Minorities in Comics and Other Media, etc

[chamber-music]

Writers intentionally make Punisher villains horrifically evil and irredeemable so that you don't really feel sympathy for them. They want you to root for the Punisher by making his foes the worst elements of humanity you can imagine.

[Handsome men don't lose fights]

Frank Castle lives in a fantasy world though, literally. One where the Mafia isn't a paper tiger on its deathbed due to meticulous police work and relentless federal investigations. Forensic accountants with solar powered calculators have done more damage to organized crime than a thousand Punishers ever could. But because the Marvel Universe is a dystopic wasteland where no one is allowed to grow old and die, and forward progress is impossible, Frank still gets to be the only "effective" detterant to organized crime in the MU, because shooting people in the face will always be more exciting than tracking down where their money comes from and how it's being laundered.

On the "no kill code" thing, I support heroes who choose not to murder as a refreshing alternative to the current crop of moody edge masters. Peter Parker will never decide that Carnage has run wild in New York one time too many, and solve the issue by webbing up his esophagus, because even if Cletus escapes and kills again, that in no way makes Peter responsible for the lives he takes. Look at the state of the world we live in: Kill one monster, something worse comes along to take its place. The supposed ineffectiveness of a no-kill code stems entirely from bad writing, and corporate comics being unwilling to banish popular villains, instead of exploiting them until they become boring.

[Agent Z]

Frank Castle lives in a fantasy world though, literally. One where the Mafia isn't a paper tiger on its deathbed due to meticulous police work and relentless federal investigations. Forensic accountants with solar powered calculators have done more damage to organized crime than a thousand Punishers ever could. But because the Marvel Universe is a dystopic wasteland where no one is allowed to grow old and die, and forward progress is impossible, Frank still gets to be the only "effective" detterant to organized crime in the MU, because shooting people in the face will always be more exciting than tracking down where their money comes from and how it's being laundered.

On the "no kill code" thing, I support heroes who choose not to murder as a refreshing alternative to the current crop of moody edge masters. Peter Parker will never decide that Carnage has run wild in New York one time too many, and solve the issue by webbing up his esophagus, because even if Cletus escapes and kills again, that in no way makes Peter responsible for the lives he takes. Look at the state of the world we live in: Kill one monster, something worse comes along to take its place. The supposed ineffectiveness of a no-kill code stems entirely from bad writing, and corporate comics being unwilling to banish popular villains, instead of exploiting them until they become boring.

To an extent I understand what you mean. On the other hand using lethal force in reasonable circumstances does not automatically make one an edge master. Batman doesn't kill (humans) yet this is a guy notorious use of intimidation, torture, privacy violation and emotional abuse and manipulation of his allies. Wonder Woman by contrast does not have a rule against killing and is one of the kindest people in the universe. And she still has a rogues gallery so the "killing corrupts" excuse does not apply to her.

And while killing one monster does not get rid of all monsters, at least you don't have to worry about the same monster continuously hounding you.

[Gryphon]

I don't really buy that.

If you kill one person it doesn't mean your going to become a mass murder. Killing doesn't isn't exactly a addiction. Heroes like Green Arrow have killed on occasions but generally avoid using lethal force.

A lot of Batman villains are mentally ill so him killing them would be morally questionable as they aren't totally in control of their actions.

What really divides the Punisher from superheroes is that he doesn't believe people can be reformed and has no faith in the justice system to properly deal with criminals which is why he kills them. Most superheroes despite being vigilantes believe in the justice system to deal with criminals.

I don't think Batman should set out to kill the Joker but it does get a bit silly when he saves the Joker's life and Bruce should really invest in creating a prison that can actually hold the Joker. At a certain point your just enabling a mass murder.

One storyline actually gave a very satisfactory explanation for Batman's no kill policy that has since been ignored it seems. That if he ever were to kill, he would lose the support from people he needs and therefore its a pragmatic rule and not a moral one

[Agent Z]

Apparently, The Daily Star faked an interview with the Rock in which he called out "generation snowflake" for "looking for reasons to be offended".

https://news.avclub.com/the-rock-say...was-1831693621

[chamber-music]

All Superhero comics are fantasy. Jumping out of nowhere and punching alleged costumed criminals in the face isn't a good crime fighting strategy. In the real world most superheroes would be facing assault charges on top of being wanted for the authorities for being vigilantes.

A lot of superheroes that don't kill still violent assault people (sometimes even hospitalising them) which isn't really heroic. If cops beat up most suspects they apprehended people would be up in arms.

Superheroes shouldn't be setting out to kill villains but I think for some heroes taking a life to save a life in certain situations makes sense.

It is certainly bad writing when a hero lets a villain go that is going to go off and kill or hurt more people. It doesn't make heroes look morally superior, it makes them look ineffective and enabling violent criminals.

