"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."
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."
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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 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.
This is the way. Many of today's problems are partly caused by people having been taught they have to take the high road and show they are better than the meanies. If you turn the other cheek, you'll end up with two black eyes. Crush those evil bastards.
Weeeellll, how much of it was a result of Obama's style of leadership and how much of it was a reaction to a black guy in a tan suit being in office? Even Americans need to admit that the US is a hopelessly, enthusiastically racist country.
Obama's problem was he believed he could shame the Right into behaving by taking the high road, constantly compromising with them and getting nothing in return. When he left the White House his advice to the Democrats was "When they go low, we go high."
Which was incredibly out of touch and ignored the fact that the Right had adopted a policy of "You go high, we'll go low, low gets results."
It also showed he learned nothing. You cannot shame fascists into behaving by accumulating enough "Good Boy Points"
There's a counterexample in the Overwatch backstory. Overwatch goes to arrest this guy after he had a bomb planted that killed a bunch of their staff. The guy brags about how with his connections he'll be released within days. One of the Overwatch agents says, "He's right", and shoots the guy. So that guy's not going to be planting more bombs. But that leads to Overwatch getting disbanded. They aren't around to respond immediately when the bad guys start acting up again. When Overwatch does get back into operation, that bad guy's daughter escalates the violence against Overwatch in her quest for revenge.
Oh! Another counterexample is in the TNG episode, The Most Toys. The bad guy is doing the thing, gloating to Data how Data is too moral to kill him. Data does some calculations, says "I cannot allow this to continue", and tries to shoot the guy. But he's stopped at the last moment. So kind of a narrative copout.
I wouldn't call those "counterexamples" as I understand counterexamples (namely an example that counters a statement or belief). That would mean the examples would have to show that killing the villain did make the protagonist just as bad.
Like, in your Overwatch example, they didn't become morally bad from killing the bomber. They were disbanded; the worsening situation was as a result of other bad people choosing to disband them. It'd be weird to lay it at their feet for killing a villian with political(?) connections.
I think the Overwatch story does present killing the bad guy as morally wrong. The story implies the push to disband Overwatch came from general public outrage due to Overwatch acting without regard for law, not due to that one guy's connections specifically. It was also presented as the nail in the coffin: Overwatch had been behaving increasingly ethically dubiously after the threat they originally formed to combat was resolved. It's part of a larger theme in the story: if a group is well intentioned, but their primary tool is violence, does that group have a legitimate role in pushing for the greater good?
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.
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..
This would have ended a lot of cartoon series a lot quicker. The hero has the villain on the ropes and “but I would be just as bad as you if I killed you” and lets the villain go so the villan can do more villain shit, repeat.
I'm ok with that. I can live with it. I won't try to twist the justification like the people in power. I will be committing sin and I will be a hypocrite if it means getting rid of the filth causing millions to suffer.
The fucking new season of Daredevil. Fisk literally breaks kids in half, but Matt sends him to jail again so he can break out again in 2 seasons. And fuck those kids.
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.
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.
The way I see it, this only applies when punching up. You don't want someone with a major victimhood complex assassinating people. You also have to be worried about tribalism, differences in what you consider harm, and proportional response. The tribalism point is especially relevant as an evil man can become a martyr and the one killing doesn't necessarily have to be just as bad to become evil in the eyes of others.
Citation: Charlie Kirk's death, Luigi Mangione, the Concept of Bloodfeuds, everything going on in the Middle East
It absolutely does. Absolutely disgusting the number of times I have to read in this community that it's okay to kill because of blah blah blah. Horrible people! You are all horrible people for supporting such an anti-life mindset!
you could start by opening a history book and realize progress is never reached outside of power structures with a credible threat of violence. do you seriously think we should not have executed the rest of the top nazis after ww2?
edit: typo
More so I think, if we’re not fostering a culture of killing again we might get over it completely some days.
Until another group comes around promising to kill all the peace lovers.
Fine, you only capture and don't kill the evil killers. Some "learn their lesson", others only pretend to.
If you release them, some will come back with a vengeance. If you keep them imprisoned, you're treating them like animals/slaves.
What other group? There are only us humans. I know, delusional 😅
Getting back to the killing... that’s the only part I’m concerned with. So yes, my solution is a civilized penal system.
Here, prisoners don't live like animals or slaves, yet, in my view, they still serve their sentences in a way that constitutes just atonement. So I don't know what's the problem with that.
And again, we’re talking about death here. So we’re dealing with very serious crimes, and I don’t get the impression that repeat violent offenders are walking around free at all. And even if so, there's a million ways of dealing with this other than simply killing the people!
As it turns out, some particular people have turned playing outside of the rules as much as possible and as cruely as possible into a sport.
