- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Batman oppresses crime and everybody thinks he’s cool, I don’t see why oppressing fascists should be any different
Batman is a billionaire vigilante that destroys half of Gotham every few days. What are you talking about. He would be the first to go full fascist.
Batman being fascist really depends on whos writing him. In some comics he is a control freak fascist. In some he is barely keeping it together and is just as crazy as those in Arkham asylum. In others he is the shield against the madness of Arkham. In others he is fighting again authoritarian Superman. And in others still he is painting Robin and himself yellow and beating the shit out of Green lantern for some fucking reason.
I don’t know what my point is beyond Batman can very a lot.
Ribbit
I think its one of the all star batman comics. I havent read it myself but its one of those comic pages that just kinda imbeds itself into your memory.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/nz8XTi4nc5Y
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Good bot
Voiced by The Goodies
deleted by creator
He would be the first to go full fascist.
If I recall correctly, he pretty much did in the Christopher Nolan Batman films.
Full surveillance state, not sure if facist fully applies but definitely crossed some significant lines in those movies
He knew he did, which is why he built in the “destroy it Lucious” safeguard and gave him the “do it” button.
Man knew he was out of line, still did it for the greater good, but then striped himself of that power immediately and permanently.
Ethically grey, landing somewhere around neutral good. In the range of “keep an eye on his squirrelly ass.”
Can someone explain batman’s appeal? Is it just that he’s so angry and traumatized all the time?
Part of the appeal I think is he’s “relatable” because he doesn’t have real super powers. In my opinion, he’s less relatable because he has enough money to functionally have superpowers anyway. The normal people who end up with super powers almost certainly share more in common with us “normal” people.
The thing I take away from Batman is that if you think a problem though, you can prepare for what might happen and have a response ready, making you look like a super hero for those without the foresight. It’s a power anyone can have, so it’s very relatable and actually a valuable lesson.
Also, in many of the stories he is a terribly broken and traumatized man, and those sorts of characters are usually more interesting. Batman has just been around for so long he was brooding and sullen before brooding and sullen were cool which gives him additional cred. As the “flipside” to the Boy Scout Superman (at least at times) but the two have the same goals is where I really enjoy the character, I think the Justice League show did a very good job there in playing the two against each other.
One thing is, like others have said, he has had very different personalities depending on writing so you may really only like certain versions of him and that’s valid.
He’s voiced by Kevin Conroy
it’s a power fantasy. to be honest, he’s very close to the punisher but without saying the quiet part out loud
Any superhero can go full fascist if we think about it. That’s literally the theme of the injustice saga! Superman, the sweetest and most kind of heroes, created a world government ruled only by those who he deemed worthy and started killing anyone “bad”. Any superhero, if mentally challenged enough (for context Superman just had his pregnant wife killed and his city destroyed), can do pretty much that. (That’s also where Batman’s contingency plans come in)
No, you don’t understand, batman is rich so he is allowed to use violence.
Being tolerant to intolerance leads to more intolerance. Being intolerant to intolerance does not lead to more intolerance.
It is not just OK, but necessary to be intolerant towards fascist ideologies.
Punch every Nazi. Every single one.
Also punch people who tell you not to punch Nazis. Those are Nazis
“If you punch a Nazi, the number of Nazis in the world remains the same!”
“Punch two.”
If you see someone punch a nazi, no you didn’t. That nazi fell.
I believe Nazis should be black-bagged instead of punched; punching them will humiliate the individual, but may also unite the group or serve as propagnda for accelerating their agenda.
There’s some 48 Laws of Power (it’s okay, you can cringe.) such-and-such about only attacking an enemy if you can utterly crush them, being careful to avoid leaving them wounded or humiliated , and retaining your initiative by maintaining the secrecy of your position. Bagging does all of this, and improves your odds of retaining your right to bear arms in the eyes of the law.
I read this to the tune of climb every mountain and now i need the rest of the lyrics pls.
I could not agree more!
So like how doctors are oppressing death and disease?
If the pandemic showed us one thing, then that there are people who will side with death and disease just to own the libs.
