1344
Selective rage
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
1344 points (89.3% liked)
memes
10549 readers
2620 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
In that case, maybe choose a different villain.
Bruh. Since it is a title, it doesn't matter who is holding it. Even comics Ra's Al Ghul doesn't mind that considering he wants Bruce Wayne to be his heir.
Yes, again, you can come up with that convoluted after-the-fact explanation that wasn't in the movie or you can not piss off Arab people.
I don't think not being typecast as terrorists pisses off arabs
Good thing the character isn't a terrorist then. The head of a cult of assassins is not a terrorist. Assassins target specific people for specific reasons, not to create terror.
They want to destroy a city by means of chemical warfare. They're absolutely terrorist jfc did you even see the movie?
I thought we were talking about a character that's the head of a league of assassins, not the actual plot of the movie. You know that the movie didn't have to have that plot, right? You realize it's not some sort of requirement to make that specific Batman story, yes?
....What even is your point? In almost every iteration Ra's al Ghul is trying to destroy Gotham (or Star City in case of CW's Arrow). He's absolutely a terrorist.
Apart from the many, many, many Batman stories where he isn't.
He even teams up with Batman sometimes.
Maybe the problem here is you don't actually read the comics.
OK, do the analysis of how many stories/continuities/universes have him as a terrorist vs how many have him as an ally. If you can split the latter criteria into 'was never a terrorist', 'was a terrorist but is now a repentant ally', 'never even murdered anyone' then even better.
Include pie chart if possible.
You don't even know his comics biography and you're demanding that. 🙄
A few seconds at Wikipedia could tell you his basic motivations, which are not terrorism:
He's not trying to scare anyone, just kill them and everyone they know. He doesn't care whether or not there's any terror. It doesn't even enter into the equation for him.
The fact that you don't even know that and you've been arguing with me this whole time about him being a terrorist is hilarious.
Next time, maybe learn about Batman before you argue about Batman.
That sounds like terrorism to me 🙄
Do you remember your own definition? In what way is that intended to cause fear?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
I'd say murdering people to achieve 'balance' counts as terrorism. Which is what Ra's al Ghul does.
Anyway, goodbye. You're being a clown. And not a funny one either.
Ah, so you're going with a different definition than the one you initially gave me. How blatantly dishonest of you. I'm not surprised you're hiding behind silly insults.
Given assassin actions by definition are terror attacks, I'll disagree with you.
Please show me that definition. Assassinations are generally not done to cause terror. They are done to achieve more specific political goals (i.e. get the guy in power out of power).
So the same definition of terrorism, i.e. specific actions done to further political goals. You're mad for no reason here
That is not the definition of terrorism... if you believe it is, please show me this definition.
Also, please quote what in specific I said that makes you think I am angry about this.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803103209420
Terrrorism is the use of violence to cause political change. Not whatever nonsense you were taught in whatever terrible education system produced you.
You're not going with your own definition. Did you even read it or did you just think I wouldn't? It starts with this:
The purpose of most assassinations is not about fear.
Read more than the first line, try again, and maybe enroll in a literacy program instead of continuing to exist online.
Insulting me won't make the purpose of assassinations to be about fear.
But sure, let's go with the second sentence. There were only two sentences in the definition:
That is also not what assassinations are usually about. They are usually not about coercion or intimidation. They are about retribution or seizing power.
Feel free to insult me on that front too.
Why?
For the same reason the excuse of a white character being named Mitsimu Hashimori is that it's just a title being passed down is something people might find offensive.
I think artists can make whatever they want (within the bounds of the law) and that it's up to the consumers to decide whether they like it or not with their wallets.
When did this become about what people can do and not about whether or not they're being highly offensive?
It is legal to make and distribute a movie where a guy just yells the N-word for 90 minutes. I assume you would find that offensive. Most people would.
Right, so I wouldn't watch it or give them money, and I'm sure you and most other people wouldn't either. But if that person wants to make it, more power to them.
It's been about that the entire thread. The OP image is about casting choices.
No one ever said anything about what people can or can not do.