• Ertebolle@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    95
    ·
    1 year ago

    Batman oppresses crime and everybody thinks he’s cool, I don’t see why oppressing fascists should be any different

    • somethingsnappy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        39
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        He would be the first to go full fascist.

        If I recall correctly, he pretty much did in the Christopher Nolan Batman films.

        • toasteecup@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Full surveillance state, not sure if facist fully applies but definitely crossed some significant lines in those movies

          • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.”

      • VubDapple@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Can someone explain batman’s appeal? Is it just that he’s so angry and traumatized all the time?

        • Cethin
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

        • Moosemouse@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          it’s a power fantasy. to be honest, he’s very close to the punisher but without saying the quiet part out loud

      • FedFer@iusearchlinux.fyi
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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)

  • bl_r@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • Vodik_VDK@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • Taleya@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I read this to the tune of climb every mountain and now i need the rest of the lyrics pls.

    • rustyfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the pandemic showed us one thing, then that there are people who will side with death and disease just to own the libs.

      • Cabrio@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • AnarchoYeasty@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

  • Rose@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    “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

    • Cethin
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Holzkohlen@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      “bad fascist” implies the existence of a good fascist, no? Ahhh, because of the old saying "The only good fascist is a dead fascist.

      • metaStatic@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • DeanFogg@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          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

    • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Foresight@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Foresight@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Central economic planning is what socialism is about to solve the crisis of over production doing away with the profit motive.

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

  • darkseer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.