At this rate owning the libs will become the greatest cause of death amongst conservatives. They finally got the message and are trying to do us a favour.
For those interested on further reading, the paradox of tolerance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
I see this answer given a lot on reddit when this paradox is brought up so I’ll post it here too. There is no paradox of tolerance because tolerance is not a rule but a social contract. When someone is intolerant they have violated said social contract and thus are no longer covered by it and are not granted tolerance. We tolerate those who tolerate others.
It’s basically the copyleft of society.
I really like this!
Come on, old man, you and i used to punch Nazis, and now you’re defending them?
“Sorry, I just dont believe your fascist ideologyjshould be exposed to kids, why do you want to groom them?”
Would using their arguments against them make them angry? I hope so
It probably would not because they don’t believe in the argument anyway most of the time. They don’t argue in good faith. They use that argument because it’s something we would disagree with, but it’s something they want to do.
Yeah it’s almost never actually about the kids, they’re used as an excuse to spread hate
Yeah I know
Yeah it’s almost never actually about the kids, they’re used as an excuse to spread hate
I smile the same way anytime a Trumper complains about oppression too
Hell yeah
It’s a hard life being a democrat. (I don’t mean the party.)
imagine being a republican (not the party)
You mean someone opposed to monarchy? Yeah, it can be difficult at times.
I remember the first time as not-an-American that I saw someone angrily ranting about “republicans” and I was very confused.
Who has been a bad fascist? Who needs a good spanking? 😈
“bad fascist” implies the existence of a good fascist, no? Ahhh, because of the old saying "The only good fascist is a dead fascist.
The good fascist is the roleplayer who gets in all fours in my bed to perform the fall of Nazi Germany /jk
the only reason modern society doesn’t tolerate fascists is because fascistophobia doesn’t roll off the tongue.
“by any means necessary” is the part of fascism that does all the heavy lifting and it’s pretty vague by design.
Based Sisko.
Sisko punched Q.
That’s a metaphor but also what happened.
This is Dax slander! It’s outrageous!
Marxism-leninism isn’t fascist though
OP didn’t mention it, yet you felt the need to defend it.
Yeah a lot of libs call Marxist-Leninist fascists
Welllll Marx did say you had to have a charismatic fascist leader to lead the revolution. Then once the means are seized he gives power back to the people. The caveats between point A and B and probably all of point A is what a liberal would take issue with
it’s the same bullshit under a different flag. the shit that happened in the eastern bloc was just as oppressive and authoritarian, the simple fact that it’s politically considered “left” and not “right” doesn’t make it any better.
and the worst part about this world view is that it tends to divide the world into two groups of authies that are the same group that larp against each other, and a bunch of indecisive schmucks in the middle who are weak for not “fully embracing” their “side” and joining one of the two groups. while what’s really happening is that those schmucks are just capable of empathy unlike the tankies or nazis who insist they don’t totally do the same shit as each other.
No the Nazis did not do central economic planning and the USSR did not believe the strong should rule the weak nor did they believe in creating a “master race” by exterminating the perceived other and before you say much GuLaGs a Gulag is a prison in which you serve time by working, similar to private prisons in the US however it wasn’t done on the basis of exchange value but labour time.
i’m hungarian. you don’t have to explain to me how the soviets operated, it deeply permeates our culture.
central economic planning and master races are not what this is about. we’re talking about oppression, and lots of politically left ideologies did that a lot. the book 1984 was so scary not because it’s an exploration of an oppressive society, but because the particular flavor of that oppression matches the soviet ideology so well that up until the collapse of the USSR it was a very real possibility that its world would come true.
add to that that most modern-day tankies care a lot less about central planning, all they really want to do is dunk on the west, and end up propping up russia and china in the process, with all their hateful baggage.
Central economic planning is what socialism is about to solve the crisis of over production doing away with the profit motive.
deleted by creator
Sisko punches Nazis every time.
Which is why Sisko is the best captain and DS9 is the best Trek.
Also Garak is the best <3
I too follow the emissary.
Fascism has little to do with ideology. It’s a refusal to allow any views other than your own to be voiced in your presence.