When superheroes are adapted to live action most of them end up killing villains because it is too unrealistic for people to have violent confrontations all the time and for everybody to walk away fine. The heroes that don't kill often have a ally that is willing to do the killing for them.

The Punisher's 'anti-hero world' in his own comics is generally depicted as being insanely corrupt with violent organised criminals beyond the reach of justice. Part of the reason he became the Punisher is because the mob that killed Castle's family got away with it due to corruption.

[Agent Z]

I once saw someone make a joke that Batman's in-universe reputation as a person who doesn't kill is maintained by Jim Gordon bribing/coercing the coroner into covering it up his kills. Between the vicious way he beats people down and the fact that the batarangs are basically exploding knives, the guy should have a body count as large as the Punisher.

[Anthony Shaw]

I don't really buy that.

If you kill one person it doesn't mean your going to become a mass murder. Killing doesn't isn't exactly a addiction. Heroes like Green Arrow have killed on occasions but generally avoid using lethal force.

A lot of Batman villains are mentally ill so him killing them would be morally questionable as they aren't totally in control of their actions.

What really divides the Punisher from superheroes is that he doesn't believe people can be reformed and has no faith in the justice system to properly deal with criminals which is why he kills them. Most superheroes despite being vigilantes believe in the justice system to deal with criminals.

I don't think Batman should set out to kill the Joker but it does get a bit silly when he saves the Joker's life and Bruce should really invest in creating a prison that can actually hold the Joker. At a certain point your just enabling a mass murder.

I may not have done an effective job, but I was comparing John Legend's outrage to Batman's no kill policy.

Joker is not the only murderous rogue Bats has to deal with. Bat's has said that if he goes the murder route, he won't stop. I can respect that consistency.

John Legend jumped on a soap box, and called out R. Kelly (which I don't have an issue with). Yet, he will participate in an event honoring Elvis, a man who married a teenager. Don't urinate on one pedophile while honoring another. Had John said nothing about Kelly, and honored Elvis, I would have thought nothing of it.

Had John decided not to honor Elvis after his comments about R. Kelly, then I would respect that without question.

As it stands now, John looks really phony to me. His moral outrage is selective. Despite his claim of not protecting child predators, he will pay tribute to one.

R. Kelly is not the only child predator in the entertainment industry. He is just the flavor of the month until the next salacious scandal drops.

I could not imagine Corey Feldman owning a fat stack of comics written by Gerald Jones, and claiming to be his number one fan.

I love Oliver Queen, but he is full of it. Part of his character dynamic is screaming social justice, but will go hard-core, zero-tolerance conservative when tragedy strikes him personally. His will jettison his liberal beliefs with a quickness if you piss him off enough.

[Anthony Shaw]

Well, damn. That's an extreme take. "Entertainment" covers a wide range of people.

Every genre (literature, music, film, etc.) under the entertainment umbrella has a casting couch for the willing & unwilling.

You got perverts in the comic book industry.

[Anthony Shaw]

Has John Legend said anything about Touré ?

I appreciate Terry Crews cancelling an interview with Touré .

Stay credible, stay consistent.

https://atlantablackstar.com/2019/01...al-harassment/

[Gryphon]

People are now reevaluating Michael Jackson's legacy in light of whats going on with R Kelly

[skyvolt2000]

My cynicism is at an all-time high because it seems media outlets & celebrities are being awfully selective with the predators they wanna throw stones at.

Always follow this rule when that happens-

1) Do they have a movie, show or album coming out.

2) Look at who they have worked with in the past.

3) Who are the attention whores?

There's a whole...I don't know the right word for it...cadre of dudes that REALLY BOUGHT INTO that whole "talk to all women that you want to $%^& like they are ho's that you have already @#$%ed" and they took that mindset into the workplace for some insane reason.

I sometimes wonder if they go through so much **** coming up through the ranks that all this pedo rapey assaulting stuff is just "normal" to them

Because they see folks get away with it. And get the jobs that they wanted.

Now you have to wonder is this stuff what drove Lee Thompson Young & Jon Paul Steuer & Johnathan Brandis to suicide?

[G. Boney]

Every genre (literature, music, film, etc.) under the entertainment umbrella has a casting couch for the willing & unwilling.

You got perverts in the comic book industry.

Indeed.

I was talking about the "just about everyone" part.

[Yaw]

People are now reevaluating Michael Jackson's legacy in light of whats going on with R Kelly

His accusers admitted to lying due to coercion by their parents years ago. This is a witch hunt.

[numberthirty]

His accusers admitted to lying due to coercion by their parents years ago. This is a witch hunt.

While I'm not ready to go that far, it is a completely different thing from R. Kelly.