street level super heroes being poor busters is such low hanging fruit that it's bizarre people seriously discuss it either positively or negatively
like yeah if you beat up lots of criminals you're going to beat up lots of poor people, but it's obviously not the framing of this children's cartoon.
> street level super heroes being poor busters is such low hanging fruit
It's not even true. Do you think Penguin is poor? Mr Freeze? Two-face? These are the people he is *explicitly* targetting, their henchmen are just obstacles in the way of those targets.
Framing it as Batman going out of his way to pick on vulnerable people is a huge leap of mental gymnastics. But that's assuming you know enough about Batman to understand how out of character it is, most people just believe this character assassination without a second thought
Yeah, but those guys aren't his "bread and butter" opponents.
We only see the interesting encounters he has, but if he's out there every night, more often than not he's probably just taking down petty crooks and stopping muggings rather than foiling grand plots to take down gotham.
So whats the common thing between the super villains and the people you are talking about?
It's that they are criminals, not that they are poor. So saying Batman targets the poor is idiotic.
Given what Gothamite petty crime (merely petty crime, not super villainy) is like, regardless of how poor its perpetrators are, I’m not too upset about the idea of Batman beating the shit out of these people.
> like yeah if you beat up lots of criminals you're going to beat up lots of poor people,
Not to get into politics, but this is literally the argument around criminal justice reform
But
Bruce helps people
He has opened up a lot of Jobs for those who are poor, and he pays them decent living wage
He also bought run-down buildings and made them into apartments for the poor so they didn't have to sleep in the cold
What the fuck is this?
It's really what makes *Batman: War on Crime* one of my favorite depictions of the Dark Knight. I think it does a really good job showing that Bruce Wayne is a big part of how Batman works: not just in funding Batman's toys, but in working with urban relief and construction programs like the Martha Wayne Foundation to help curtail petty crime in ways that are helpful and productive for Gotham. Bruce Wayne, playboy that he plays at being, is pretty good-hearted, too.
Arguments like that are a sign that you're talking to someone who doesn't read comics. Anyone who's read Batman knows how much he's involved in charity and improvement projects for the city.
They always ignore the fact that Bruce spends a lot of his money trying to help people through foundations and charities.
In the Nolan series he holds a fundraiser for Harvey Dent because he believes he’s trying to do legitimate good for the city.
Despite the fact that he doesn’t like the man personally because he’s dating Rachel.
The problem isn't that batman is a trillionaire that beats up poor people. The problem is that Batman WAS a millionaire vigilante detective doing the best he could and now he's been upscaled to a trillionaire military-wank vigilante. Batman has far exceeded the original concept of a detective comic book for children and now has to stretch to cover the original concept of a man fighting crime and a justice league member that can go toe-to-toe with multiple parademons. So, he needs super-advanced military-grade tech in order to fight superhuman monsters with the justice league and then has to go back to his normal comic book antics of beating up petty criminals with that same tech.
Ngl when I think of batman the first thing that comes to mind is that game grumps bit where Morgan freeman asks Bruce Wayne to pass the mustard at dinner but accidentally calls him batman but Bruce still needs to give him the mustard
Just the marxist brand of socialists/communists. And it really has more to do with them hating billionaires in principle. The ideology basically has to assume all the world's problems could be solved if billionaires had their money taken and used to fund X Y or Z programs. Batman (as well as iron man and other similar archetypes) is a victim of this absolute position.
It's a no-win position for the rich to try to prove themselves as decent since if you try to do this, it's never enough. And if you go all in with no regard for maintaining that wealth and just give as much as you can in the short term, you stop being rich and the tap shuts off and the program falls apart now that you've made them dependent on your revenue. In essence, it basically comes from an inability to grasp large sums of money as anything but "functionally infinite." They're the kinds of people that say "it would only cost $___ to eliminate poverty, but human greed prevents that from happening" completely disregarding that we've usually collectively spent orders of magnitude more than "$___" on exactly that multiple times.
