5 ms·
> But what he did was objectively what we consider to be bad… in our society, vigilante justice (especially against nonviolent offenders) is wrong In our socie
by thowawatp302 2y ago
> But what he did was objectively what we consider to be bad… in our society, vigilante justice (especially against nonviolent offenders) is wrong
In our society we don’t objectively consider it wrong, otherwise Batman (Superman, Spider-Man) wouldn’t be so popular.
- logicchains 2y ago>otherwise Batman (Superman, Spider-Man) wouldn’t be so popular. Batman is the absolute opposite because he goes out of his way to avoid killing villains, even incredibly evil ones like the Joker.
- thowawatp302 2y agoThe goalposts were ‘ vigilante justice’ not killing people.
- Glyptodon 2y agoIt's not like the Punisher isn't popular. Let's be real: the original super heroes avoided killing because children were their target market, and unlike with cowboys and outlaws or indians, it would have been unseemly by the standards of the time. Not because of some kind of big point about "just vigilantism."
- pzo 2y agoTrue. Dexter tv series was also popular - reason they made so many seasons.
- pcthrowaway 2y agoA Dexter reboot where the protagonist targets extremely powerful people who commit mass violence within the confines of the law might actually be entertaining
- whatevertrevor 2y agoBatman is quite famous for non lethal vigilante justice. If anything Batman's position is antithetical to Luigi's.
- thowawatp302 2y agoNon lethal vigilante justice is still vigilante justice
- whatevertrevor 2y agoWell I suspect the lethality of said justice in this case is quite critical to the judgment of being _objectively_ wrong.
- Galacta7 2y agoI think if Luigi had merely assaulted the CEO to teach him a lesson, and not killed him, then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion nationally. Or at least not to the same level of debate. That (admittedly arbitrary) line is a reason most DC characters like Batman and Superman generally refuse to kill even the most deserving of villains.
- cbozeman 2y agoEveryone you listed don't kill people. Very few people consider Batman, Superman, or Spider-Man to be objectively wrong. They consider them to be objectively right, and it's because they're enforcing the law when the police aren't around to do so. "Law" is just another way of saying, "The bare minimum standard that we as a society will accept." So when we have a society that sends a drunk driver to prison for 70 years for killing a family of four in a head-on collision, but we don't send people to prison for their lives for gambling with the pensions of teachers, firefighters, etc., for polluting the waterways and the earth itself, of course this is the ultimate, eventual outcome. The only shocking thing to me about Luigi's case is that it didn't happen sooner.
- thowawatp302 2y ago1 point by thowawatp302 0 minutes ago | root | parent | next | edit | delete [–] Yeah I listed all of those because it’s funnier when people mistake the vigilante justice’ thing for a ‘not killing people’ thing and then I can trot out Clint Eastwood and Dirty Harry, which was so popular it gets quoted regularly and had four sequels.
- watwut 2y agoBatman, Superman and Spider-Man are not real. And that does matter. It is super normal to watch a movie and sympathize with what would be clearly bad guys in real life. So yes, batman in particular would be considered bad by most people. He is just another gangster cause quite a lot of damage to the city on the regular. We do not care, because it is made up movie city. Superman and Spider man afaik do not go around randomly assassinating people, but it is a long time since I watched that.
- bigstrat2003 2y agoThat isn't true. Just because we find something entertaining in fiction does not mean we tolerate it in real life.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]