Joker- DC's latest colossal clusterfuck (spoilers).

[K. A. Pital]

No, it wasn’t (not in the way you imply): it was acceptable for protagonists to be racist towards fellow Africans („If we let refugees in it will be like everywhere else“), but not towards their white oppressors (Killmonger the bad guy).

Where did I say nice guys are nice? What does nicety have to do with that? The Joker is an antihero, in what way is he a „nice guy“ and why this aspect is singled out as opposed to him being a failed comedian and hating‘ on the TV personalities?

The fact that you both fail to understand what is problematic about the depiction of African society as necessarily tribal and primitive (!) even with magic technology, and that villains or antiheroes with a believable origin story are a good thing (as opposed to inherently evil people just because evil), well...

[Alyrium Denryle]

Aerius' trolling has been HoSed

[Darth Yan]

No, it wasn’t (not in the way you imply): it was acceptable for protagonists to be racist towards fellow Africans („If we let refugees in it will be like everywhere else“), but not towards their white oppressors (Killmonger the bad guy).

Where did I say nice guys are nice? What does nicety have to do with that? The Joker is an antihero, in what way is he a „nice guy“ and why this aspect is singled out as opposed to him being a failed comedian and hating‘ on the TV personalities?

The fact that you both fail to understand what is problematic about the depiction of African society as necessarily tribal and primitive (!) even with magic technology, and that villains or antiheroes with a believable origin story are a good thing (as opposed to inherently evil people just because evil), well...

Uh okay first off it’s NOT portrayed as ok for Wakanda to keep out refugees. That’s the entire reason he opens up wakanda at the very end. Secondly Killmonger isn’t portrayed as being iredeemably evil. The reason T’Challa opens it up towards the end is because he realized on some level that Killmonger was right. Third killmonger doesn’t give a toss about non blacks and is acting out of both his cia training to destablize and his long seated issues (and his methods boil down to “flood everything with weapons and kill all white people). Finally not only did a lot of black people LIKE the movie but the two writers were black.

Seems to me that you’re telling black people what they should or should not consider racist.

As for the nice guy element I was talking about this

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.urband ... e&amp=true

Megamind addressed that back in 2010

[K. A. Pital]

I am offering my opinion on why I consider the film crude and racist.

[Darth Yan]

Yes, and given that a lot of black people disagree you it's an idiotic opinion.

Another thing that's funny.....Supergirl actually did a FANTASTIC job of tackling radicalization in the US.

The main antagonist of the season is Agent Liberty (Ben Lockwood), a guy who started out as a liberal college professor who evolves into an anti alien bigot. While Lockwood does experience tragedy it's also made clear that his misery is largely self inflicted.

Basically the following events happen.
1.) Over a period of a year his father's steel company goes under thanks to competition with an alien company. Thing is what happened was that the metal the alien company was stronger, so naturally Lockwood's buyers gravitated to the other product. More importantly Lockwood's dad WAS possibly able to upgrade his methods and use the newer metal (it's implied that Lena Luthor would have been willing to help him with that) but the dad stubbornly refused because "old ways are the best". As such when the company inevitably goes under and puts the lockwood family in financial straits Agent Liberty's dad (and Agent Liberty themselves) can't bring themselves to admit that it's ultimately the dad's fault rather than the aliens so they just blame the aliens.

2.) Another issue is that when the new factory opened the aliens were attacked by the workers for Ben's father. When Ben tries to stop the riot one of his dad's workers throws something which causes an alien to panic and lash out with a spike. When Ben comes too he's assumed to have been part of the riot, and is told that Supergirl "went very easy on them" (because he sees them as just "good people" and scared he doesn't quite grasp that they were trying to KILL the alien workers and is rather befuddled by this). The dad also gets indignant when this is pointed out to him, and both are upset that the workers who started the rioting are led away like criminals.

3.) At the end of Season 2 his house gets blown up in the process of one of the heroes fighting an invading soldier. Jonn comically tells them "you're safe now" before leaving with the soldier as their house (and even the teenage son's bike) burn in the background. When Lockwood asks the paper to cover more about the damage he's unsatisfied with the fact that it was just covered in the business section (and that Lena Luthor owns the paper now).

4.) Ben gets fired from his job. He makes an openly xenophobic comment to an alien student, and someone (not even the student he made the comment to mind you) reported him. Since he had been warned multiple times about this he gets cut loose (And again he WAS warned multiple times to cut the crap). So he follows the student to a bar and gets aggressive before Kara defuses the situation and gets Lockwood to leave (it should also be noted that the student tried to show sympathy).