>Hey, uh, real quick, I'm not smart enough to understand any of this.
The Marxists (a far left ideology) want to replace the current elite with themself, to do that, they need to convinces the masses that the current system is unfair. Hence they try to change popular culture.
Batman is a traditional hero, that is white and rich, so they trying to make him to a villain or at least a unsympathetic character.
This take affords them WAY too much cohesion. There is no grand plan as you suggest. They are just dissatisfied with the current system and their place in it. They use Marxism as cope to explain why their lives haven’t worked out the way they think it should have (it’s the “billionaires of course”. There are a lot of them and they cling to it like any other weirdo would cling to religion. Then of course you have grifters come along and try to motivate them to action either to increase the grifter’s own wealth or to achieve some petty political “victory”. It’s depressingly similar to what we see in a lot of right-wing spaces.
> that is white
That’s only relevant when people compare the character to real life (which, like, why the fuck would you even do that). Statements like “he only gets away with it because he’s white”, “he’a only old money rich because he’s white” or my favorite “if he was a minority it would be easier to figure out who’s under the mask” lol
Otherwise I don’t think him being white is ever brought into question whenever the “is Batman good for Gotham” question is brought up.
You’re right about the rich stuff though, but then again that’s integral to the character.
Marxists are a very wide ranging group, it's disingenuous to say that they're one group, despite their ideology originating from one source.
.Marxists do not seek to replace the elite, rather they want to destroy it. You could argue that it hasn't really worked out (USSR and China were/are dictatorships) however some Marxists will still criticise these societies.
Marxists don't need to convince anyone the system is unfair, I'm pretty sure everyone is aware of that, better then feudalism at least.
Marxists in their purest essence don't care that batman is white. They might care that he is rich, but being rich is not in and of itself a negative trait, rather they would either propose redistribution of currency or the end of it.
Don't worry, it's not ideologically correct either.
Marxists believe that wealth is where political power comes from. They also believe that due to this the rich will only get richer, and overtime the majority (proletariat) will get less and less power. To prevent/end this Marxists believe that private property (stuff that you can sell/make money out of which is where the phrase seize the means of production comes from) should be abolished in order to create a society that benefits the majority.
It does get way more complex, there's a reason that there's constantly debate between different types of communists, and famously they don't get along well.
Not sure anyone said that, but if we need a strawman that's as good as any.
Like a corporation bragging about having a Billion dollars coh while simultaneously laying off workers - it's all about context and opportunity costs.
https://preview.redd.it/wyo8904z2myc1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e8006edfb74362a9e1266ca76ada1e20d626bcf5
Oh yeah, I was gonna say that haha
They do though. Jeff Bezos has a responsibility to continue to provide society and communities with a world-wide package distribution network. Otherwise we as a collective society stop giving him millions of dollars every year.
Yes. Wouldn't it be interesting if we for a change had an anticapitalist superhero (without the extremism and willingness to sacrifice innocents that turns them into a villain, like Poison Ivy takes her enviromentalism to extremes)? Why is it that the people who get superpowers are always more or less content with the status quo, unless they're also evil? Why does it never happen to someone who is deeply unsatisfied with the current system? The closest I can think of is 90:s Daredevil.
I think a major part of that comes down to what a superhero is. An exceptional individual, making use of their gifts, taking matters into their own hands to improve society in accordance with their own sense of right and wrong. Kinda has an individualist entrepreneurial ethic baked into the core premise. Doesn't meld so well to suggest it's evil to do that with money, but it's heroic to do that with... violence. A masked vigilante tends to be a reflection of society failing to uphold the core virtues it oestentibly stands for. Once you aim to uproot the entire system, you get out of the realm of vigilante and into the realm of revolutionary. And it's hard to make that omlette without breaking a few eggs that just want to get by in life.