They won't be corrected by the rules. They won't be persuaded by common human decency. Quite the contrary even, they actively and aggressively lean into the opposite direction.
Now it's against the rules to derail a train. But how much more tragic would it be not to do so if that train is about to run into a hospital?
That of course being a lazy metaphor but I think my point stands.
Death penalties, war crimes, ... all things that are suposed to be accepted as par for the course. But for the elite...oh no, that's a finger waggin.
Killing is wrong, but it is most definitely not a monochrome issue.
Yes we have and when you look at the last century you will see a lot of progress.
What I understand of your comment, based on the context of the post, is, that because things are bad it's okay for us to be bad as well. That's really the easiest way to fool yourself.
Trying to convince yourself that killing another human being is something to feel good about is always stupid and primitive.
That is what my comments are about, and as I understand it, what this discussion is about.
We built complex societies so we wouldn't have to live by the rule of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," and I am not going to turn back on that path just because of Trump, Putin, or Netanjahu.
The truth is, the vast majority of people living all over the world are ordinary people who deserve love, justice, and a future.
And yes, you shoot at the mass shooter. But where I live, police officers are trained so that the perpetrator survives—in order to subject him to his just! punishment. Which is not death.
87 replies
"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.
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.
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.
I just don’t give a fuck what every dumb shit thinks. YoUrE jUsT aS bAd As ThEm dumbfuckery.
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.
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.
Yep, life and morals are ambiguous sometimes
Fate/Zero, anyone?
'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)
It begs the question, what is the 'good' solution.
Or is 'good' even possible?
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
Oncologist:
Removes tumor
What have I become?
"If I am killing these cells, who can say that I am better than cancer"
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.
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
Luigi! <3
Democrats say “Oh yeah you’re right” and walk away
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.
— Vladimir Lenin
This is the way. Many of today's problems are partly caused by people having been taught they have to take the high road and show they are better than the meanies. If you turn the other cheek, you'll end up with two black eyes. Crush those evil bastards.
"When they go low, we go high." - Obama, blissfully leading the country towards Trump
Weeeellll, how much of it was a result of Obama's style of leadership and how much of it was a reaction to a black guy in a tan suit being in office? Even Americans need to admit that the US is a hopelessly, enthusiastically racist country.
Obama's problem was he believed he could shame the Right into behaving by taking the high road, constantly compromising with them and getting nothing in return. When he left the White House his advice to the Democrats was "When they go low, we go high."
Which was incredibly out of touch and ignored the fact that the Right had adopted a policy of "You go high, we'll go low, low gets results."
It also showed he learned nothing. You cannot shame fascists into behaving by accumulating enough "Good Boy Points"
There's a counterexample in the Overwatch backstory. Overwatch goes to arrest this guy after he had a bomb planted that killed a bunch of their staff. The guy brags about how with his connections he'll be released within days. One of the Overwatch agents says, "He's right", and shoots the guy. So that guy's not going to be planting more bombs. But that leads to Overwatch getting disbanded. They aren't around to respond immediately when the bad guys start acting up again. When Overwatch does get back into operation, that bad guy's daughter escalates the violence against Overwatch in her quest for revenge.
Oh! Another counterexample is in the TNG episode, The Most Toys. The bad guy is doing the thing, gloating to Data how Data is too moral to kill him. Data does some calculations, says "I cannot allow this to continue", and tries to shoot the guy. But he's stopped at the last moment. So kind of a narrative copout.
I wouldn't call those "counterexamples" as I understand counterexamples (namely an example that counters a statement or belief). That would mean the examples would have to show that killing the villain did make the protagonist just as bad.
Like, in your Overwatch example, they didn't become morally bad from killing the bomber. They were disbanded; the worsening situation was as a result of other bad people choosing to disband them. It'd be weird to lay it at their feet for killing a villian with political(?) connections.
I think the Overwatch story does present killing the bad guy as morally wrong. The story implies the push to disband Overwatch came from general public outrage due to Overwatch acting without regard for law, not due to that one guy's connections specifically. It was also presented as the nail in the coffin: Overwatch had been behaving increasingly ethically dubiously after the threat they originally formed to combat was resolved. It's part of a larger theme in the story: if a group is well intentioned, but their primary tool is violence, does that group have a legitimate role in pushing for the greater good?
"Hello! but I'm going to be worse than you"
Pours gasoline, lights him on fire, then starts throwing wooden sticks hard enough to impale him
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..
What’s happening with his arm in the first panel?
He's... grabbing his shirt? His skin? With some sort of... glove...?
No idea tbh
The ol' vacuum cleaner attachment routine.
I think it's supposed to represent being cut off or something
Yeah, no one looking to be taken seriously would argue that you shouldn't have taken Hitler out if you had the opportunity.
I'd take the opportunity and I'd sleep soundly that night.
