But when everyone is Hitler then nobody is. It’s always a mistake to declare your political opponent a Hitler merely because you disagree with him. ^_^
I can’t be the only one who takes satisfaction in adding certain words to the smartphone dictionary, such as the names of cool places or the plural of Hitler. Yes of course I need that in the dictionary. I have a Facebook account, though I can’t say why.
So H.T. is developing a sense of responsibility? o_O
If it’s not a pose then I guess this wouldn’t be the first time that duty forced a development of conscience and foresight in some who started out with some very sharp edges. ^_^
An evil villain who wants to blow up the world isn’t somehow “responsible” because they know better than to monologue about their evil plans. Blowing up the earth is still irresponsible, even if you’re smart about hiding your plan to do so.
And, further, an evil villain who wants to rule the world isn’t “responsible” because he’s prepared to help stop the above villain, on the grounds that if they blow up the world, he’s got nothing to rule. Or simply because the world happens to include where he’s standing.
It remains to be seen whether this applies to H.T., or whether he’s just got Resting Evil Plan Face.
He doesn’t have a conscience. He’s always been playing the long game, and has never publicly shown animosity toward humans, except through a proxy of some kind.
The thing I liked most about Hungry Tiger from the Oz books was that he wasn’t evil, he tried being good no matter how much that went against his nature. The problem was, being a tiger with large sharp teeth, anything he said would seem sinister and evil.
For example, here he is trying to greet Dorothy in a friendly manner:
I get this kind of feeling with HT. At first he was trying to elevate the status of his people through inappropriate means. When that didn’t work he tried again within the system, which leads us to today where everything he does or says is interpreted as an evil plot to destroy mankind, even going so far as to remove the conditioner from the cabin bathrooms. To me, this misunderstanding is more humorous than if he was truly evil.
My issue is that real life tigers and other large cats are perfectly capable of being incredibly friendly without seeming remotely sinister or evil.
For a comic that really digs into topics of human arrogance and specism, it would be completely out of place to depict a character who genuinely only seems sinsister and evil because they’re a tiger, when that’s such an anthrocentric notion.
And we’ve actually seen that there is a different reason to distrust HT – we’ve repeatedly been shown that he isn’t trying to be good, but rather that he openly revels in threatening and manipulating people.
“real life tigers and other large cats are perfectly capable of being incredibly friendly without seeming remotely sinister or evil.”
Indeed they are, and they’ll still be purring as they sink their claws into your thigh. See also, the Scorpion and the Frog. Even a friendly cat can hurt you by playing rough.
The Scorpion and The Frog is just as anthropocentric, and even more absurd. I don’t find much wisdom in a human-made story about the nature of animals which tells its moral by having those animals act in ways that are completely unnatural and anthropomorphized.
A tiger is rarely going to harm you if it doesn’t want to. And on the rare occassions where a tiger might harm you by accident, it cannot be said to be either sinister or evil, as it does not act out of malice or with deceit.
Yes, tigers do play rough. Yes, it’s in their nature for them to do so. But is that sinister or evil? Not remotely.
Nick’s nature is that of a weapon platform, designed to deliver flaming death from the skies. Does that mean people should treat him as an avenging angel of death, and fear and revile him? Watch out! He’s got sharp rotating blades that can dismember people, and he’s full of flammable liquid! He’s inherently dangerous! He can’t be trusted! He’s sinister and evil! It’s in his nature!
Utter nonsense. And hence why I was never a fan of things like The Wizard of Oz, which is a hugely problematic work steeped in antiquated and illogical notions of morality which are the product of the time in which it was written.
Which is in turn a large part of why I enjoy Skin Horse as much as I do – it explores and deconstructs a lot of the most problemative elements of old pieces of literature that many of us grew up having read to us as ostensibly wholesome children’s stories, or shown to us as film adaptations.
HT is not evil because he’s a tiger. He’s evil because he’s a tiger who does evil things. If Nick went around shooting random civilians, then surviving civilians could be justified in thinking that he isn’t their friend.
I have to agree with you that the Oz books are dated, but my objection to them isn’t because of Baum’s treatment of anthropomorphic animals.
On animal-based fables, though, I must disagree. The tradition of having animals represent some aspect of the human condition dates back thousands of years in many cultures. The listener is not meant to take them in as the literal behavior of that kind of animal.