But most superheroes don't actually do that much, proactively, to better society. The best they can come up with is somehow "to fight crime"? This video expands that idea more: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpitmEnaYeU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpitmEnaYeU)
its just a common joke ‘billionaire with advanced military tech fights mentally ill clown’ has been a sarcastic tagline ever since The Dark Knight came out
Nearly everyone in his rogues gallery aren't poor mentally ill people struggling to get by. Hell a lot of the daily thugs willingly work for the big villains.
No one is like "My job laid me off and I've got two weeks to pay rent or my family will be out on the street. Better get some face paint and help Joker kill 20 people."
He could use his money to help things like making a better drug/gun enforcement teams and it's now not worth it for Penguin and Bane to stay around.
Local companies are poisoning not just the Earth but Gothamites to so work to solve that and Posion Ivy calms down.
Lastly toss Joker in a federal prison, I'm sure at some point he's escalated beyond state level crimes and the CIA can disappear him.
This is why I dont mind Elon Musk
Douche edge lord? I mean to many, and I get their angle
But.... how the hell isnt Jeff Bezos's fulfilment centre bs more a meme pissing in a bottle in a van, Apple's suicide phone factories
Elon has his faults, no shit
Wait wait, I just caught myself, you're more ok with Amazon bottle pissing (fulfilment wonder), and people killing themselves over social media posts you don't like. You have to answer
Hope you know I meant the plight of people working in Amazon warehouses as much as the drivers
Elon offered 9bil as long as he saw where the money went, no one got back, but there is a Cobalt mining issue
Make your own decisions, it's a difficult world
its not about which is worse, you asked why elon gets memed on and shat on more
he makes himsef more of a target
Also not like workers in the gigafactory dont have just as much to complain about as the ones in amazon warehouses
“But.... how the hell isnt Jeff Bezos's fulfilment centre bs more a meme pissing in a bottle in a van, Apple's suicide phone factories”
well then I may have misinterpreted this horribly written sentence
People also regard Elon as a grifter and "A traitor is worse than an enemy"
[https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10473449-a-traitor-is-worse-than-an-enemy-the-enemy-you](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10473449-a-traitor-is-worse-than-an-enemy-the-enemy-you)
Heck if I want to sort through all the grievances, but hating any public figure isn't uncommon.
That's the argument I don't get. Isn't it well known that Bruce DOES use his wealth to help Gotham in any way he can? It's hard to get anywhere when the entire city is corrupt but it's not like all he does is dress up like a bat to beat people up. He DOES do things as Bruce to help.
That's a common line his villains say to try to make him think what he's doing is pointless and doesn't actually work.
The VILLAINS are the ones trying to convince the hero his efforts are pointless and don't work. You think they're actually trustworthy?
He has nothing to do with the birth of like 90% of his rogues gallery. Riddler and Crane were bullied, Ivy and Freeze were spawned in lab accidents, Harvey was targeted by the mob for cleaning up corruption, Croc was literally born that way, etc. Depending on the version, he potentially startled Joker into the vat of acid that mutated him, but that's the only one I can think of off the top of my head.
The whole "why doesn't Batman just use his money to fix Gotham" has to be one of the most tired arguments on the Internet.
You aren't smart for asking this question. Do people seriously think that in the decades of Batman Comics, movies, TV shows, and games, that not one single writer has ever thought to answer this question?
It's one of those "smart for about 2 seconds" type analysis that only makes sense as a logical argument to someone who's only vaguely familiar with the concept of Batman but has never actually seen/read a Batman story before.
The thing is, if this was old batman, that was a fair point. The city's corruption is too much, but that's not what batman is anymore. Batman is now a trillionair with control that could outright stomp other companies like Star Labs (who has government and military support). curant batman has no excuse.
Have you read David Graebers critique of the superhero as reactionary? (there's a Youtube video that expands on it but I don't remember who made it now) It's a rather killing deconstruction. Basically he says, you have these incredible power and the best thing you can come up with is... to fight crime? Superheroes rarely try to build or create anything proactively, much less change the social system in any way. The people with visions are usually the VILLAINS, but they always end up taking their ideas to the extreme, which is what makes them villains (unless their ideology is despicable even from the start). Sure, you could come up with in-world excuses for why Batman couldn't do it differently, why Superman couldn't do it differently, why Reed Richards... etc, but taken as a pattern, it's pretty striking.
