Post by mistertorchwick on May 14, 2017 4:50:30 GMT
I wrote this thing up exactly a month ago, and I was wondering if anybody shared my feelings on it or had anything to add or detract. I feel there are some important points in here, especially when applying it to real-life manipulators and abusers. Here it is, perfectly transcribed from my blog:
DEBUNKING DOC SCRATCH
Today is 4/13/17, the eight-year anniversary of Homestuck, a webcomic I have discussed on multiple occasions on this blog. In celebration of it, I decided to post this little rant based on my recent thoughts on the story.
As you know, I’ve been hooked on Homestuck recently, though I don’t give as much thought to some of the intricacies of the plot and characters that most people do. There’s a whole 3 hours’ worth of story that I skipped just because it was introducing a bunch of characters I didn’t care to read about. Now, there are twelve of those characters, and they do literally nothing useful for the rest of the story except take up space, so I didn’t miss much. The point is I’m a casual. However, there is one character that I feel I understand in a way that nobody else seems to: Doc Scratch.
Doc Scratch is the moon-dwelling guardian of the troll Homeworld Alternia. He is a servant of the main villain, Lord English, an omnicidal superbeing whom Scratch wishes to bring into the Homestuck universe so that he may destroy it. Scratch sets things in motion through manipulation and deception of the major characters in the story, tricking them into bringing English into the world while Scratch himself sits on his moon raising (abusing) English’s handmaid and breaking the fourth wall.
A number of Homestuck readers seem rather charmed by Scratch’s eloquent style, goofy moon antics and aversion to speaking literal falsehoods. While I agree that he is an enjoyable villain and a lot of fun to watch, I am both startled and disturbed that people laud him for his honesty when, in reality, he speaks almost entirely in dolled-up baloney. I’m going to take a bit of time to debunk some of Doc Scratch’s most prominent claims, just for the satisfaction of knowing that someone somewhere paid enough attention to realize this. I also see it as a good exercise in identifying logical fallacies (of which there are many), and can also be applied to real life, as there are clever wordsmiths out there who are best combated through simple understanding.
First and foremost, Scratch claims to speak only the truth and that he is not a liar. However, this is a careful phrasing on his part, as he does deceive. Deceit is, according to the dictionary: “The action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misrepresenting the truth” with deceiving being defined as “to mislead by a false appearance or statement; delude.” This, Scratch does frequently despite never speaking any words that are literally false. This is extremely important to the rest of the rant, as most of Scratch’s lies come from careful word choice, changing the definition of words, allusions and omissions of critical information and justification of his actions.
Now, his most famous “lies of omission” speech, given to Rose on page 5529, about halfway through the series.
Firstly, he creates a false dichotomy between all information in the universe and his carefully-selected facts, and then assumes authority over them. It is possible to know more than nothing and less than everything, as is plainly obvious. Rose asks Scratch for information on the Green Sun, including things that she may not be immediately aware of and ways that it might affect her directly. These things are assumed by asking for information in the first place, and giving anything short of that is deceit, plain and simple. This is in spite of Scratch’s aversion to speaking literal falsehoods.
On top of that, lies of omission assume ignorance on part of the deceived, and knowledge on part of the deceiver. If the deceiver fails to either provide the critical information or neglects to correct a misconception on part of the deceived with the intent of making them believe something other than the truth, that is objectively deceit, and not Scratch’s narrow definition of a lie.
I may not have stated very well the thinking behind Scratch’s twisted web, but it is intentionally difficult to understand. What I mean to say is that Scratch pretties up his statement with extreme precision. He makes many different assumptions and logical twists that make sense on a completely literal level, but are disintegrated with only a bit of thinking that isn’t literal, but rational. Namely, an understanding of intent during conversation. This is all that really needs to be said before watching all of Scratch’s eloquent soliloquy crumble away into foolishness.
In addition to these things, Doc Scratch says several things that are flat out false, and require only a dictionary to debunk. First off, he calls himself omniscient and omnipotent, while both his knowledge and power have clearly-defined limits that he himself describes, and he even goes so far as to say Lord English (one of two characters more powerful than Scratch) is beyond omnipotent, which is a blatant misrepresentation of the word. He even meets his end via strangulation from an ambusher hiding in his own house. This is something that simply wouldn’t happen to someone who is either all-knowing or all-powerful. As someone all-knowing would have seen the ambush coming, and someone all-powerful would have been able to stop it. And while Scratch wanted to be killed in order to bring about Lord English’s arrival, the assault was a something of which he was genuinely both ignorant and powerless to stop.
This is all I have to say on Doc Scratch for the moment, just to get it written somewhere. It frustrates me how many people are boggled by Scratch’s intellect. While he is indeed clever, he is not to be lauded for his honesty or charity. His honesty comes from corrupted words and his charity from self-important condescension. It is important to understand logic like this, because there are people who speak like this. If more people were aware of the workings of logical thought and discourse, we would get along better and there would be fewer manipulators like Scratch to prey upon the unobservant.
DEBUNKING DOC SCRATCH
Today is 4/13/17, the eight-year anniversary of Homestuck, a webcomic I have discussed on multiple occasions on this blog. In celebration of it, I decided to post this little rant based on my recent thoughts on the story.