In the case of The Scorpion and the Frog, the whole point is that in some people, nature and a failure to change can overwhelm reason, leading to disaster. No frogs or scorpions were harmed in the telling of that tale.
Ospreys are not weapons platforms, and Nick has expressly forbidden the attachment of weapons to his airframe.
HT is a manipulative bastard, not because he’s a tiger, but because he’s a manipulative bastard. One of the ways he manipulates others is by convincing them that they are profiling him as a tiger when they question his motives to make them stop. Nothing has ever suggested that his evil nature is endemic to anyone but himself.
“You all know how beastly tigers are, (out in out in out in India).
They bite; they scratch; they make an awful fuss,
It’s no use stroking them and saying ‘puss, puss, puss’.”
It’s entirely possible for political rivals to agree on a particular point of politics for radically different reasons. Tip doesn’t want the possums to create animosity with their human neighbors because he wants to expedite NHS integration into American society. HT doesn’t want the possums to create animosity with their human neighbors because he wants the humans to become complacent.
Neither one is a particularly noble goal, but at least Tip’s preference for cultural hegemony doesn’t lead to what would likely be a civil war.
Only Hitlers agree with Hitler or do what Hitler does, Tip. Good people put their left shoes on their right feet to prevent that.
But when everyone is Hitler then nobody is. It’s always a mistake to declare your political opponent a Hitler merely because you disagree with him. ^_^
Unless they’re wearing a “I (heart) Genocide” lapel pin, of course.
That is an exemplary use of the indeterminate article in relation to Hitler.
But what if he’s actually a Stalin?
Ah, but is HT Cat Hitler or Cat Stalin? It’s permissible to temporarily ally with Cat Stalin to fight, say, Rhino Hitler.
You forgot about Finland.
I think most Finns prefer to be forgotten about. They may fight like blazes, but I think they’d prefer not to have to.
I can’t be the only one who takes satisfaction in adding certain words to the smartphone dictionary, such as the names of cool places or the plural of Hitler. Yes of course I need that in the dictionary. I have a Facebook account, though I can’t say why.
Yep, though it sometimes fills me with consternation at the omissions I find. Wasn’t this programmed by nerds? Then WHY did you leave ‘Klingon’ out?
Maybe you have to spell it in actual Klingon?
And do you spell it tlhIngan Hol or Klingonaase?
So H.T. is developing a sense of responsibility? o_O
If it’s not a pose then I guess this wouldn’t be the first time that duty forced a development of conscience and foresight in some who started out with some very sharp edges. ^_^
Less responsibility, more self interest.
An evil villain who wants to blow up the world isn’t somehow “responsible” because they know better than to monologue about their evil plans. Blowing up the earth is still irresponsible, even if you’re smart about hiding your plan to do so.
I don’t get the impression that Tony and Mercutio’s experiments have anything to do with HT’s plan, even if he appreciates their little tortoises.
HT’s trying to maintain a façade of acquiescence, as per usual. Everyone else, not so much.
And, further, an evil villain who wants to rule the world isn’t “responsible” because he’s prepared to help stop the above villain, on the grounds that if they blow up the world, he’s got nothing to rule. Or simply because the world happens to include where he’s standing.
It remains to be seen whether this applies to H.T., or whether he’s just got Resting Evil Plan Face.
He doesn’t have a conscience. He’s always been playing the long game, and has never publicly shown animosity toward humans, except through a proxy of some kind.
The thing I liked most about Hungry Tiger from the Oz books was that he wasn’t evil, he tried being good no matter how much that went against his nature. The problem was, being a tiger with large sharp teeth, anything he said would seem sinister and evil.
For example, here he is trying to greet Dorothy in a friendly manner:
http://screencrush.com/files/2013/03/hungry-tiger-1.jpg
Oops, accidentally sent that before finishing.
I get this kind of feeling with HT. At first he was trying to elevate the status of his people through inappropriate means. When that didn’t work he tried again within the system, which leads us to today where everything he does or says is interpreted as an evil plot to destroy mankind, even going so far as to remove the conditioner from the cabin bathrooms. To me, this misunderstanding is more humorous than if he was truly evil.
