Excuse us MLs for not having an encyclopedic knowledge of capeshit, most of us have matured beyond the age of 12
"When tankies say they hate rich people, why do they hate this fictional millionaire I like?"
I admittedly have a soft spot for Batman and superhero-related shit, but unlike anti-communists, I understand that comic books are fiction, using fiction to discuss real-world issues is very spotty, and that most of the capitalists don't have even an ounce of the modicrum of coolness and self-respect and dignity that Batman has.
That's fair. I meant my comment as a slight against idealism, which leads some left-leaning people towards theoretical debates with no consequence on reality whatsoever
- Show
When I think of Batman, I think of Anarky.
Anarky steals from the rich (like Bruce Wayne) and funnels that money to farmers and radicals in the global south.
Batman, of course, beats the shit out of him for it.
"Sucdem biketuber" is my new favorite phrase and sounds simultaneously like a great and horrible idea for a band name.
I am unable to parse the title alone and shan't be trying to parse the rest
I find these sorts of discussions extremely tedious and absolutely pointless. Fictional characters can be endowed with any quality that their creator wants them to have. In a fictional world a billionaire can be by definition benevolent and saintly if the writer decides to write him as such, and even if they decide to make the hero morally dubious they can always make the villain infinitely more evil to justify the actions of the hero. They can construct villains who are little more than caricatures and have them do the most absurdly and nonsensically evil things for no reason, even (or perhaps especially) when the villain might otherwise seem to have reasonable and rational motivations that the audience would otherwise empathize or identify with.
There is little point in trying to argue that this or that fictional character is actually bad when the source material itself presents them as good. Perhaps they would be bad if they existed irl, but the author of a fictional work always has the power to define character A as absolutely good and character B as absolutely evil. The fact that this is unrealistic is beside the point and only means that the writing will be uninteresting to some, while others who prefer stories with simple moral absolutes will be drawn to it - just look at the popularity of Tolkien's mythology despite the fact that it is one of the least nuanced and most black and white fictional conflicts ever imagined with highly one dimensional characters that are either borderline perfect or irredeemably evil.
The problem arises when some people start to view these works of fiction as allegory for reality and begin to draw parallels that are not there. For instance trying to infer from the fact that Batman is by definition a billionaire hero that somehow billionaires have the capacity to not be a detriment to society irl - they do not! Similarly it is very easy to use fictional works to discredit certain groups or ideologies by creating villains who embody that group or ideology and having them be associated with arbitrary and over the top evil acts.
Mfer, how about you learn degrees of adjectives before discussing socioeconomic issues? MY EYES
BUT MUH CHARITY!
Yeah, why wouldn't we like Wayne/Stark/etc? It's not like they're "benevolent" trillionaires that don't even contemplate revolution from above despite absolutely having the means and allegedly being geniuses. No, instead of cure they settle for bandages. Because they're totally not a cultural cry for help of a civilization so brainwashed they see no better solution to the world's problems than just kinda hoping for the coming of a benevolent capitalist savior.
Libsocs are asking the real questions: "is a talking walking duck in a top hat a moral person"
