I want you to hate me. Because I truly love proving myself right.
I love satisfying the sick whispers of self loathing and controlling the narrative of how this love will end, in time.
Because I know how to hurt you and sometimes I do it without even trying I’ve got this bitter guilt and this ever-quick poisonous bite.
I am not loveable or cute or the girl everyone wants to fawn over I am the girl people compare to hurricanes because it’s a promise that I will destroy everything in sight.
It’s an imposter, a facade, some type of trick of the light this version of me you love has never aligned with the one that whispers harsh truths to me late at night.
No, I’m not her, and I don’t deserve any of your love, because given the chance I’m still that sharp tongued snake always ready to poison the ones who take a selfless step in the murky waters to try to hold my head above.
So I’ll push you so far away, to the point that you stop understanding why you ever even contemplated fighting to stay.
Because honestly I truly love being right.
Letting you think I’m a monster means you’re finally meeting the dark voice who’s been whispering words of hatred to me every night.
The self fulfilling prophecy - t.k.o
118 notes
·
View notes
"Murder is Werewolves" - Batman
I don't got the SPOONS to do this thought train justice, I have seriously been trying to write this thing for MONTHS so just, idk, have this half baked skeletal outline of the essay I guess:
I don't believe that Batman's no-kill rule is primarily about rehabilitation or second chances.
His refusal to believe that Cassandra could have killed someone when she was eight years old because "how could a killer understand my commitment not to kill" is absolute fucking MOON LOGIC from a rehabilitationist standpoint. No jury on the planet would think for even a second that she could reasonably be held accountable for her actions in that situation! Her past cannot condemn her to being incapable of valuing human life under a rehabilitation centering framework. However, Batman's reasoning makes perfect sense if he believes that killing is a spiritually/morally corrupting act which permanently and fundamentally changes a person, and that corruption can never be fully undone.
Dick Grayson killing the Joker is treated both narratively and by Batman as an unequivocally WIN for the Joker. The Joker won by turning Nightwing into a killer. Note that this is during a comic in which the Joker transforming people was a major theme! Batman didn't revive the Joker because the Joker deserved to live; he revived the Joker to lift the burden on Dick.
His appeal to Stephanie when she tried to kill her dad is that she shouldn't ruin her own life. He gives no defense of Cluemaster's actual life. Granted this is a rhetorical strategy moment and should be taken with a generous pinch of salt, but it fits in the pattern.
When Jason becomes a willful killer, he essentially disowns him, never treats him with full trust ever again, and... Well, we can stop here for Bruce's sake. Bottom line is that his actions towards Jason do not lead me to believe that he thinks Jason can become a better person without having his autonomy taken from him, either partially or fully.
The Joker is, for better or worse, the ultimate symbol and vessel of pure, irredeemable evil in DC comics now. He hasn't been just another crook in a long time. He will never get better, he will only get worse. If you take it to be true that the Joker will not or can not rehabilitate, then there's no rehabilitationist argument against killing him.
Batman does not seem to consider it a possibly that he'll rehabilitate. Batman at several points seems to think that the Joker dying in a manner no one could have prevented would be good. Yet Batman fully believes that if he killed the Joker, he himself would become irredeemable.
Batman's own form of justice (putting people into the hospital and then prison) is fucking brutal and clearly not rehabilitative. He disrespects the most basic human rights of all criminals on a regular basis. It is genuinely really, really weird from a rehabilitationist standpoint that his only uncrossable line is killing... But it makes perfect sense if he cares more about not corrupting himself with the act of killing than the actual ethical results of any individual decision to kill or not kill.
In the real world cops are all bastards because they are too violent to criminals, even when that violence doesn't lead to death. Prison is a wildly evil thing to do to another human being, and you don't use it to steal away massive portions of a person's life if your goal is to rehabilitate them. In the comic world, Batman is said to be necessary because the corrupt cops are too nice to criminals and keep letting them out of jail. I don't know how to write a connector sentence there so like I hope you can see why this bothers me so damn much! That's just not forgiveness vibes there Batman!!