True though he DID casually take a chance to murder someone awhile back…
He’s outright stated that his intent is to replace the human-only US government with an NHS-only US government.
My issue is that real life tigers and other large cats are perfectly capable of being incredibly friendly without seeming remotely sinister or evil.
For a comic that really digs into topics of human arrogance and specism, it would be completely out of place to depict a character who genuinely only seems sinsister and evil because they’re a tiger, when that’s such an anthrocentric notion.
And we’ve actually seen that there is a different reason to distrust HT – we’ve repeatedly been shown that he isn’t trying to be good, but rather that he openly revels in threatening and manipulating people.
“real life tigers and other large cats are perfectly capable of being incredibly friendly without seeming remotely sinister or evil.”
Indeed they are, and they’ll still be purring as they sink their claws into your thigh. See also, the Scorpion and the Frog. Even a friendly cat can hurt you by playing rough.
The Scorpion and The Frog is just as anthropocentric, and even more absurd. I don’t find much wisdom in a human-made story about the nature of animals which tells its moral by having those animals act in ways that are completely unnatural and anthropomorphized.
A tiger is rarely going to harm you if it doesn’t want to. And on the rare occassions where a tiger might harm you by accident, it cannot be said to be either sinister or evil, as it does not act out of malice or with deceit.
Yes, tigers do play rough. Yes, it’s in their nature for them to do so. But is that sinister or evil? Not remotely.
Nick’s nature is that of a weapon platform, designed to deliver flaming death from the skies. Does that mean people should treat him as an avenging angel of death, and fear and revile him? Watch out! He’s got sharp rotating blades that can dismember people, and he’s full of flammable liquid! He’s inherently dangerous! He can’t be trusted! He’s sinister and evil! It’s in his nature!
Utter nonsense. And hence why I was never a fan of things like The Wizard of Oz, which is a hugely problematic work steeped in antiquated and illogical notions of morality which are the product of the time in which it was written.
Which is in turn a large part of why I enjoy Skin Horse as much as I do – it explores and deconstructs a lot of the most problemative elements of old pieces of literature that many of us grew up having read to us as ostensibly wholesome children’s stories, or shown to us as film adaptations.
HT is not evil because he’s a tiger. He’s evil because he’s a tiger who does evil things. If Nick went around shooting random civilians, then surviving civilians could be justified in thinking that he isn’t their friend.
I have to agree with you that the Oz books are dated, but my objection to them isn’t because of Baum’s treatment of anthropomorphic animals.
On animal-based fables, though, I must disagree. The tradition of having animals represent some aspect of the human condition dates back thousands of years in many cultures. The listener is not meant to take them in as the literal behavior of that kind of animal.
In the case of The Scorpion and the Frog, the whole point is that in some people, nature and a failure to change can overwhelm reason, leading to disaster. No frogs or scorpions were harmed in the telling of that tale.
Ospreys are not weapons platforms, and Nick has expressly forbidden the attachment of weapons to his airframe.
HT is a manipulative bastard, not because he’s a tiger, but because he’s a manipulative bastard. One of the ways he manipulates others is by convincing them that they are profiling him as a tiger when they question his motives to make them stop. Nothing has ever suggested that his evil nature is endemic to anyone but himself.
Just how good was he, Sweetheart?
Do you think a lady would kiss (or gnaw on a head) and tell?
“You all know how beastly tigers are, (out in out in out in India).
They bite; they scratch; they make an awful fuss,
It’s no use stroking them and saying ‘puss, puss, puss’.”
– Hunting Tigers Out In India, The Bonzo Dog Band
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQxc0TWj5ow?ecver=2%5D
And when HT wants to wait “until this proposition passes,” is he talking about the ballot or his relationship with Sweetheart?
HT could really use some good catnip right now.
Maxim 29: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy. No more. No less.
But Skin Horse is government, so I’m not sure who the mercenaries are here.
It’s entirely possible for political rivals to agree on a particular point of politics for radically different reasons. Tip doesn’t want the possums to create animosity with their human neighbors because he wants to expedite NHS integration into American society. HT doesn’t want the possums to create animosity with their human neighbors because he wants the humans to become complacent.
Neither one is a particularly noble goal, but at least Tip’s preference for cultural hegemony doesn’t lead to what would likely be a civil war.