Since everything now by drone, or by rifle, even gangland shooting. Whatever happened to be being challenged to a duel?
Will it ever come back?
What is /K/'s opinion on this?
Is there such a thing as gentalmans death anymore?
Since everything now by drone, or by rifle, even gangland shooting. Whatever happened to be being challenged to a duel?
Will it ever come back?
What is /K/'s opinion on this?
Someone post mobiks off'ing themselves
Slowly bleeding out under the stars as snow begins to fall
There was never a gentleman's death, it was always a lie to sell violence to impressionable young men
>this
The vast majority of dying things (animals, humans) become extremely desperate when they instinctively know they are dying. The only exceptions are quick deaths due to nearly instant exsanguination or massive damage to the CNS. Even then, you will always release all bodily waste upon death. Dying cannot be prettied up. It's ugly by nature (and it smells bad).
That can at least be amended by not picking a fight when you need to take a shit, as most armies do on the offensive to prevent the other problem from eating before strenuous activity: cramps.
The best solution to fuckers who want to start fights is to let them initiate the fight, and then you beat the ever living fucking apeshit outta them, and then HOPEFULLY that fucker learns their lesson (in this life or the next).
this.
there is nothing gentlemanly about one's death unless one has also lived a noble and honest life. People who talk like this are usually looking for a shortcut because they're too lazy to put in the work required to make something of themselves while they can, so it's easier to think about a few seconds of bravery before the end than a lifetime of effort, sacrifice, and mistakes. Cheats realize too late that they only cheated themselves when they're at death's door, and the regret and shame before the end is worse than any afterlife of torture and brimstone.
I'm guessing religion is to set some ground rules for morals because we've been going on this cycle of humanity where everyone only lives a relatively short amount of time when they've finally matured. Why not force a belief in a sky daddy that's ancillary to just making sure your countrymen don't turn out like Africa or Abbos down under? Fuck, maybe you can focus on something else than getting your dick wet and bashing in another guy's head in to take his food.
>I'm guessing religion is to set some ground rules for morals because we've been going on this cycle of humanity where everyone only lives a relatively short amount of time when they've finally matured.
Religion was created and exists predominantly for the consolidation of power and resources by its leaders and/or their associated nations' leaders. Any secondary moral rationale is A. ex-post-faco and therefore accidental and not necessarily causal B. negated by the fact that other human cultures displayed inter-tribal communalism and "morality" without a concept of "religion" necessarily existing in the same way we think of the concept in our Western culture.
>Why not force a belief in a sky daddy that's ancillary to just making sure your countrymen don't turn out like Africa or Abbos down under?
Because most humans don't need a mythos or a state religion to not murder, rape, and steal when they have their basic needs met, socio/psychopaths notwithstanding.
>Fuck, maybe you can focus on something else than getting your dick wet and bashing in another guy's head in to take his food.
Our entire species' development pre-agriculture was driven by these two needs and their violent acquisition - if we'd evolved to be herbivorous herd mammals instead of I contend this board likely wouldn't exist, or if it did not in the way it does now.
I really can't disagree with a single thing you're saying. I just wonder how much the balance of self-interest and altruism plays for the powers that be once they got inertia in their created institutions after the grug peroid.
The last century seemed like trying to clean house to set up a new tableboard, but humans just can't fucking it up. I can see why with the space race Science Fiction had a thread of, "Fuck it, I'm going into orbit."
Shooting at officers used to be considered ungentlemanly.
How'd that go for the British when they faced Daniel Morgan and Benedict Arnold?
My good fellow gentleman, let us settle our disagreement with suitable dignity...
Der Neger ist der Feind des weissen Mannes.
Gentleman's death
>every chap in the /k/ Mess has heard the reports
>OP is revealed to be a disgusting sodomite
>in his room, OP finds his batman has placed his pistol on the end of his bed
>OP performs the necessary activity
Fuck your thread, I want to talk about the narrative significance of this scene from Barry Lyndon.
Why do you think Barry intentionally does not shoot Bullingdon in this scene? Do you think it's out of regret for how poorly he's treated his step son who as a result now hates him and wants him dead? Was it Barry's attempt to rectify his past with his step son? Was it his attempt to at last be a good father to him by trying to show Bullingdon that a duel isn't the true measure of a man? Or maybe instead he misses on purpose out of a sense of duty to his wife, who already lost one child. Barry may actually WANT to kill Bullingdon, but choses not to do so out of pity for his bereaved wife. Or, most cynically, do you think Barry does it out of pure self interest? Perhaps Barry knows that his already tarnished reputation simply couldn't handle the added weight of killing his own step son? Maybe he knows that the public knowledge of this event will be the final straw that destroys him forever, but if it gets out that he showed his step son mercy, it's possible he could get back in the good graces of high society?