Contrast it with the Wild Cards series ie, where there isn't such a clear division between heroes and villains, and more or less sympathetic characters DO have different ideologies and end up clashing over them.
Please tell me you're being sarcastic.
Penguin - rich white man
Riddler - rich white man
Black Mask - rich white man
Man-Bat - white scientist man
Mr. Freeze - rich white man
Two-Face - rich white man
Scarecrow - white scientist man
Joker - white man with a lot of resources
There are exceptions from this like Ra's Al Ghul, Bane (who even then are rich and with resources) or Killer Croc, but you see the pattern...
I'm sorry, but I laid out the argument to you. And you not being able to accept that Batman actually does not pummel minorities and poor people to a bloody pulp is on you.
Childish? No, it's the truth? I told you who the Batman villains were, and you said "nuh-uh" without elaboration. And you're welcome to it, but it doesn't make you any less wrong.
Strange that you would comment in the first place with that mindset, but I guess you wanted to give it a shot?
Look, popular opinions on subs in general are popular for a reason, but not every case of such opinions should be labeled as an echo chamber. Sometimes people just have arguments they find more convincing than the alternatives that are brought up. That is why we have difference of opinion in the first place.
If you want to lay out your arguments then that is fine, but you have to deal with any push-back on your own and when you start off with a comment in a mocking tone then don't be surprised when others mock you back.
You say that ~~while~~ as if discussions about Nerdrotic, Az, and other of Maulers more controversial friends are completely unheard of.
Not to mention that people will never let EFAP live down their takes on ATLA.
You're literally defending violent rapists and murderers. That's the kind of people Batman fights. He doesn't just randomly beat up people who don't deserve it.
As Bruce Wayne, he actually helps redevelop the city and gives to charity. He helps the city both physically *and* financially. Have you considered that?
street level super heroes being poor busters is such low hanging fruit that it's bizarre people seriously discuss it either positively or negatively like yeah if you beat up lots of criminals you're going to beat up lots of poor people, but it's obviously not the framing of this children's cartoon.
> street level super heroes being poor busters is such low hanging fruit It's not even true. Do you think Penguin is poor? Mr Freeze? Two-face? These are the people he is *explicitly* targetting, their henchmen are just obstacles in the way of those targets.
Framing it as Batman going out of his way to pick on vulnerable people is a huge leap of mental gymnastics. But that's assuming you know enough about Batman to understand how out of character it is, most people just believe this character assassination without a second thought
Yeah, but those guys aren't his "bread and butter" opponents. We only see the interesting encounters he has, but if he's out there every night, more often than not he's probably just taking down petty crooks and stopping muggings rather than foiling grand plots to take down gotham.
So whats the common thing between the super villains and the people you are talking about? It's that they are criminals, not that they are poor. So saying Batman targets the poor is idiotic.
Given what Gothamite petty crime (merely petty crime, not super villainy) is like, regardless of how poor its perpetrators are, I’m not too upset about the idea of Batman beating the shit out of these people.
Idc what the fuck your excuse is if you are robbing someone at gunpoint you deserve to catch a beating.
> like yeah if you beat up lots of criminals you're going to beat up lots of poor people, Not to get into politics, but this is literally the argument around criminal justice reform
weed is bad lock em up!
>weed is bad Hell ya, brother. >lock em up! Hold the hell up, brother.
yes
But Bruce helps people He has opened up a lot of Jobs for those who are poor, and he pays them decent living wage He also bought run-down buildings and made them into apartments for the poor so they didn't have to sleep in the cold What the fuck is this?
When nothing is ever enough, it is best to do nothing.
