bat Man films. To integrate everything from the smallest detail to his most important choices around one central meaning; which constitutes his true identity. To maintain that the reaction we get from art - or worse, pieces of a work of art - say nothing about who we are is what is immoral. It is to maintain a false premise. This was a serious film, there is no question about that. It's seriousness was established in it's very first scene. I agree that even in the most serious matters of life, humor has it's place. This movie provided that. Examples would be the banter between Bruce Wayne and Alfred. The clever things Bat Man says when he sneaks up on the villians, etc. Anything the Joker did, however, was not one of them. Unlike in past attempts, Joker's essence - and by implication the transparency of his "jokes" - was too well presented to be anything close to funny.

Nyronus, There is much factually wrong with your version of the arguments I have put forth. You clearly display a lack of understanding of my use of the term "nihilism" from your failure to address it directly. Curiosly, you irresponsibly decided not to read the discussion which my original comment provoked and to compensate for it you used a laughably specious argument to "prove" to me that my argument is flawed. With this evidence in hand, I must ask: what is your purpose in attacking my claim - even as you misunderstand it? What, specifically, are you trying to defend? You "do not like the idea that have judged the totality of the morality of the audience in such a black category." Fine. Point to where I did that. It is an idea you conjured in your head. You think that the only way for a person to be a nihilist is to lack any desire for values in any and all contexts (which, you yourself, define and laugh at as impossible and absurd), so what is it about me which made you hostile? Clearly, it was not a sense that I wished to call into question the good nature of the people in the audience - that would be nihilistic and thus, by your standards, impossible. Furthermore, the obvious implication is that there was nothing good about these people which deserves defense - that would be heroism and thus, by your standards, impossible aswell. They certainly do not deserve philosophical enlightenment, let alone a suggestion that they engage in introspection. So I ask again: what, specifically - in art or in life - are you trying to defend? Once you have given me a satisfactory answer, I will explain to you what I am attempting to preserve by pointing out what I have thusfar.

Nyronus, I ask you then, what is nihilism? Does it exist? Or is it just some comical absurdity? Does art have a point in human affairs? Is it supposed to teach us something about ourselves? Or is it just a pointless exercise in meaningless emotional titilation? How is that attitude itself not nihilistic? Also, remember the nature of nihilism (or any bad philosophical attitude for that matter): it isn't teneable. It cannot be practiced consistently. Your post offered very little in the way of new points which hadn't already been made. It was full of assertions and quite hostile in tone.

The movie moves so fast, I thought that he chooses to save the person he believes to be the best hope for Gotham. Nevertheless, I came to the same conclusion that you did: that this was not a sacrifice. If I'm correct - if he intended to save Harvey Dent - then my reasoning for why this is so is more complicated than a desire to see superficial elements of John Galt's predicament in Bruce Wayne, but I still believe it's sound. This is the root of my major complaint with the film: that they became confused by this complication and labeled Bat Man's best actions a sacrifice (ie: he became "The Dark Knight"). My thinking is that Wayne determined that to him - because of his exceptional virtues, abilities, and resources - a "normal life" was to be Bat Man in perpetuity. That Rachael unwittingly helped him realize this when she said to him "don't let me become your only chance at a normal life." The trade off of giving up the love of a woman for the confidence of being the master of justice in Gotham seemed personally profitable to him. I think that he thought that Rachael would have understood this and, because she in her own way was equally as heroic, would have been accepting of her death if it meant Bruce's "survival" (In the sense of finally becoming who he truly is: Bat Man).

Grames, The humor associated with the Joker IS mocking, absurd, and destructive. That's exactly why it isn't funny. The Joker did not humiliate that thug, he murdered him in cold blood. Sure, the guy didn't deserve praise for being a mobster - a clever, "Bat Manesque" insult would have been funny - but unexpected, excruciatingly painful death? Only the Joker could find that funny. You knew nothing about that individual other than the fact that he was in the mafia. Was he a high-priced hit man or just some low level operative tasked with cracking open parking meters? You have no idea; and neither did the Joker - yet both laughed at his execution. It was a mocking of not only life as such, but due process, justice, and the rule of law. I want to clarify my use of the term "light-hearted" because I don't think you understood my intended meaning. I am saying that ALL humor is essentially light-hearted. That the object of the laughter - be it a competent man's moment of incompetence, or a petty criminal's petty pretentions - is light-hearted because it is not important. All humor mocks the unimportant. I fail to see how the Joker's "magic trick" or his dressing in drag deviates from what is important about his character (let alone it's important impact upon Gotham). These things are intimately tied up in his true character as a sociopathic murderer and the destroyer of a hospital. Neither joke "undermined" his reputation - he's the Joker! As for your point about emotional seduction: I don't see how "a man who shakes off the spell only after the rally is over" describes anything in reality. How would this happen? This would require a prolonged, profound reeducation in order to see through the myriad of faulty premises underlying the dictator's rally. To be susceptible to them, unless one is an adolescent or a mental retard, requires a history of active evasion before the rally even begins. The man who is impervious to them is that way because he has chosen to see the truth; a morally superior choice.