5.) His dad dies during the Season 3 finale. It's stated pretty clearly that his dad PURPOSEFULLY WALKED INTO HIS CLOSED STEEL FACTORY BECAUSE HE WANTED TO DIE THERE! In short, he committed suicide in the business he destroyed through his own incompetence and refusal to modernize.

So basically while Ben did get some moments of genuine unfair treatment (one of the characters assuming he was part of a lynch mob when in fact he was trying to defuse it, loosing his home to an alien invasion, feeling that the aftermath of the attack could have been dwelt with a little more) it's made clear that Lockwood's misery is ultimately self inflicted. His Dad's refusal to modernize his plant is what ultimately destroyed the company, and when Lockwood looses his job as a teacher it's implied that he had been given NUMEROUS chances to tone down the rhetoric but chose not to. Fittingly the season ends with Lockwood in jail having lost everything (his son's respect, his wife, his good name) and being forced to watch as his son sets about undoing his hateful work.

If the Joker movie does something similar (make it clear that Joker gets treated unfairly, but also makes it clear that in some ways he's responsible for his misery) then it could work.

[Gandalf]

Or it could be taken as a message that a leader's subordinates have a responsibility to stand up to them if they refuse to relinquish those emergency powers indefinitely. I think TDK's surveilance can be taken both as an endorsement of emergency powers in a crisis, and also as a strong rebuke of leaders who try to keep those powers past when they're truly needed.

Many great leaders have claimed temporary emergency powers in a crisis. Many nations even have legal provision for such powers. That's problematic, certainly, because most leaders don't have the moral character of Batman (flawed as his is). But there is a difference between a leader who temporarily claims emergency powers to prevent a greater catastrophe (ie Abraham Lincoln, who argued that actions which were normally a breach of the Constitution were justified in order to fulfill his oath to uphold the Constitution, and prevent the entire government and Constitution from being overthrown- a view the courts subsequently upheld IIRC), and those who claim emergency powers indefinitely and/or use them to ram through whatever they want. That distinction matters, and frankly its a very selective reading of TDK, in my opinion, which sees the film as simply an endorsement of unaccountable strongmen.

Lincoln was elected. Bruce Wayne just decided to go for it one day. The constitution had a mechanism by which Lincoln could do such things. Bruce Wayne does not.

No I wouldn’t. I was thinking the hydra guys. In any case the surveillance state is seen as a bad idea

So unaccountable surveillance is cool when it's people you like?

Strong morally upright guy who answers only to himself going outside the law to do the right thing and stop evil-doers is part of the definition of a superhero. If the rules and the system were working then they wouldn't need the protagonist to step up and save the day.

It almost seems as if you have an ax to grind and are looking for ways to interpret these stories in a negative light, Gandalf.

That's odd. Where does that leave superheroes who do work within said system, like Dozier's Batman, Captain America when he works for SHIELD, and so on? I think you're conflating superhero with vigilante.

But that same rationale of what makes a superhero is also what was used for the War on Terror. Is Dick Cheney a superhero?

[FireNexus]

Also hilariously enough Batman's actions COULD be legally defined as a citizen's arrest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%2 ... ted_States

Citizens arrest doesn’t exempt you from liability for unlawful acts undertaken in the process, civilly or criminally. Batman regularly undertakes illegal use of force to an extreme degree, and commits numerous other illegal actions including the probably illegal use of military equipment like the bat mobile and the batwing and even international human trafficking. All just in the Nolan films.

Batman is, in no uncertain terms, a criminal committing criminal vigilantism.

Say what you will about Stas and Gandalf’s argument, but the suggestion that Batman’s behavior is simple citizen’s arrest is way oversimplifying to the extent of whitewashing his many, many criminal acts. Even a familiarity with the law restricted to watching Legal Eagle videos on YouTube makes that clear.

[Darth Yan]

Or it could be taken as a message that a leader's subordinates have a responsibility to stand up to them if they refuse to relinquish those emergency powers indefinitely. I think TDK's surveilance can be taken both as an endorsement of emergency powers in a crisis, and also as a strong rebuke of leaders who try to keep those powers past when they're truly needed.