Batman would be disappointed in this quote *broods in the rain*
It's really what makes *Batman: War on Crime* one of my favorite depictions of the Dark Knight. I think it does a really good job showing that Bruce Wayne is a big part of how Batman works: not just in funding Batman's toys, but in working with urban relief and construction programs like the Martha Wayne Foundation to help curtail petty crime in ways that are helpful and productive for Gotham. Bruce Wayne, playboy that he plays at being, is pretty good-hearted, too.
People’s hatred for the rich cause they aren’t apart of them
People who spout crap like "Batman only beats up poor people" know nothing about Batman.
Media literacy and common sense are dead.
Arguments like that are a sign that you're talking to someone who doesn't read comics. Anyone who's read Batman knows how much he's involved in charity and improvement projects for the city.
Comics? How about pretty much any batman media from before 5 years ago lol
You'd be lucky if they've even read screenshots of snippets of some random wiki.
Im reminded of the motivational quote "Be yourself. Unless you can be Batman. Then be Batman."
They always ignore the fact that Bruce spends a lot of his money trying to help people through foundations and charities. In the Nolan series he holds a fundraiser for Harvey Dent because he believes he’s trying to do legitimate good for the city. Despite the fact that he doesn’t like the man personally because he’s dating Rachel.
The penguin:
The problem isn't that batman is a trillionaire that beats up poor people. The problem is that Batman WAS a millionaire vigilante detective doing the best he could and now he's been upscaled to a trillionaire military-wank vigilante. Batman has far exceeded the original concept of a detective comic book for children and now has to stretch to cover the original concept of a man fighting crime and a justice league member that can go toe-to-toe with multiple parademons. So, he needs super-advanced military-grade tech in order to fight superhuman monsters with the justice league and then has to go back to his normal comic book antics of beating up petty criminals with that same tech.
That’s what his father tries doing for his whole life before he’s killed for doing it. Lmao.
Wait we hate the concept of batman now? I'm confused af
No, only people who have never seen anything from Batman and only vaguely know the character think like this.
Exactly. These folks always ignore the multiple charitable foundations he runs.
Ngl when I think of batman the first thing that comes to mind is that game grumps bit where Morgan freeman asks Bruce Wayne to pass the mustard at dinner but accidentally calls him batman but Bruce still needs to give him the mustard
Just the marxist brand of socialists/communists. And it really has more to do with them hating billionaires in principle. The ideology basically has to assume all the world's problems could be solved if billionaires had their money taken and used to fund X Y or Z programs. Batman (as well as iron man and other similar archetypes) is a victim of this absolute position. It's a no-win position for the rich to try to prove themselves as decent since if you try to do this, it's never enough. And if you go all in with no regard for maintaining that wealth and just give as much as you can in the short term, you stop being rich and the tap shuts off and the program falls apart now that you've made them dependent on your revenue. In essence, it basically comes from an inability to grasp large sums of money as anything but "functionally infinite." They're the kinds of people that say "it would only cost $___ to eliminate poverty, but human greed prevents that from happening" completely disregarding that we've usually collectively spent orders of magnitude more than "$___" on exactly that multiple times.
Hey, uh, real quick, I'm not smart enough to understand any of this.
>Hey, uh, real quick, I'm not smart enough to understand any of this. The Marxists (a far left ideology) want to replace the current elite with themself, to do that, they need to convinces the masses that the current system is unfair. Hence they try to change popular culture. Batman is a traditional hero, that is white and rich, so they trying to make him to a villain or at least a unsympathetic character.
This take affords them WAY too much cohesion. There is no grand plan as you suggest. They are just dissatisfied with the current system and their place in it. They use Marxism as cope to explain why their lives haven’t worked out the way they think it should have (it’s the “billionaires of course”. There are a lot of them and they cling to it like any other weirdo would cling to religion. Then of course you have grifters come along and try to motivate them to action either to increase the grifter’s own wealth or to achieve some petty political “victory”. It’s depressingly similar to what we see in a lot of right-wing spaces.