I want to make special note here of the transformative aspect. You don't simply commit a single act when you kill, no, you become a killer, like you might become a werewolf.
The narrative supports this a lot!
Why did Supes go evil during Injustice? He killed the Joker. Why did Bruce become the Batman Who Laughs? Bruce killed the Joker. Why was Jason Todd close to becoming a new Joker during Three Jokers? Because he killed people, to include the Joker.
Even if these notions of redemption being impossible aren't the whole of his reasoning (people never have only one reason for doing what they do) it is a distinct through-line pattern in his actions and reasoning, and it is directly at odds with notions of rehabilitation, redemption, and second chances.
So why does he give so many killers second chances?
Firstly because this doesn't apply to all versions of Batman. Some writers explicitly incorporate rehabilitation and forgiveness into his actions. You will be able to provide me with examples of this other through-line pattern if you go looking for them. The nature of comics is to be inconsistent.
Secondly the existence of that other pattern does not negate the existence of this one. People and characters are complex, and perfectly capable of holding two patterns of belief within themselves, even when they conflict to this degree. You can absolutely synthesize these two ideas into a single messy Batman philosophical vibescape.
Finally and most importantly to this essay: he has mercy on killers the same way that werewolf hunters sometimes have mercy on someone who is clearly struggling against their monsterous nature, especially if they were turned in exceptional circumstances or against their will. They understand that they are sick, damned beasts, cursed to always be fighting against themselves and the evil they harbor within. It is vitally kind to help them fight themselves by curtailing their autonomy in helpful ways and providing them with chances to do some good to make up for their eternal moral deficiency.
I think in many comics Batman views killers as lost souls. Battered and tormented monsters who must be pitied and given mercy wherever possible. (The connections to mental health, addiction, and rampant, horrifying ableism towards people struggling with both is unavoidable, but addressing it is sadly outside of the scope of this essay.)
Above all, the greatest care possible must be taken to never, ever let yourself become one of them, because once you have transformed the beast will forever be within you growing stronger.
To Batman, it is the most noble burden, the highest mercy, the most important commandment: Thou shalt suffer the monsters to live.
119 notes
·
View notes
I literally love comparing Lake and Tulip's designs. I think it says so much about them.
Haven't seen it mentioned anywhere, and maybe that's because it's just common knowledge, but! Both Lake and Tulip have boots, and both of them have pants that don't quite reach their ankles.
And this is! Beautiful! So cool! Because Lake isn't an exact copy of Tulip, their design isn't a cheap rip-off all the way through. But these similarities also accentuate how different they really are.
They both wear boots but Tulips are obviously softer. Insulated. The kind of thing you slip on and wear around. Lake's are closer to work boots. They have laces and are more about durability then practically (slip ons).
And Tulip's pants are some sort of leggings or tights- something that sticks close to the skin. They're also layered! Lake's pants lack layers and also stick out. There's a gap and you can tell that their wants might not be baggy, but none of their clothes is something I would call form-fitting.
Even when she gets a new design, she's wearing jeans, and you can see where the bend if her knee is. Which isn't clear on Lake unless they're moving.
All of Tulip's reiterations are also splash of color and some neutral tones. Which like! If Lake was trying so desperately to be the opposite of Tulip, there's no way they'd wear black and gray. Tulip literally wore black and gray for the entire first season!
But Lake owns the neutral tones. Instead of letting their skin be some sort of neutral accent, they made wearing neutral colors a trait of their's. It's just who they are.
Also Tulip always seems to wear long sleeves, possibly because she's Minnesotan and it's cold here 70% of the year, or maybe she just thinks they're comfy. Lake has no sleeves whatsoever. It makes me wonder if they hate wearing too many layers or things that are too tight. If that makes them feel a little trapped or restricted.
I have no idea where I was going with this or if any of this really makes sense. I just love these two kids. I love parallels. I love learning about characters through their designs.
244 notes
·
View notes