Make your attacker worry about HIS life...

How much violence do you think Batman should be able to get away with while still remaining as "one of the good guys"?

There are times where he is way more brutal than necessary to just your average crook. Threatening someone with crushing their skull with the Batmobile (Arkham games), to beating people senseless and unnecessarily risking them dying (some choices in the Telltale Batman game), to cutting a cannibal's finger off for threatening only Bruce himself and no one else's life (although obviously he killed some people already) (a Batman/Catwoman comic), breaking criminals' bones as an intimidation tactic before and/or after they told him everything (comics, games, movies,...), etc.

Like that's some really unheroic things to do and Bruce sometimes admits to liking dishing out this kind of punishment. But then he turns around and preaches to everyone how they went too far for breaking ONE bone, especially to the Robins. How many people really know this vicious and cruel side of Bruce, I wonder...

How would you imagine the Batkids reacting to a video of Batman calmly and in a calculated way torturing information out of someone, almost like a real villain? And his cruelty rivals that of Jason during his utrh and rhato days where he was the most mentally unstable and that's like a Tuesday for Bruce? And what if that video is a few years old, and shows a little Robin (Dick or Jason, maybe) being sent away to stake some place out or to return to the cave just a few minutes prior? Obviously they'd be horrified, but what then? Do they go looking for what happened after the torture and maybe find out it was for vital information that relsulted in stopping the city from getting blown up and that the victim was then rehabilitated and now works for Wayne Enterprises.

Just, Batman's methods were horrifying but it was enough to shake/scare this specific person out of a criminal life style, then give him a well-payed job in one of the branches of WE in another city without Batman, now having built a family with kids and the guy looks the happiest he's ever been. And this case isn't the only one, and a majotity of criminals end up like this, with only a few ending up the same as before or worse.

Like, how are you supposed to react to that??? This is the same man that's upstairs working on a charity project for orphans and cancer patients right now! You're going to be sitting at the dinner table together! The man's a father figure to most of them! What. The. Fuck.

I mean i have an answer but i dont think youre going to like it.

I think a Batman that is unnecessarily violent/cruel, or is for the sake of being violent/cruel, is a Batman that is out of character.

And i think the fact that he does enjoy being Batman, is part of it. He knows he’s violent, he knows violence is cruel, he knows he enjoys it a little more then he should. That the reason he has such a tight leash on … literally every aspect of being Batman.

Also, scolding the Robins for being too violent is obvious? Those are kids, they’re still being trained. I know fandom likes to paint every bit of parenting Bruce does as hypocritical or overbearing, but cmon on now. Being capable of something doesnt mean you have to go through with it. His kids were always meant to be better then him, and that means keeping their hands as clean as possible.

Also torture is proven to be ineffective, and if Batman is anything efficient. So thats out of character too ¯\ _(ツ)_/¯

(And Jason wasnt mentally unstable during UTRH or RHATO. He ran a criminal empire bbyboy was very stable.)

What your real question is is “Does the end Justify the means and if so to what extent” and the answer is both “no” and “it depends but probably also no”.

Also is there a reason you sent this verbatim to @frownyalfred and then to me right after i reblogged one of their posts or is that just a fun little coincidink

Edit: that last question sounds very accusatory, its not! Im just curious because this is a pretty well thought out, thorough ask, so like it does make sense that you would have copy-pasted it, but also the timing was pretty pat. Im also not expecting an answer so im not sure why i even asked.

Idk if you just can't face the fact that the apartheid state of Israel that you're in support of is inherently violent in not only literal violence by inacting a genocidal war against an entire people, but in its very foundation as a settler state that forcibly displaced people using international law, military power, etc, and then spent decades of time and money to further dehumanize said people so you'd be ok with the socially engineered violence so that it has a right to exist in your eyes, than yeah you're STILL supporting zionism lol all zionism is inherently wrong and it is violent!!

Fellaroos, tell me about the character designs that have been taking root in your mind palace as of late. The ones that don't pay rent because their beauty is priceless and their coolness is beyond measure

“utena is a bit like a shoujo equivalent of evangelion” = a common and inevitable comparison that is admittedly not a bad elevator pitch, giving an idea of utena's symbolism and the genre tropes it engages without requiring an essay-length summary of its plot and themes

“utena is evangelion for the girlies” = SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UPPPP

So after reading this thread by @mydetheturk and @shastafirecracker, I got to thinking about Vash as a gun in Trigun Stampede. (I would have responded in thread, but the thread is Trigun Book Club and I'm about to get into spoilers for Stampede here. Which reminds me....)