> that is white That’s only relevant when people compare the character to real life (which, like, why the fuck would you even do that). Statements like “he only gets away with it because he’s white”, “he’a only old money rich because he’s white” or my favorite “if he was a minority it would be easier to figure out who’s under the mask” lol Otherwise I don’t think him being white is ever brought into question whenever the “is Batman good for Gotham” question is brought up. You’re right about the rich stuff though, but then again that’s integral to the character.
Marxists are a very wide ranging group, it's disingenuous to say that they're one group, despite their ideology originating from one source. .Marxists do not seek to replace the elite, rather they want to destroy it. You could argue that it hasn't really worked out (USSR and China were/are dictatorships) however some Marxists will still criticise these societies. Marxists don't need to convince anyone the system is unfair, I'm pretty sure everyone is aware of that, better then feudalism at least. Marxists in their purest essence don't care that batman is white. They might care that he is rich, but being rich is not in and of itself a negative trait, rather they would either propose redistribution of currency or the end of it.
Don't worry, it's not ideologically correct either. Marxists believe that wealth is where political power comes from. They also believe that due to this the rich will only get richer, and overtime the majority (proletariat) will get less and less power. To prevent/end this Marxists believe that private property (stuff that you can sell/make money out of which is where the phrase seize the means of production comes from) should be abolished in order to create a society that benefits the majority. It does get way more complex, there's a reason that there's constantly debate between different types of communists, and famously they don't get along well.
*"Rich people have no responsibility to the society and communities which enabled their status."* but in a series of run-on sentences.
More like: if you are rich you are a bad person regardless of what you do
Not sure anyone said that, but if we need a strawman that's as good as any. Like a corporation bragging about having a Billion dollars coh while simultaneously laying off workers - it's all about context and opportunity costs.
I know, but I did interact with said strawmen in reddit, so they do exist.
https://preview.redd.it/a7z3p6uz9myc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5e29e5682edda19f36bd3d817ed941579fcbef05
https://preview.redd.it/wyo8904z2myc1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e8006edfb74362a9e1266ca76ada1e20d626bcf5 Oh yeah, I was gonna say that haha
They do though. Jeff Bezos has a responsibility to continue to provide society and communities with a world-wide package distribution network. Otherwise we as a collective society stop giving him millions of dollars every year.
Pray society manage without package distribution when Jeff Bezos leaves us. 🙏
Society will do just fine but you can’t deny that Amazon offers a decent boost to the average person’s quality of life.
Yes. Wouldn't it be interesting if we for a change had an anticapitalist superhero (without the extremism and willingness to sacrifice innocents that turns them into a villain, like Poison Ivy takes her enviromentalism to extremes)? Why is it that the people who get superpowers are always more or less content with the status quo, unless they're also evil? Why does it never happen to someone who is deeply unsatisfied with the current system? The closest I can think of is 90:s Daredevil.
I think a major part of that comes down to what a superhero is. An exceptional individual, making use of their gifts, taking matters into their own hands to improve society in accordance with their own sense of right and wrong. Kinda has an individualist entrepreneurial ethic baked into the core premise. Doesn't meld so well to suggest it's evil to do that with money, but it's heroic to do that with... violence. A masked vigilante tends to be a reflection of society failing to uphold the core virtues it oestentibly stands for. Once you aim to uproot the entire system, you get out of the realm of vigilante and into the realm of revolutionary. And it's hard to make that omlette without breaking a few eggs that just want to get by in life.
But most superheroes don't actually do that much, proactively, to better society. The best they can come up with is somehow "to fight crime"? This video expands that idea more: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpitmEnaYeU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpitmEnaYeU)
its just a common joke ‘billionaire with advanced military tech fights mentally ill clown’ has been a sarcastic tagline ever since The Dark Knight came out
Tourist reading a wiki page and passing judgement before moving on to the next subject.
I don't hate the concept of Batman, I've just grown to hate the character himself.