What do you think, for those of you non-plebs who have even seen this underrated Kubrick masterpiece.
I think it’s some ember of good left in Barry, but the irony is that he’s done so much evil in his life, and brutalised his stepson so badly, that he gets shot anyway. To the extent that there’s any lesson to be gained from it, it’s that sometimes the consequences of our actions catch up to us, whether or not we later have pangs of conscience or make acts of contrition.
I think these are all very good points, and part of what makes the scene so powerful. For a film where so little is said, so much is going on. There is a great deal to unpack. While the duels do serve as a bookend to Barry's rise and fall, I also think it's important to note that Barry and Bullingdon are foils of one another which really plays into the scene. While Barry was born into nothing, Bullingdon was born into everything. Barry had to fight for every thing he had in life (if unscrupulously) whereas Bullingdon was handed it. Barry was brutalized in the Prussian army, but used it as a motivator to better himself and climb the social ladder. By contrast, when Barry inflicts corporal punishment on Bullingdon as a child, Bullingdon runs away like a petulant child, and vows to destroy Barry. Where Barry, in his youth faced dueling with courage Bullingdon is frightened, sniveling and literally vomits from nerves. More than that, he is so removed from the world of masculinity and combat that he doesn't even know how to properly work his pistol, or fully appreciate the severity of the rules.
I think that this was Barry's last attempt at decency. He had ended up worse than the man he hated in Captain Quinn. This was Barry reclaiming a last bit of humanity, which Bulingdon was not able to appreciate, specifically because of how Barry had treated him.
2/2 It’s like when Alex is tortured by the old guy in A Clockwork Orange despite having undergone the Ludoviko treatment - redemption doesn’t come cheap, and even if you’ve “changed”, you may be faced with karma. Violence begets violence, evil begets evil.
Compassion and honor, too little and too late. Barry could see that Bullingdon was still just a boy in a rage and spared him but he failed to perceive - quite ironically - that Bullingdon himself had no concern for honor as far as Barry was concerned because he had received none from Barry in his turn. Barry had only stayed ahead of his past misdeeds by continuing to perpetrate them; when he softened after the death of his son he finally suffered the consequences. There might also be an implication of suicidal ideation there, as well. Barry would have found peace had he been killed but instead he died in penniless ignominy after yet more suffering. From a narrative perspective it's also a neat bookend; Barry's story begins and ends with a duel.
Fuck Barry Lyndon is such a good movie. My favorite Kubrick film hands down.
Actually shooting someone in a duel, at least in Jolly 'ol Engerland, was seen as ungentlemanly. The entire movie was him coming up from being basically a potato nagger and wanting so bad to be part of the upper society. But it's kind of like being born a goyim, you'll never be a israelite. Or a made man like that scene from Goodfellas before they dome Pesci and Henry is saying how even with his mother's blood he could never be in the in-group.
So this was his last gasp at trying, because you have to still show you have balls, show up to the duel, and go through the process where you are both in mutual danger. It was the hatered from Bullingdon which made that not really matter.
Either past actions, relationships, and overarching plots and metaphors leave it up to discussion of what exactly the significance of that scene is, which is why it's so powerful.
I think Kubrick was trying to say more about trying to get into higher society but not being able to, but nobody's able to tell you directly. Which you also see more visibly with Eyes Wide Shut. Hell, that's probably why the Scottish Rite Masons made their own society in reaction to English banking dynasties.
You get it.
And if you want to get on their level or into their world (which is questionable, since remaining hidden and unknown to them is probably best of all), you do it not through servility. You do it by building your own gross network in quiet competition. You make it a "fait accomplit," that they're compelled to make deals with you. They will hate you and try to murder you for maybe two generations all the same, but decadence and intermarriage will then tie their wrists... it always goes both ways, though. Most things have a lifespan.
>The entire movie was him coming up from being basically a potato nagger and wanting so bad to be part of the upper society.