Spoilers for Trigun Stampede Ahead

The series is called Trigun because Vash has three guns: 1) the one he carries, 2) the one in his prosthetic left arm, and 3) his angel arm. The thread linked above gets into how, throughout Trigun (every iteration, TBH), Vash doesn't simply wield weapons, but because of his angel arm he very literally is a weapon, and that's an identity he resists as much as he can. He doesn't want to be used for violence. He just wants to help people, but his very nature makes pursuing that path a rather difficult one.

In particular, once he's aware of its presence, Vash wants to take every precaution he can to stop from releasing the power that channels through his angel arm, which is understandable since it can literally level cities. That destructive power the antithesis of what Vash wants to be, but it's also an irremovable part of himself... and it's something that Knives covets enough to severely violate Vash in attempt to gain control of it. The power itself might be Vash's, but it's Knives who activates it, forces it into being, and thus compels Vash to both channel it into his angel arm and to pull the trigger on that insanely powerful gun.

However, in Stampede, it's not just the weight of the angel arm that Knives forces on Vash. Knives is literally responsible for Vash having the other two guns, as well.

These can both be traced to episode 9. First, Knives thrusts the handgun into Vash's arms, calling it, "An evil weapon of the Sinners, taking lives easily from afar with the twitch of a finger...."

Nominally, he's doing this to protect Vash. Vash won't raise his hand to take down the humans that literally just overclocked their sisters to death, to protect them or to protect himself, so Knives provides him with a weapon he labels a coward's tool for evil (gun #1). In doing that, he very much implies his brother is both a coward and someone who needs to embrace doing evil in order to survive.

It's only a few minutes later that Knives makes way for the second gun.

Knives slices off Vash's arm to protect him from the power Vash (accidentally) summoned to try to protect Luida from Knives, thus making way for Vash's prosthetic arm (gun #2).

Thus, every shot fired by Vash from either the handgun or the prosthetic is the result of Knives' actions, even when Knives isn't actively sending people to harass Vash.

"But wait," you hypothetically say. "In TriStamp, Vash's prosthetic arm has a grappling gun, not a gun that fires bullets."

You're right.

Interesting that the one gun Vash has the option to choose for himself in Stampede isn't designed for killing. Instead, Vash uses it to try and save himself, and to save Meryl.

(Though all things considered, I wouldn't be surprised if whatever upgrade he has in Season 2 is more in line with what fans of previous Trigun series are used to in his prosthetic arm.)

There's one other thing I'll note before wrapping this up. Going back to Episode 9 of Stampede... Vash is actually very quick to try and use that handgun Knives gives him. But he doesn't use it to defend himself from humans (or anyone else, really) the way Knives wants him to. Instead, he grits his teeth, does his best to steady an unsteady hand, and uses it to try and protect one of the only two humans left standing around them, Luida, from Knives.

part 19 (gore)

getting into donnies head is a very hands on activity :D

⇇ | ⇽ | index | ⇾

LGBTQ Christians, like a lot of Christians, value their feelings and comfort over the very real harm caused by Christianity and the people who've been harmed by it. Good for you that your denomination is affirming and you have every right to practice the religion of your choice but how fucking dare you try to dictate how people should feel about a god and religion that has been used as a tool to oppress the very community you're a part of.

Anakin & Letting Go

I always found it to be a little skeptical that Anakin could become a force ghost after it took Yoda, Qui Gon, and Obi-Wan learning and training how to do it, and I always thought “really? Anakin? Finding that level of peace and letting go?” But after this episode, seeing the care and lesson that he imparts upon Ahsoka that he learned so painfully, I understand it from him so much better. Vader was so stuck in his complete self-hatred that he allowed nobody who had known him before as Anakin to reach him (most notably Obi-Wan and Ahsoka) because of the overwhelming extent of his shame. It took his son, who had never known him and yet who still stood before him and believed in him, loved him, sacrificed himself for him, to call Anakin back from the depths of Vader. And this Anakin, let everything go to save his son and to allow his son to save him.

And it felt so impactful to get to see this mature post-Vader Anakin reaching out to Ahsoka to teach her this very hard-earned lesson that he took the very hard road to get. Because she has Vader in her. She is everything Anakin taught her, and we saw the behaviors that led Anakin to becoming Vader—the fear of losing his most cherished relationships—reaching out of Anakin very early in the clone wars (and before) and the two of them are both very aware that he imparted those lessons on her. And then we've seen across this season—and overtly in her clone wars flashbacks—that she believes she is inextricable from these traits.