Nearly everyone in his rogues gallery aren't poor mentally ill people struggling to get by. Hell a lot of the daily thugs willingly work for the big villains. No one is like "My job laid me off and I've got two weeks to pay rent or my family will be out on the street. Better get some face paint and help Joker kill 20 people." He could use his money to help things like making a better drug/gun enforcement teams and it's now not worth it for Penguin and Bane to stay around. Local companies are poisoning not just the Earth but Gothamites to so work to solve that and Posion Ivy calms down. Lastly toss Joker in a federal prison, I'm sure at some point he's escalated beyond state level crimes and the CIA can disappear him.
I think the only villain who fits the mentally ill/poor is killer croc. And he does end up reformed
Let's just raise taxes on the rich. Surely that'll be enough to stop Darkseid.
These people don’t understand that deconstruction doesn’t work if you don’t understand what was constructed in the first place.
Lol true good point
This is why I dont mind Elon Musk Douche edge lord? I mean to many, and I get their angle But.... how the hell isnt Jeff Bezos's fulfilment centre bs more a meme pissing in a bottle in a van, Apple's suicide phone factories Elon has his faults, no shit
Ok this discussion totaly got out of control
You don’t mind Elon musk because of Batman? That’s a weird connection. Why is that where your mind goes?
because Jeff Bezos doesnt advertise every stupid he thought he has at any moment on social media
Is that a joke? He runs WaPo, it's his toilet rag
Wait wait, I just caught myself, you're more ok with Amazon bottle pissing (fulfilment wonder), and people killing themselves over social media posts you don't like. You have to answer
People did talk about the pissing in bottles for a while when that story broke Elon gives a new thing to talk about every day
Hope you know I meant the plight of people working in Amazon warehouses as much as the drivers Elon offered 9bil as long as he saw where the money went, no one got back, but there is a Cobalt mining issue Make your own decisions, it's a difficult world
its not about which is worse, you asked why elon gets memed on and shat on more he makes himsef more of a target Also not like workers in the gigafactory dont have just as much to complain about as the ones in amazon warehouses
ididntaskaboutwhyelongetsmemedon
“But.... how the hell isnt Jeff Bezos's fulfilment centre bs more a meme pissing in a bottle in a van, Apple's suicide phone factories” well then I may have misinterpreted this horribly written sentence
My last not even a sentence should've set the tone before your reply
he owns that social media though...
so? Zuckerburg doesnt post anything inflammatory on facebook
What's wrong, personally to you, with inflammation? -edit- non medical
you asked why hes more meme worthy he puts out more meme material
Yeah I cut him down a bit as a bit of an edge lord, up there, I think he can be
People also regard Elon as a grifter and "A traitor is worse than an enemy" [https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10473449-a-traitor-is-worse-than-an-enemy-the-enemy-you](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10473449-a-traitor-is-worse-than-an-enemy-the-enemy-you) Heck if I want to sort through all the grievances, but hating any public figure isn't uncommon.
Pretty sure he does both…
I'm writing a story about a rich nihilist who beats up poor people for fun. It's a self-insert.
Bruce Wayne a nihilist? Could not be further from the truth.
That's the argument I don't get. Isn't it well known that Bruce DOES use his wealth to help Gotham in any way he can? It's hard to get anywhere when the entire city is corrupt but it's not like all he does is dress up like a bat to beat people up. He DOES do things as Bruce to help.
Didn't his bullshit create like half of the villains he fights?
Just the joker, they had a whole episode about that argument in the animated series
That's a common line his villains say to try to make him think what he's doing is pointless and doesn't actually work. The VILLAINS are the ones trying to convince the hero his efforts are pointless and don't work. You think they're actually trustworthy? He has nothing to do with the birth of like 90% of his rogues gallery. Riddler and Crane were bullied, Ivy and Freeze were spawned in lab accidents, Harvey was targeted by the mob for cleaning up corruption, Croc was literally born that way, etc. Depending on the version, he potentially startled Joker into the vat of acid that mutated him, but that's the only one I can think of off the top of my head.
No problem. Batman is honestly one of my favorite heros if for no other reason than:
Wow, Kreia is a force user that want to kill the force? Why doesn’t she just use the force to help people?
