- cross-posted to:
- flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- cross-posted to:
- flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
You must log in or register to comment.
Democrats say “Oh yeah you’re right” and walk away
Yeah I’ve been thinking this way for years. Pissed people off by choosing the lives of Iranian children over us soldiers
“You’re right, killing you would mean I’m just as much of a monster as you! Too bad I didn’t realize that before indiscriminately slaughtering dozens of your disposable henchmen on my way here.”
I HATED this when watching Arrow.
Like dude, you narrowed that dude in the hallway. Your two main sidekicks BOTH use regular guns.
Just fucking kill Raz Al Gul/Damien Dahrk, That Gang dude/EtcEtc
You spent the first two seasons murdering rich people, intentionally, killing this dude trying to BLOW UP A CITY is not a moral gray area. All your friends are like, “Bro, just kill him.” And you are all “We must be better, we must be heroes.”
The most infuriating trope in fiction
I like to turn it around in some games where you let the bad guy off then kill them anyway
The Batman way.
“I don’t use guns, I just throw people out of high rise windows”
I liked in Black Adam that they called out heroes just protecting the elite. Too bad that one line was enough for them to all change their minds.
You may have caused millions to suffer. But if I kill you, I’d prevent suffering of more people. I am a murderer of one that might have continued to torture millions. I’d be a murderer for some but a hero for millions.
Great example of our time - Luigi Mangione. Sad to hear him confess 😭
I dont like being conspiritroal but if I was a evil government that wanted to get away with murdering people or even just qwell the masses when something disruptive happens Id pay people off to take the fall. Seems like an easy solution for a really complicated problem.
Just saying.
Oh, and being super evil and super manipulative it’d probably be very cheap. Like ROI’s through the roof.
With what is happening in the world for the last 35 years (my age, not related), I’d also would like to wear tin foil hat from time to time. Especially today with the dawn of generative Ai.
This is exactly how I feel every time I suggest the correct way to deal with conservative fascism is with violence. Some commenter will always come along with, “that makes you just as bad as them” and “you’re part of the problem”.
Part of the problem? Bitch, resisting force with force isn’t the fucking problem. It’s the solution.
I just don’t give a fuck what every dumb shit thinks. YoUrE jUsT aS bAd As ThEm dumbfuckery.
It’s eliminating the problem. But there’s a little more to the solution, generally speaking.
It’s a sad part of the solution. Kicking them out of power and making impossible for them to ever have their way ever again (in absolutely any context- up to removing their ability to participate in any legal process, up to having any legal rights at all) is really more important, but unfortunately eliminating them is the easiest way to do that.
There are certain figures I would be uncompromisingly happy to see suffer for their actions- up to and including assassination. And others I think only need to be politically neutered.
The real complication (in a lot of the smaller cases) starts issues with false positives and such. If we could get perfect identification and prosecution to happen, then my tolerance for extreme measures goes waaaaay, way up.
Be careful not to use the Nazis as an analogy or some basement dweller will scream “YOU THINK CONSERVATIVES ARE THE SAME AS NAZIS??? GO TOUCH GRASS!!!”
-
It’s an analogy.
-
Act like a fascist, you are a fascist. I’m not making conservatives run the fascist playbook. That’s their choice.
Are MAGAts Nazis? No. Were Nazis fascists? Yes. Are MAGAts fascists? Yes. Because words have definitions and MAGAt’s actions match the definition of the word “fascist”.
These aren’t people we’re disagreeing politically with in regards to where tax payer money should go or even how much we should be taxed or whether this regulation or that regulation is good or bad. These are people threatening us and actively degrading the quality of our lives. They are our enemies because that’s what enemies do to you. They are enemies of democracy. They are enemies of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
-
One of the biggest problems with violent revolution, is that it almost always seems to end up putting violent people in charge of the next regime.
“Almost always violent” is a decent upgrade from “definitely always violent from now on”.
Conservatives are violent fascists by nature. History proves this. They should not be in charge of anything at all. Ever. The moment they hold any kind of authority, they become an infestation of pests.
Oncologist:
Removes tumor
What have I become?
“If I am killing these cells, who can say that I am better than cancer”
Morality foundation: You’ve become a murderer just like him, no matter the intentios.
Morality reality: If you believe these people he murdered should not be dead, and that all his killings are unjust, removing him at worst replaces one mass murderer with just murderer. Even more, with a vigilante. Now, this of course is not really good, but the net outcome is good.
I think an outlook on the future is also necessary. A mass murderer that is not repenting will likely murder again. A vigilante without just cause will likely not. You are saving all the future lives.
The problem with “just cause” is that it’s flexible af. What stop vigilante from moving the goalpost into infinity and beyound? When does “just” degrade from some grand perception based on societal needs into subjective, personal reasons?
Best case scenario, surrender yourself to community after the deed. Thus, the new murderer got instantly taken down without creating another. But that requires sacrifice/martyrdom.
Fate/Zero, anyone?
Yep, life and morals are ambiguous sometimes
'If you kill a killer, the number of killers in the world stays the same"
“What if I kill two killers?”
So you are saying that the end justifies the means?
(/s)
If you cut out a tumour, you’re also killing live tissue so aren’t you also cancerous hmm?
This is an apt analogy. Conservatism IS cancer. It spreads and brings with it only sickness and death. There is no way to change cancer. Letting it live will kill the patient. The only cure causes pain and suffering for the survivor. Treatment is painful, messy and dangerous, but is absolutely required for survival.
No one wants to talk about the cure for conservatism. Even the topic is uncomfortable.