Mr Frog on a good day
This would have ended a lot of cartoon series a lot quicker. The hero has the villain on the ropes and “but I would be just as bad as you if I killed you” and lets the villain go so the villan can do more villain shit, repeat.
I'm ok with that. I can live with it. I won't try to twist the justification like the people in power. I will be committing sin and I will be a hypocrite if it means getting rid of the filth causing millions to suffer.
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
Yeah I've been thinking this way for years. Pissed people off by choosing the lives of Iranian children over us soldiers
The fucking new season of Daredevil. Fisk literally breaks kids in half, but Matt sends him to jail again so he can break out again in 2 seasons. And fuck those kids.
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!
Truuuuue
I love it when situations are simplified instead of complicatified
The same but in a better way.
The way I see it, this only applies when punching up. You don't want someone with a major victimhood complex assassinating people. You also have to be worried about tribalism, differences in what you consider harm, and proportional response. The tribalism point is especially relevant as an evil man can become a martyr and the one killing doesn't necessarily have to be just as bad to become evil in the eyes of others.
Citation: Charlie Kirk's death, Luigi Mangione, the Concept of Bloodfeuds, everything going on in the Middle East
It absolutely does. Absolutely disgusting the number of times I have to read in this community that it's okay to kill because of blah blah blah. Horrible people! You are all horrible people for supporting such an anti-life mindset!
you are joking, right?
I'm not. Do you even have an argument?
you could start by opening a history book and realize progress is never reached outside of power structures with a credible threat of violence. do you seriously think we should not have executed the rest of the top nazis after ww2? edit: typo
Yes I think we should not have killed them. What an easy way out for them...
More so I think, if we're not fostering a culture of killing again we might get over it completely some days.
But obviously you guys here don't like that, feels too good to be full of anger and hate wa? 😅
Until another group comes around promising to kill all the peace lovers.
Fine, you only capture and don't kill the evil killers. Some "learn their lesson", others only pretend to. If you release them, some will come back with a vengeance. If you keep them imprisoned, you're treating them like animals/slaves.
What other group? There are only us humans. I know, delusional 😅 Getting back to the killing... that’s the only part I’m concerned with. So yes, my solution is a civilized penal system. Here, prisoners don't live like animals or slaves, yet, in my view, they still serve their sentences in a way that constitutes just atonement. So I don't know what's the problem with that.
And again, we’re talking about death here. So we’re dealing with very serious crimes, and I don’t get the impression that repeat violent offenders are walking around free at all. And even if so, there's a million ways of dealing with this other than simply killing the people!
That is assuming everyone plays by the rules.
As it turns out, some particular people have turned playing outside of the rules as much as possible and as cruely as possible into a sport.
They won't be corrected by the rules. They won't be persuaded by common human decency. Quite the contrary even, they actively and aggressively lean into the opposite direction.
Now it's against the rules to derail a train. But how much more tragic would it be not to do so if that train is about to run into a hospital?
That of course being a lazy metaphor but I think my point stands.
Death penalties, war crimes, ... all things that are suposed to be accepted as par for the course. But for the elite...oh no, that's a finger waggin.
Killing is wrong, but it is most definitely not a monochrome issue.
No. Criminals by definition do not play by the rules and we as a society have found many ways to deal with them without killing them.
I'm not arguing against justice.
I'm just saying, that, on a fundamental level, it is never okay to kill another person or make up stupidly simplified metaphors to justify killing.
It's dehumanizing brain rot and if you guys can't see that you're really not much better than the made up devils you wish to kill.
"No. Criminals by definition do not play by the rules and we as a society have found many ways to deal with them without killing them."
Have we? Because last time I checked we still have genocides going on without as much as a slap on the wrist.
Yes we have and when you look at the last century you will see a lot of progress.
What I understand of your comment, based on the context of the post, is, that because things are bad it's okay for us to be bad as well. That's really the easiest way to fool yourself.
What I'm led to understand from your comments is that you'd be an Ed Sheeran fan. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Just so I understand your argument:
Killing is morally wrong.
Therefore, anyone who kills is morally equivalent to anyone else who kills, regardless of motive, scale, necessity, or circumstance.
So killing a mass murderer makes you just as bad as the mass murderer.
Is that your position?
Yes.
No. Reality is more complex.
Trying to convince yourself that killing another human being is something to feel good about is always stupid and primitive. That is what my comments are about, and as I understand it, what this discussion is about. We built complex societies so we wouldn't have to live by the rule of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," and I am not going to turn back on that path just because of Trump, Putin, or Netanjahu. The truth is, the vast majority of people living all over the world are ordinary people who deserve love, justice, and a future.
And yes, you shoot at the mass shooter. But where I live, police officers are trained so that the perpetrator survives—in order to subject him to his just! punishment. Which is not death.
Bang!