But you see, he succeeded. He had made it. He married into money and had an estate and a son but that wasn't enough for him. He felt that he was owed more from life and his fellow man and that hubris and greed ended up doing him in. He could have stopped at any time to appreciate what he had but that wasn't enough to satisfy his vanity; he refused to become a better man when the opportunity presented itself and that refusal ended up in a fall from grace. You could even argue that in a karmic sense his treatment of Bullingdon was met with the death of his own son.
You're looking at an individual. Building generational wealth and bloodlines to secure it is about the group. At the end of the day we're all human. You could be the President of the United States and I can drop a field stone on your head and kill you. Just as I'm a human and need to sleep, so whoever's on your side can just gut me like a fish when my eyes close.
I just think the film is more about humanity's power play dynamics than a character story. But the fact that we are also human, and it can get about as simple like spite and jealousy, like you described, and makes it a more complex story.
Barry wasnt at all aware of his wife throughout the entire marriage, and I dont think that it started at the duel. After his sons death he's at his lowest and regretful of his entire life wasted initially with hotheadedness in Ireland and than with hedonism in Germany. It was cyclical as well, his father had been killed in a duel, he was hoping to break the cycle by sparing Bullingdon, but since Bullingdon is also an emotional little mess who felt patronized by Barry he took the second shot.
Anyway the message I got was that 18th century Aristocrats were idle, profligate and childish.
Way to misinterpret the movie.
saved
>Whatever happened to be being challenged to a duel?
Literally banned in most countries.
No, not the act of dueling, but the literal "I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DUEL!" part.
In Canada, they had to ban the phrase for two reasons:
>at the time, it was considered a serious blow to one's honor to refuse a duel, even if it were made in jest or in an irrational state and neither party actually wanted to follow through
>they had a prime minister that racked up a substantial bodycount by challenging his political opponents, should he feel they were using deceitful means to achieve their political goals, to duels and blowing their brains out
Canada had balls once? What happened?
Corruption and nepotism.
John A. MacDonald made shooting corrupt assholes a sport and used dueling as more of a technicality to do so.
Then the liberals slowly turned into a bunch of corrupt assholes and sold out a long time ago.
Then everyone else got away with being slightly less corrupt assholes.
Then the liberals banked on a generation of young people not knowing how shady they were, pandered to them and the hippie crowd that makes up the voting class in the east, and won a majority by selling Canada as some sort of hippie paradise, and it's only gotten worse since.
Pre-Trudy Canada wasn't perfect, but you could afford to put gas in your car, bullets in your gun, heat in your house, and food in your fridge, without someone in Ottawa trying to come up with a way to make that impossible for you.
Vietnam happened, all the hippy draft dodging homosexuals went to Toronto which coincidentally controls most of the vote in the country, been downhill ever since.
very few things are a "gentlemanly" death, most duelists who didn't die in a slump from spine or aortic/heart punctures, spent a good 5 minutes to an hour bleeding to death from a hole in the gut, pissing and shitting inside and all over themselves.
duels were banned for good reason
Poojets making slides threads in droves!
please stop... we have like 3 other threads about that, lets properly contribute to a discussion about historical weapons and their circumstances and also a really fucking /k/ino movie
>My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
>To children ardent for some desperate glory,
>The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
>Pro patria mori.
Great older book on Dueling.
WELL
> It fell outta style
Seriously, who the fuck duels in this day and age?
> ALSO you forget that war has existed for a long time and has ultimately driven Technological Advancement
SO ultimately - your preferred thing to do is not only seriously outdated but also is VERY ignorant of history.
Duels are primarily a peacetime way of deciding a conflict. Better times before the neverending 4th generation warfare that has consumed post-nuclear bomb Earth.
You are too young to post here.
Dueling is mostly stupid because death for pride or honor is mostly stupid. Just do mutual combat and beat the shit out of each other and move on, if you really wanted to be serious you could challenge someone to a boxing match and both of you could pass a physical and get approved by whatever boxing commission covers your area so you could beat the fuck out of each other in a controlled environment where the risk of death or serious injury is still present but not a near guarantee. Also much harder to game than a duel if you have a real referee present which you would need to do for it to be a legal boxing match in most states sanctioned by the local body. Dueling is still legal, dueling with guns or swords or anything more lethal than a gloved fist is not because it's too easy to game it so that you win and kill someone that probably didn't need to die and instead needed the fuck beat out of them.
The risk of death is kind of the entire point of the thing. So doing it as sterile as a rapier to the heart or a pistol ball was the gentlemanly thing to do. It was more about social order than anything, and having recourse for acting out of line.