I didn't. I gave you my view. I could list a number of fundamental facts, but you'd probably reject them as inconclusive, and you'd be right to do so. However, there is a preponderence of evidence: The fact that a penis fits into a vagina, the fact that homosexual relationships tend to mirror heterosexual ones (a "male" role and a "female" role), the fact that child rearing is one of life's greatest joys for a great number of people who can't/aren't distinguished in another field, etc... I never said that my view was conclusive. However, given humanity's limited knowledge on the subject as of right now, I believe it is immoral to flout the tremendously greater amount of evidence which suggests it's psychologically based and to treat the smaller, opposite group of knowledge (eg: "my personal experience") as conclusive just so one can be "safe" from doing any introspecting.

My view on homosexuality is that yes, it is chosen and that it's immoral, but no, chosing to continue to be gay is not necessarily immoral. My argument runs as follows: Human beings are born tabula rasa, and as such they create everything about their character; including sexual preference. In accordance with an individual's nature, the rational choice for a man is to seek psycho-sexual domination of a woman. This is EC's point about "the unity of the body and the soul." This is an accomplishment of the individual - using his mind's ability to fulfill his greatest potential - and to the extent it is his choice, it is a moral accomplishment. Conversely, when a child is raised improperly, his views on sexuality can become mixed. A man can, for whatever reason, develop a habituated (but not necessarily consistent) desire to be dominated. This is also, to an extent, the result of the individual's choice, and in allowing it to remain unresolved in the malleable time of his adolescence, he is selling himself short. To that extent, he is acting immorally. However, because it is not completely the result of his choice (his parents should have offered guidance), if, as a fully formed adult, he deems the effort needed to correct this psychological issue as outweighed by the pleasure he has already learned to achieve in a homosexual relationship, then he would be immoral to try to correct his error. I think that the disparity between the potentiality for happiness in a loving, supportive heterosexual relationship and a homosexual one is negligible. Unfortunately, many homosexual relationships are not loving and supportive; and I believe that this is essentially due to the fact that homosexuals are mentally ill to some degree. My position is analogous to my position on a highly intelligent plumber. The man, as a youth, was never shown the potential his mind possessed, and as a result he never aspired to become more than a blue collar worker. To the extent that he was lazy and didn't seek it out himself - since he, by definition, would be only one around to sense it - he behaved immorallly. However, should he now, years later, when he realizes what he was capable of at the beginning of his adulthood, forego all of the knowledge, the mastery of his trade, and the fond sentiment involved in his being a plumber merely to achieve some hypothetical "higher goal" of being a doctor? I don't think so.

I think this "these people wouldn't laugh at such horrors in real life" distinction which a few have made is flawed. Of course they wouldn't laugh at the Joker's actions in real life; the Joker doesn't exist in real life. When "Joker-like" actions take place in real life they are much harder to understand because unlike in the world of make believe, those who take them appear to have, as I said, some semblance of reason purpose, structure, and value. Even if that motivation is perverted at it's base, it is not easily apparent to the average person experiencing it. In fact, it is rarely apparent to the perpetrator himself! Instead, they look for reasons why the person acted. The actor took the drugs because it is part of the life of a movie star. The person cuts himself because he wants attention. The Islamic totalitarians attacked the United States because of it's meddling in the Middle East. This is the "real life" equivalent of treating the Joker as if he actually has a sense of humor. The Joker, ironically, has no sense of humor. In regards to him, because everything is funny, nothing is funny. Trying to be funny - appearing light-hearted himself - is his means of survival. When a sympathetic character, even in a serious film, has a light hearted moment, the audience laughs because they know he is the type of man capable of true, legitimate humor (eg: Bat Man's witicisms). After nearly two hours of being exposed to the treachery of the Joker, I for one found it impossible to seperate the sight of him in drag from the rest of his role long enough to find it even remotely light-hearted. Him wearing a dress seemed so incidental to what was going on that I almost didn't notice it. When I did notice it, I expected it. The purpose of engaging oneself in a work of art is not to "get lost" in a place where one can be free to observe his emotional associations with impugnity from judgement. As if his reactions were that of some disembodied entity which said nothing about his real character. Of course, one shouldn't fake it and deny what he is feeling, but he should still evaluate himself because of it. The value of a work of art comes from the fact that it crystalizes the ideas those emotions refer to; either directly, or in this case, by implication. If someone has the idea that not every element of a character in a film needs to refer to that character's theme, then of course they will laugh when they see one which appears not to. It confirms their conviction and brings them pleasure. When someone, having learned some film school verbiage, is able to decide that the viewing of a film is an opportunity for "anything goes" in the realm of emotional meaning, of course they will laugh when they should shudder. It wouldn't matter either way. Do you see how this, itself, is "Joker-like"? To point out that directors use seduction techniques which fluctuate between severity and humor in order to draw an otherwise ambivalent audience in is not an explanation. The speeches of dictators fluctuate between terror and flattery to keep their subjects enthralled. The question I raise is what does it say about the audience that such techniques work? I'd like to ad that by writing this I am not intending to insult those who I disagree with. Possessing an emotional disorganization is not something to be ashamed of. It is not a moral failure until and unless one becomes aware of it yet chooses to do nothing to correct it. Chooses to continue to hide behind one's rationalizations for it.

I disagree. They call him the Joker because, to him, everything is a joke.