I’ve always loved Anakin as a fictional character, getting to see his earnestness, his flawedness, and his intensity (to borrow Huyang’s very accurate adjective), but this episode brought a level of humanity to him that has moved me so deeply. Life is HARD, loss gets forced on all of us no matter what, and the lessons that we learn through mistakes that we made can be extremely painful because acknowledging and taking responsibility for hurting people is actually really painful for humans (not owning up to our actions is the emotionally easier choice and George Lucas has stated time and again that the Dark Side is about taking the short-term easier choices). But it ultimately means that learning from your mistakes is an actual choice you have to MAKE. And this is the core of Anakin’s lesson. He is teaching Ahsoka that she has to choose which lessons he has taught her that she will live by, but more than that, that she is empowered to be able to choose. Yes, she has everything that he taught her—the good and the bad—but she is not condemned to live out all of the lessons. 

And the beauty of it isn't just the lesson, but that Anakin gets to be the one to teach it to her. The betrayal that she experienced in discovering his fall, the taintedness that she has been portraying that she feels about herself, gets specifically addressed because if he figured it out, then she definitely can too. If he is more than just Vader, then she is too. And THAT is what the "Is that what this is about?" line is actually about. It's so so important that we get to see pre-Vader, Vader, and post-Vader across her vision because the point is that yes, Vader is a part of him, and that brilliant shot of the two of them glaring Sith eyes across the blade at each other did it's job in conveying that Ahsoka is capable of that darkness too, but you are not only the darkness. You get to choose. ("You're more than [death and destruction] because I'm more than that"). And more to the point, you have to choose. Because if you don't specifically choose to fight the dark, then you're ultimately choosing to fall into it. "Fight or die."

So for Anakin to be able to reach out to her one more time, to be able to love her the way he, as Vader, had refused to the last time when they met on Malachor, and to open with “you’re never too old to learn”, because god if he didn’t learn that the hard way too. And to be able to pass on to Ahsoka how to actually let go because he himself had only just finally been able to learn it as well, feels so powerful and poignant.

And that look of pride and wistful sadness that he gives her at the end? That both she and Luke were able to learn so quickly what took him so long? And that maybe, he may have helped save her from the worst traits that he imbued upon her? That’s him having let go of his own shame. He feels grief, he feels guilt—we can see it on his face—but what has happened has happened and he has accepted that, and finally learned that letting go doesn't mean it didn't happen, it means it doesn't have to define your actions going forward.

And finally, it’s also him letting go of ahsoka. By teaching her that she will choose her destiny, he has to accept that he cannot control it either. And he has. “There’s hope for you yet.” 

So yeah, Anakin learned to let go, and getting to see him here, in this headspace of acceptance and peace, practicing and understanding what it means to be a Jedi, was so unexpectedly cathartic and revelatory for me as viewer. 

Fight back with everything you have.

does anyone have reading recommendations that clarify the difference between liberalism and fascism? I’m having trouble distinguishing what is just like normal levels of imperial/colonial violence conducted by a liberal state and what pushes it over the edge into a fascist state. Is fascism simply mature liberalism? Is it liberalism in crisis? Can we only make historical, reactive judgements about what is fascist, which is to say, can we only know if fascism occurred after it has come and gone? I take the general point that calling all liberal states fascist can let them off the hook for types of violence considered normal or “just doing business,” invisibilising the daily violences they conduct as part of the regular maintenance of a liberal capitalist state. People are calling the US fascist for its direct participation in and funding of the genocide in Palestine - a diagnosis I don't disagree with, but if that’s the case, where do you draw the distinction between the US being merely a liberal state with aggressive global imperial ambitions and the US being a fully fascist state? Perhaps more bluntly, what’s the difference between a liberal drone strike and a fascist one? I’m struggling to understand the value of the fascist label, because everything it describes (ultranationalism, a theory of racial and cultural degeneracy/decline, paranoia about an imminent external threat expressed as violence against internal populations deemed to have insufficient loyalty to the country, a turn towards a mythologised tradition of the past, imperial expansion, genocidal projects against minority populations, etc etc) just seems to me like a description of United States in general lol

I had to unfortunately drown Josh Peck in my bathtub because him and a group of people tried to break into my house and rob me.

I think more people need to accept that part of oppression is that violence is done to maintain systems, and while part of that is punishing the oppressed, not everybody abused by the systems of power will be part of oppressed groups.

A cis woman who is beaten for the "crime" of being thought as a trans woman still faced transphobic violence. A straight man who walks down the street and is called a faggot will still face homophobic violence.

Some people assume this means that, for instance, gay people facing homophobia shouldn't be listened to because "straight people can face homophobia, too! 😢" but that's looking at it wrong.

What this acknowledgment recognizes is that while there are people who will be directly abused by systems that oppress them, and often, it is incredibly violent all by itself, there are people on the "out group" who also experience it, even to a lesser extent, because the systems of power that oppress people want there to be an intrinsically lesser person/out group, even if by perceived proximity. The proximity is also what we have to get rid of if we want to abolish the systems that oppress people.

part 19 (censored)

getting into donnies head is a very hands on activity :D

⇇ | ⇽ | index | ⇾