Thread replies: 14
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
>the following two posts reference the essay found here
>http://www.killology.com/sheep_dog.htm
Do any of you fancy yourself sheepdogs?
While I have some serious problems with the metaphor, I do find it uniquely useful in explaining the mentality of law enforcement and the worst of military veterans.
There are people who actually believe that everyone except them are sheep, but that they are the noble protectors standing watch over the flock. In fact, they are like sheepdogs, but not in the way they espouse. Rather, they are property of some shepherd, and they exist only to do his bidding, whatever it may be. What the shepherd bids is the exploitation of the sheep by force.
As a sheep, you are property as well. You must give wool to the shepherd. You must give milk to the shepherd. You must make children and give them to shepherd for lamb chops. The sheepdog is instrumental in exacting this fealty from you. The shepherd can't control you himself, so he sics his dogs on you. They bite you and they bark at you and they herd you where the shepherd wants you to go. There is nothing you can do about it.
So far I've mentioned the sheep and the sheepdogs, and brought up the missing character from the metaphor, the shepherd. But what of the wolves? The problem with the wolves in the metaphor is that they imply that there are "good guys" and "bad guys" and that these roles are inherent and immutable. Grossman goes so far as to say the wolves are "aggressive sociopaths" who lack all empathy for other human beings. He attributes all crime to such people, being clear that he thinks only such inherently evil monsters would ever go against the law (that is, the will of the shepherd).
>>
But I say wolves aren't monsters. They are just dogs who don't kowtow to the whims of a selfish master. No, their job isn't to herd and harass sheep. Their job is to live their own lives and be free.
Some wolves do wander near the flock and take a sheep. That is true. But most wolves don't. Most wolves live in the woods and keep to themselves. Their crime isn't a lack of empathy. Their only crime is not serving the shepherd.
And frankly, that's no crime at all.
So what are you /k/? Are you sheepdogs, or are you wolves?
>>
That's a pretty good deconstruction OP.
>>
Whoever wrote that essay is a fucktard.
>>
Anyone who considers themselves a "sheepdawg" is a Nutnfancy watching faggot with Napoleon syndrome.
>>
>>23740422
>So what are you /k/? Are you sheepdogs, or are you wolves?
I think you are reading way too far into that metaphor. It's supposed to be pretty simple:
>Wolves: scary, like to hurt sheep
>Sheep: easily scared, panic, stick together
>Sheepdogs: also scary, but like to protect sheep against wolves
Wolves are criminals, sheep are the masses that choose to be unarmed in public if not at all times. Sheepdogs are the ones that choose to remain armed, in the event a criminal (wolf) comes around.
That's all there is to it. You could repurpose the whole analogy to some stratocracy or totalitarian state or Illuminati, but it was not the intent. There was no "shepherd" in the analogy because it didn't fit the rhetoric.
Still, your break-down is nothing if not clever.
Wait, so where does Babe fit into the analogy?
>>
>>23740671
>Wait, so where does Babe fit into the analogy?
Cops are pigs.
>>
>>23740671
I definitely agree that the original analogy is meant to be quite simple. In part I was attacking what I saw as a dangerous oversimplification of people as either "criminals" or "heroes" which I strongly disagree with. My other main purpose was, just as you say, to repurpose the analogy to something more befitting my own world view. Basically a long-winded way of saying what >>23740644 did.
>>
>>23740942
We Animal Farm now.
>>
In order to be a sheepdog I'd have to actually give a shit about people outside of my immediate family.
So, no. Go get your asses shot/stabbed/burninated/eated. The world is overpopulated, and that means fewer competitors for .22lr.
>>
File: 1385458594234.jpg (79KB, 746x569px) Image search:
[Google]
79KB, 746x569px
>>
>>23740644
>le anti nutnfancy meme
>>
>>23740417
I disagree with the analogy as a whole. Humans are capable of acts of great compassion, and acts of great evil. Sometimes its the same person doing these acts, and trying to classify the bulk of humans is not only impossible, but insulting. This specific analogy is terrible because it fails to account for people who do good in other ways, and times where things are morally gray.
The Catholic priests who risked everything in WW2 to save a handful of Jews. They're not Dogs, had the Nazis come in force they wouldn't have fought. They swore vows to do no harm, but they risked their lives all the same. Are they sheep?
Or what about the Crusaders on both sides. The Christian men left home and everything they owned to protect their brothers in kingdoms threatened by men who believed it was God's will to have all lands under his holy rule. Which is the Wolf and which is the Dog?
>>
>>23741516
I agree with you completely, and that's what I mean when I say the analogy is a dangerous oversimplification.
All men have God within them, just as they all have the devil.
Thread posts: 14
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2