Off the top of my head the villain in one of the Iron Man films was opposed to US war crimes and imperialism, New New Spider Man 1 had the Vulture as a villain whose deal was Stark and the wealthy were screwing people over.
In Batman Begins 3 Bane is a pastiche of anarchism/anti-capital ideas until revealed that that’s a play by Talia.
Well intentioned extremist is a pretty common villain trope in general.
I thought he gave some villain speech about getting his gang and people like them what they deserved and bringing down Stark and Co. But I could well be mistaken or misremembering since I only saw it once, quite some time ago so you may very well be right.
Maybe he did, but is it for the sake of changing the status quo or for vengeance and making money? I also need to rewatch it to make sure, but he sure seem like the only thing he cares about is his own family.
As was detailed by someone else the Doylian reason why heroes don’t change the status quo is that people want to see our world in media, not a fantasy one and that this means only villains are allowed to want changes, but since the people funding the production of media tend to be invested in the status quo status quo changing ideas tend to be flanderised and done by people who do evil and selfish acts to reinforce standard morality.
It’s possible that well intentioned extremists really are more likely to have a negative impact and not cause any positive change.
How many mass shooters have a manifesto? Often they’re upset about how things are and feel like killing a bunch of people will change things. But they just wind up killing a bunch of people and don’t influence anyone to do anything. Well other than copy cats who also just kill people.
In real life wanting change isn’t bad. But using violence is bad and doesn’t result in any positive change. The use of violence makes people feel helpless and so they want to see movies about heroes with superpowers that can take on violent extremists.
Many modern liberal democracies are built on a foundation of violence. American revolution and the french revolution for example. Violence is essentially what happens when people are pushed into a corner, and they lash out against their oppressors.
If you are so desperate to cling onto your favorite capitalist-parasite-by-day, fascist-vigilante-at-night wish-fulfillment fantasy who am I to stop you?
![Marvel [Tyler Hendrix]](https://sopuli.xyz/pictrs/image/2c9c1796-73ea-4ae0-8325-0809abede939.webp){kind=link}
Off the top of my head the villain in one of the Iron Man films was opposed to US war crimes and imperialism, New New Spider Man 1 had the Vulture as a villain whose deal was Stark and the wealthy were screwing people over.
In Batman Begins 3 Bane is a pastiche of anarchism/anti-capital ideas until revealed that that’s a play by Talia.
Well intentioned extremist is a pretty common villain trope in general.
Vulture was a victim, but he responded by selling alien tech weapons to criminals. His response has nothing to do with changing the status quo.
I thought he gave some villain speech about getting his gang and people like them what they deserved and bringing down Stark and Co. But I could well be mistaken or misremembering since I only saw it once, quite some time ago so you may very well be right.
Maybe he did, but is it for the sake of changing the status quo or for vengeance and making money? I also need to rewatch it to make sure, but he sure seem like the only thing he cares about is his own family.
Or maybe both?
As was detailed by someone else the Doylian reason why heroes don’t change the status quo is that people want to see our world in media, not a fantasy one and that this means only villains are allowed to want changes, but since the people funding the production of media tend to be invested in the status quo status quo changing ideas tend to be flanderised and done by people who do evil and selfish acts to reinforce standard morality.
Funny, that’s how people who want change is portrayed by liberal media in real life, too.
I wonder if it’s a coincidence?
It’s possible that well intentioned extremists really are more likely to have a negative impact and not cause any positive change.
How many mass shooters have a manifesto? Often they’re upset about how things are and feel like killing a bunch of people will change things. But they just wind up killing a bunch of people and don’t influence anyone to do anything. Well other than copy cats who also just kill people.
In real life wanting change isn’t bad. But using violence is bad and doesn’t result in any positive change. The use of violence makes people feel helpless and so they want to see movies about heroes with superpowers that can take on violent extremists.
Many modern liberal democracies are built on a foundation of violence. American revolution and the french revolution for example. Violence is essentially what happens when people are pushed into a corner, and they lash out against their oppressors.
Just like Batman, eh?
So as long as your desire for change doesn’t actually threaten the people at the top, it’s all okay?
That is literally what the people creating this kind of propaganda wants you to believe.
Just like ba haha ha ha hahaha ha ha ha haha!
You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Batman has a principle of not killing people.
If you are so desperate to cling onto your favorite capitalist-parasite-by-day, fascist-vigilante-at-night wish-fulfillment fantasy who am I to stop you?
How to tell everyone you’ve never actually read a single Batman comic, method A:
I was reading them long before you were born, Clyde.
Sure you were. Sure you were.