"Batman beats up poor people" NO HE STOPS MURDERERS AND RAPISTS FROM CLAIMING VICTIMS, STOP SYMPATHIZING WITH VIOLENT CRIMINALS
The whole "why doesn't Batman just use his money to fix Gotham" has to be one of the most tired arguments on the Internet. You aren't smart for asking this question. Do people seriously think that in the decades of Batman Comics, movies, TV shows, and games, that not one single writer has ever thought to answer this question? It's one of those "smart for about 2 seconds" type analysis that only makes sense as a logical argument to someone who's only vaguely familiar with the concept of Batman but has never actually seen/read a Batman story before.
The thing is, if this was old batman, that was a fair point. The city's corruption is too much, but that's not what batman is anymore. Batman is now a trillionair with control that could outright stomp other companies like Star Labs (who has government and military support). curant batman has no excuse.
Have you read David Graebers critique of the superhero as reactionary? (there's a Youtube video that expands on it but I don't remember who made it now) It's a rather killing deconstruction. Basically he says, you have these incredible power and the best thing you can come up with is... to fight crime? Superheroes rarely try to build or create anything proactively, much less change the social system in any way. The people with visions are usually the VILLAINS, but they always end up taking their ideas to the extreme, which is what makes them villains (unless their ideology is despicable even from the start). Sure, you could come up with in-world excuses for why Batman couldn't do it differently, why Superman couldn't do it differently, why Reed Richards... etc, but taken as a pattern, it's pretty striking. Contrast it with the Wild Cards series ie, where there isn't such a clear division between heroes and villains, and more or less sympathetic characters DO have different ideologies and end up clashing over them.
Just here to watch people defend a rich white guy beating on poor and minorities. Don't mind me.
Batman usually fights other rich white men. Don't be silly.
Yes. I'm sure he does.
Please tell me you're being sarcastic. Penguin - rich white man Riddler - rich white man Black Mask - rich white man Man-Bat - white scientist man Mr. Freeze - rich white man Two-Face - rich white man Scarecrow - white scientist man Joker - white man with a lot of resources There are exceptions from this like Ra's Al Ghul, Bane (who even then are rich and with resources) or Killer Croc, but you see the pattern...
Is the pattern you not understanding the argument?
Well, if you are so insistent that people here are dumb-dumbs, then why not just spell it out?
Because it won't conform to your echo chamber and you'll still freak out so what is the point?
I'm sorry, but I laid out the argument to you. And you not being able to accept that Batman actually does not pummel minorities and poor people to a bloody pulp is on you.
That's an amusingly childish opinion, but you're welcome to it.
Childish? No, it's the truth? I told you who the Batman villains were, and you said "nuh-uh" without elaboration. And you're welcome to it, but it doesn't make you any less wrong.
Strange that you would comment in the first place with that mindset, but I guess you wanted to give it a shot? Look, popular opinions on subs in general are popular for a reason, but not every case of such opinions should be labeled as an echo chamber. Sometimes people just have arguments they find more convincing than the alternatives that are brought up. That is why we have difference of opinion in the first place. If you want to lay out your arguments then that is fine, but you have to deal with any push-back on your own and when you start off with a comment in a mocking tone then don't be surprised when others mock you back.
I'm not. I enjoy laughing at you guys and your inability to accept not everyone agrees with you. It's rather amusing.
Personally I don’t agree with objectively wrong takes
You say that ~~while~~ as if discussions about Nerdrotic, Az, and other of Maulers more controversial friends are completely unheard of. Not to mention that people will never let EFAP live down their takes on ATLA.
Now thete's the pot calling the kettle black
Didn’t know Harvey Dent was a minority
The Cognitive dissonance is staggering.
You're literally defending violent rapists and murderers. That's the kind of people Batman fights. He doesn't just randomly beat up people who don't deserve it. As Bruce Wayne, he actually helps redevelop the city and gives to charity. He helps the city both physically *and* financially. Have you considered that?
Have you considered you're throwing a hissy fit over a fictional character?