Speaking of the paradox of tolerance, here's a pretentious analysis of Dirty Harry I came across in the wild
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (34)
sorted by:
I don't think the reviewer is pretentious. The reviewer nails Dirty Harry exactly as the movie was meant. Nice, gentle liberals can't handle psychopaths like Scorpio.
And that is a chilling thought. Because it means humanity can't rise from its barbarity or cruelty.
Justified force isn't barbaric, Scorpio-lover. Harry is only "Dirty" in the context of communist-infiltrated Hollywood.
They call him Dirty Harry because the cops make him do all the unpleasant jobs, not because he's a corrupt cop. They literally spell it out in the first movie when he talks the guy out of suicide.
I was critiquing the idea that we should be morally uncertain of Callahan instead of unmitigated supporters by using the idea of a dirty cop which is the only way this uncertainty can be claimed.
You entirely missed the point of my comment. And yes, police acting as judge, jury, and executioner is not the product of civilized society. Unfortunately, as your reply to me indicates, we don't live in a civilized society. And that is a chilling thought. Ass-wipe.
You're gay
The analysis isn't really wrong, but the part where he says, "the film forces the viewer to think on a philosophical plane, especially about Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance" comes across as a bit pretentious to me. The same reviewer also says that Dirty Harry may be fascist later on in that comment thread.
Humans have tens of thousands of years of feral instinct, a whole lot more than that if we count pre-human animals, and maybe only a few millenniums of civilization.
Its a supreme act of arrogance that only a Liberal could have to think that we can force evolution to happen at our desire and leisure. Its truly believing we can be God.