As you know, I’ve been hooked on Homestuck recently, though I don’t give as much thought to some of the intricacies of the plot and characters that most people do. There’s a whole 3 hours’ worth of story that I skipped just because it was introducing a bunch of characters I didn’t care to read about. Now, there are twelve of those characters, and they do literally nothing useful for the rest of the story except take up space, so I didn’t miss much. The point is I’m a casual. However, there is one character that I feel I understand in a way that nobody else seems to: Doc Scratch.
Doc Scratch is the moon-dwelling guardian of the troll Homeworld Alternia. He is a servant of the main villain, Lord English, an omnicidal superbeing whom Scratch wishes to bring into the Homestuck universe so that he may destroy it. Scratch sets things in motion through manipulation and deception of the major characters in the story, tricking them into bringing English into the world while Scratch himself sits on his moon raising (abusing) English’s handmaid and breaking the fourth wall.
A number of Homestuck readers seem rather charmed by Scratch’s eloquent style, goofy moon antics and aversion to speaking literal falsehoods. While I agree that he is an enjoyable villain and a lot of fun to watch, I am both startled and disturbed that people laud him for his honesty when, in reality, he speaks almost entirely in dolled-up baloney. I’m going to take a bit of time to debunk some of Doc Scratch’s most prominent claims, just for the satisfaction of knowing that someone somewhere paid enough attention to realize this. I also see it as a good exercise in identifying logical fallacies (of which there are many), and can also be applied to real life, as there are clever wordsmiths out there who are best combated through simple understanding.
First and foremost, Scratch claims to speak only the truth and that he is not a liar. However, this is a careful phrasing on his part, as he does deceive. Deceit is, according to the dictionary: “The action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misrepresenting the truth” with deceiving being defined as “to mislead by a false appearance or statement; delude.” This, Scratch does frequently despite never speaking any words that are literally false. This is extremely important to the rest of the rant, as most of Scratch’s lies come from careful word choice, changing the definition of words, allusions and omissions of critical information and justification of his actions.
Now, his most famous “lies of omission” speech, given to Rose on page 5529, about halfway through the series.
“Lies of omission do not exist. The concept is a very human one. It is the product of your story writing again. You have written a story about the truth, making emotional demands of it, and in particular, of those in possession of it. Your demands are based on a feeling of entitlement to the facts, which is very childish. You can never know all of the facts. Only I can. And since it's impossible for me to reveal all facts to you, it is my discretion alone that decides which facts will be revealed in the finite time we have. If I do not volunteer information you deem critical to your fate, it possibly means that I am a scoundrel, but it does not mean that I am a liar. And it certainly means you did not ask the right questions…
…One can make either true statements or false statements about reality. All of the statements I make are true.”
Aside from his extremely demeaning tone, there are a number of fallacies in his thinking here. They are not obvious, as he chooses his words very carefully as to justify is actions and hide his deceit. It only takes a bit of healthy skepticism, attentiveness, and vocabulary in order to see that this dribble is false.Firstly, he creates a false dichotomy between all information in the universe and his carefully-selected facts, and then assumes authority over them. It is possible to know more than nothing and less than everything, as is plainly obvious. Rose asks Scratch for information on the Green Sun, including things that she may not be immediately aware of and ways that it might affect her directly. These things are assumed by asking for information in the first place, and giving anything short of that is deceit, plain and simple. This is in spite of Scratch’s aversion to speaking literal falsehoods.
On top of that, lies of omission assume ignorance on part of the deceived, and knowledge on part of the deceiver. If the deceiver fails to either provide the critical information or neglects to correct a misconception on part of the deceived with the intent of making them believe something other than the truth, that is objectively deceit, and not Scratch’s narrow definition of a lie.
I may not have stated very well the thinking behind Scratch’s twisted web, but it is intentionally difficult to understand. What I mean to say is that Scratch pretties up his statement with extreme precision. He makes many different assumptions and logical twists that make sense on a completely literal level, but are disintegrated with only a bit of thinking that isn’t literal, but rational. Namely, an understanding of intent during conversation. This is all that really needs to be said before watching all of Scratch’s eloquent soliloquy crumble away into foolishness.
In addition to these things, Doc Scratch says several things that are flat out false, and require only a dictionary to debunk. First off, he calls himself omniscient and omnipotent, while both his knowledge and power have clearly-defined limits that he himself describes, and he even goes so far as to say Lord English (one of two characters more powerful than Scratch) is beyond omnipotent, which is a blatant misrepresentation of the word. He even meets his end via strangulation from an ambusher hiding in his own house. This is something that simply wouldn’t happen to someone who is either all-knowing or all-powerful. As someone all-knowing would have seen the ambush coming, and someone all-powerful would have been able to stop it. And while Scratch wanted to be killed in order to bring about Lord English’s arrival, the assault was a something of which he was genuinely both ignorant and powerless to stop.
This is all I have to say on Doc Scratch for the moment, just to get it written somewhere. It frustrates me how many people are boggled by Scratch’s intellect. While he is indeed clever, he is not to be lauded for his honesty or charity. His honesty comes from corrupted words and his charity from self-important condescension. It is important to understand logic like this, because there are people who speak like this. If more people were aware of the workings of logical thought and discourse, we would get along better and there would be fewer manipulators like Scratch to prey upon the unobservant.
