this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
738 points (94.2% liked)

Lord of the memes

8261 readers
21 users here now

The Lord of the rings memes communitiy on Lemmy. Share memes about Lord of the rings and be respectful.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 126 points 1 year ago (3 children)
[–] Tehgingey 12 points 1 year ago

This is incredible, well done!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

a well forged play of words

[–] [email protected] 113 points 1 year ago (7 children)

The only thing this is missing is the denialism that the ring exists at all

[–] Screwthehole 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

The real ring is the pedophile ring Eowyn runs out of a pizza parlor in Gondor

[–] kibiz0r 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The ring doesn’t exist. And if it does, it’s not that bad. And if it is, we can use it for good. And if we can’t, it’s cuz we deserve it.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

That, and also asking if someone's tried to debate the Nazgûl.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

But if it did exist, it would be a good thing

[–] Madison420 13 points 1 year ago

The book did have denialism, the movie skipped it but it's there in the much more fun books.

[–] Hextic 10 points 1 year ago

"we don't need to throw the FAKE ring into the fire! We can just eat lembas bread! That one guy ate some and didn't get killed by an Orc I don't care what Woke Rivendell says!"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dub 83 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Unironically this is what would have happened in real life. Every fantasy good and evil conflict would have morons like we do now clamoring for 'bOtH SiDEs'

[–] Ghostalmedia 72 points 1 year ago

The idiots clamoring for “both sides” wouldn’t be as loud and numerous if “fair and balanced” Orc News wasn’t pumping out Mordor’s propaganda 24/7.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

In the broader context of the novel it was that way. Rivendell wasn't an open forum. And it shouldn't have been.

[–] hansmeiser666 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Uhm, yes it was, and all that took part in the council where there by pure chance (e.g. fate) in the book.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

Fate? or the machinations of a wizard who was actually a demigod?

Also, do you think Elrond would have allowed just anyone into that council?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Sauron just wants to protect his western border!

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, in the book the Mouth of Sauron talks pretty much like a modern politician.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

It's actually really funny because you've got 800 pages of dudes talking like they're from Middle Earth and this dude shows up and starts spouting talking points like he's a modern, career politician. Genuinely actually funny.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago

"Yeah, Sauron and the orcs are bent on conquering everything and enslaving everyone, but Denethor is mean to one of his sons, so there are no angels here. I can't in good conscience support the Free Peoples until he apologises and steps down."

[–] CaptainEffort 24 points 1 year ago (9 children)

I’m open to being wrong, but I still think old shitty statues and stuff should be put in a museum or something. I think it’s important to preserve history, especially when it represents something bad. The Holocaust museum is a solid example, and imo is incredibly important.

I’d even say the same for the One Ring if there wasn’t the chance for someone to reclaim it and become all powerful. I mean is it even possible to contain it?

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I still think old shitty statues and stuff should be put in a museum or something

I don't think anyone has a problem with that. But, that's usually not what the regressive types are complaining about.

To use the US example, the overwhelming number of "Confederate Monuments" were erected many decades after the Civil War, and typically funded by white supremacist groups or their close allies in city and state government. They were installed in public parks, on public easements, in front of public buildings, etc. Notably, they are typically not on graves, old battlefields, etc.

Folks quite reasonably think we should remove monuments that were put up as a big "F U" to remind black folks who is really in charge. These statues are certainly shitty, but they also are not "old". They're much younger than the people/conflicts they memorialize, and have no historical significance (except to the white supremacists who put them there).

Of course it's not just the US. I remember in the wake of the collapse of the Iron Curtain, communist sympathizers complained at the removal of Soviet monuments. I remember college professors complaining at the renaming of Leningrad back to St. Petersburg, calling it a "dangerous right-wing move" and an erasure of Lenin's history and legacy.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In Russia those Soviet monuments are like dirt, you still can see some Lenin statues here and there.

[–] loklan 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are quite a few "statue parks" in Russia where they dumped all the old communist statues. Row after row of lenins, the odd khrushchev or brezhnev, a rare stalin tucked down the back. Lots of actually pretty good art of the common people looking super swole as they march into a glorious future.

All sitting in a muddy field in the outer suburbs of Moscow or Petersburg. It's a tourist trap but I found it to be a pretty poetic experience when I visited.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

First of all there's Museon near the Gorky Park, where one of such places is combined with a memorial to Stalinism's victims.

[–] Dee 25 points 1 year ago

I mean is it even possible to contain it?

No. Somebody even wrote three whole books to say it can't be contained. They're pretty good too.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The thing is that most of the statues in question were not created prior to the civil war, or even directly after. They were funded and installed by people mad about reconstruction and later about desegregation. Many of the statues being discussed today were put in place in the 50s. They have no historical relevance except as a monument to the racists who wanted a large, visible reminder that they had power at one point, as a threat that they'd continue trying to gain it back.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

And largely the ones which are older than that and do have some sort of historical or general memorial purpose are being treated differently. A few years ago Orlando relocated a Johnny Reb statue from 1911 to the Confederate part of a local cemetery and I think that's the most appropriate thing to do with that specific statue.

[–] fidodo 20 points 1 year ago

I think I'm fine with that as long as it's properly contextualized. In the cases of statues the history to tell isn't actually about the person the statue is about but rather the context and circumstances of the propaganda campaign that lead to it being built. When you see statues and posters in a Holocaust museum it's in the context of how they were propagandized.

Either way, no way in hell should it be put in a place of honor like a park.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

Those statues were not created with the intent of creating art. They are not historical in the sense of their subject. If we're talking about Confederate statues then they were largely created during the Jim Crow era, many in the 1950s-60s. They were created with the intent to harass and ostracize black people in America and promote white nationalism.

They are not art and have no historical value. If we want to preserve them, they should be in an exhibit about Jim Crow-era hate speech. And in that case, we don't need all of them; just prominent examples. We can take a chunk of Stone Mountain, for instance, to show next to pictures of it before it is dynamited.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

They consider throwing it in the ocean as a serious possibility

[–] Strobelt 6 points 1 year ago

Exactly! I agree with you and think that we should expose our past as it was and how it impacted the world. Learning from our mistakes prevents us from committing them again.

[–] iforgotmyinstance 4 points 1 year ago

There's a huge difference between an American Civil War museum and having symbols/statues celebrating the traitors to the existing nation everywhere.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I agree with you that problematic statues/symbols should be displayed in museums with the goal of teaching people about mistakes of the past. I mostly take an issue with the public display of stuff like that

On the One Ring: The issue is that it itself has a nature which cannot be change, cannot be harvested without the wielder being corrupted. And any value it might have had is greatly outweighed by the danger it poses

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

MORGOTH DID NOTHING WRONG

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sauron I make the best rings nobody makes rings like me they are perfect rings

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

they are the biggest handsome rings I have ever seen ✋ 🤚

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Modor is where the woke dies

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

except when a definitely not homoerotic pair of hobbits drops a teeny tiny ring into lava, making practically all of Mordor collapse

load more comments
view more: next ›