Ok how do you cure it then? Specifically
This comes up with Batman a lot, but we know he’s a severely traumatized man and it makes sense that he would believe it.
And Daredevil cuz he’s Catholic
deleted by creator
I’ve never understood this logic. Can someone please explain it to me like I’m five?
Only bad people kill. Therefore you cant kill me. Lolololol checkmate “hero” turns out I can kill as much as I want because you cant stop me because only bad people kill.
Only works on screen.
You can stop someone without killing them
You can temporarily pause them, until they escape, or use their new imprisonment to their advantage and do even more harm than before. Nobody stops Dr Badman V. Lain for long.
Its an excellent opportunity to have your hero experience some Deep Feelings, and an excuse to use the thunder and lightning equipment you renter that didn’t work as well as you’d hoped in the battle scene
The logic is about a battle of ideologies. When the villain, or the hero sometimes, says they’d be just as bad as what they’re fighting, what they mean is that they’re succumbing to their baser instincts, allowing “might makes right” to win out against the spirit of democracy. “Democracy” in their view, the author’s I mean, is mostly about letting people coexist, and using only official channels to punish the most obscene offenders. The hero is rejecting “an eye for an eye,” essentially, in favor of the perceived fairness of The Law.
This framing kind of doesn’t work because we all know who the villains are. We all know the world would be better off without The Joker in it. And worse, letting him go through the prison system to get the outcome we all want for him anyway isn’t really different from just shooting him yourself. It’s marginally different, maybe; probably better than enabling a bunch of vigilantes. But even so, it is an action that merely defers the pulling of the trigger to the state. Someone will be pulling it regardless, because as we all know, the world would be better off without The Joker.
This framing about due process works a lot better with villains who are not The Joker because it leaves open the possibility that the law might not actually punish them, and that the vigilante hero is a bad person for trying to kill someone who does not actually deserve death.
Sorry, but I really like your explanation and am hoping that we can perhaps discuss a little bit more. Would this therefore be setting up the contrast between the “vigilante justice” dispensed by Batman and the Punisher?
If I understand correctly, yes. The idea is that the “just hand of the law” is a better executor of justice, even if it’s the same justice, than “some guy” with “some guy’s opinions” on things.
And to be clear, I don’t think that view is without it’s merrits, of course, I just think a lot of goodguy / badguy media really under explores it. Certainly they often ignore the view that good outcomes may sometimes be worth more than the process.
Also, I don’t actually watch / read much Batman. I think there are times when his refusal to use guns is more about his personal adjacency to the crime of his city, and how he feels that if he indulges too much in the call to violence, that he would just become another mafia kingpin. In a literal sense, like as if he were an addict refusing a drug.
So what I’d take from that is Batman knows what he can become and also knows that since he’s teetering on the edge, he absolutely has to hold to that one line. Otherwise he can no longer rationalize his actions/existence as “good”.
The Punisher, in contrast, is 100% A-OK with being a villain and embraces it. He doesn’t even try to rationalize his actions or existence and more or less sees himself as an inevitable consequence to circumstances.
I’d guess too that the real world is somewhere on between the two. Your take as well?
Well, it does depend on which particular Batman comic run and author we’re talking about, but I have heard that this is sometimes the reason.
I probably consume even less Punisher, but my understanding is that he’s sort of like if Batman did kill people. They’re operating under the same moral framework. One that views The Law as civilizing and a world of Punishers as barbaric. Animalistic. A world of selfish kings fighting over the same throne.
This is different from what’s being expressed in the OP. The OP rejects the idea that this act is barbaric at all and instead focuses on the outcomes. They and the villain can’t be the same because they and the villain never do anything for the same reasons.
The villain in the OP has made billions suffer, and probably for money. But the hero is stopping the suffering, and because they like joy. The fact that they both kill, maybe, is immaterial. It doesn’t actually matter.
Plot armor
/Edit: Oh, sorry. You’re 5. That’s invisible armor!
This is my personal take, but this is similar to an old philosophical argument. Can you use the Masters tools to dismantle the Master’s house? The master’s house in this argument represents systems of oppression/sanctioned violence and the tools are, well the tools. Hope I don’t have to explain that part. Anyway, my personal take is yes you can. You can not use the Master’s tools to build your own house.
In so far as the panel, dude was fine to shoot him. He just has to put the gun down and accept the responsibility of whatever his action causes.
“The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
— Vladimir Lenin
Luigi! <3
I think if you kill a murderer that has killed one person, then it’s not morally justified.
But how about someone who killed 2? How about 5? How about 20? 1000?
Idk where to draw the line but I strongly believe there has to be a line and the number can’t be infinite.
Do we have free will? Did the monster choose to become what he did?
If he still has the power to murder more people, then yes, killing him will be a way to stop it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman is an interesting real world case about free will. His suicide note mentioned that he wants his brain to be autopsied, and it turns out that he had a brain tumor.
Killing anyone is never justifiable! There are millions of ways for a society to deal or even to prevent dangerous people other than killing them.
Of course there are a million alternatives but the issue is when society doesn’t punish the guilty or even promotes and rewards them. My own experience is of working in the past in a maximum security prison with people who did monstrous things. Today when I see Trump in all his luxury surroundings I often think that not one of those people in prison killed 170 schoolgirls. Or when I see Putin smirk I think not one of those people in prison caused the death of a million or more people… I could hold my nose and work alongside those prisoners as a professional but if I was invited to dinner with Trump or Putin I would be totally remis not to put my knife through their eye…
deleted by creator
Especially when you couple it with the fact that if you leave him alive he is very likely to cause more harm even if hebgoes to prison or such