Many great leaders have claimed temporary emergency powers in a crisis. Many nations even have legal provision for such powers. That's problematic, certainly, because most leaders don't have the moral character of Batman (flawed as his is). But there is a difference between a leader who temporarily claims emergency powers to prevent a greater catastrophe (ie Abraham Lincoln, who argued that actions which were normally a breach of the Constitution were justified in order to fulfill his oath to uphold the Constitution, and prevent the entire government and Constitution from being overthrown- a view the courts subsequently upheld IIRC), and those who claim emergency powers indefinitely and/or use them to ram through whatever they want. That distinction matters, and frankly its a very selective reading of TDK, in my opinion, which sees the film as simply an endorsement of unaccountable strongmen.

Lincoln was elected. Bruce Wayne just decided to go for it one day. The constitution had a mechanism by which Lincoln could do such things. Bruce Wayne does not.

No I wouldn’t. I was thinking the hydra guys. In any case the surveillance state is seen as a bad idea

So unaccountable surveillance is cool when it's people you like?

Strong morally upright guy who answers only to himself going outside the law to do the right thing and stop evil-doers is part of the definition of a superhero. If the rules and the system were working then they wouldn't need the protagonist to step up and save the day.

It almost seems as if you have an ax to grind and are looking for ways to interpret these stories in a negative light, Gandalf.

That's odd. Where does that leave superheroes who do work within said system, like Dozier's Batman, Captain America when he works for SHIELD, and so on? I think you're conflating superhero with vigilante.

But that same rationale of what makes a superhero is also what was used for the War on Terror. Is Dick Cheney a superhero?

Uh both Bruce and Fury realize why the surveillance state is a bad idea. So no it’s not okay at all.

Also hilariously enough Batman's actions COULD be legally defined as a citizen's arrest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%2 ... ted_States

Citizens arrest doesn’t exempt you from liability for unlawful acts undertaken in the process, civilly or criminally. Batman regularly undertakes illegal use of force to an extreme degree, and commits numerous other illegal actions including the probably illegal use of military equipment like the bat mobile and the batwing and even international human trafficking. All just in the Nolan films.

Batman is, in no uncertain terms, a criminal committing criminal vigilantism.

Say what you will about Stas and Gandalf’s argument, but the suggestion that Batman’s behavior is simple citizen’s arrest is way oversimplifying to the extent of whitewashing his many, many criminal acts. Even a familiarity with the law restricted to watching Legal Eagle videos on YouTube makes that clear.

By human trafficking are you talking about the guy who fled to Asia and Batman brings him back?

Also from what little I’ve read nonlethal force is considered acceptable depending on the state if the force used is necessary to apprehend the offender or prevent further commission of offense (ie Batman can beat up someone in the process of trying to rape another person with the force needed to keep the guy from being able to hurt anyone else). It’s a murky situation and Batman has bent the law in many places, but he still does work with the system (ie he leaves sentencing up to the courts)

And no it isn’t just citizens arrest. That calls for proportionate use of force. Batman for the most part does try to use the amount of force required

[Gandalf]

Uh both Bruce and Fury realize why the surveillance state is a bad idea. So no it’s not okay at all.

Uh, no they don't. Have you seen these films?

When Fox asks Batman about the surveillance apparatus, calling it dangerous and unethical, Batman appeals to the need to find the Joker, and asks Fox to trust him. That's it.

Fury offers no argument whatsoever in Avengers. in Winter Soldier he seems more annoyed that other people get his toys.

[Darth Yan]

Uh both Bruce and Fury realize why the surveillance state is a bad idea. So no it’s not okay at all.

Uh, no they don't. Have you seen these films?

When Fox asks Batman about the surveillance apparatus, calling it dangerous and unethical, Batman appeals to the need to find the Joker, and asks Fox to trust him. That's it.

Fury offers no argument whatsoever in Avengers. in Winter Soldier he seems more annoyed that other people get his toys.

Uh doesn’t change that fury’s argument is clearly not supported. The decision to destroy shield and shut the plan down is ultimately seen as the right thing.

Even in Dark Knight Bruce destroys the system at the end....and hilariously enough the comics themselves played with what would happen if someone less noble had free reign in the form of Azrael.

He’ll Bruce flat out admits that he’s backing Harvey because he realizes the city shouldn’t have to rely on him forever and that once the city’s fixed it’ll need someone like Harvey. Hence why Harvey’s fall is tragic.

Also what did everyone think of my post about radicalization in regards to supergirl

[SolarpunkFan]

Looking for friendly advice, should I go to the theaters to see this? I mean, the town I live in doesn't have any major crime/drug issues (as far as I know).

Maybe I'm just worrying too much as per usual.

[Batman]

We also see Lucius basically tell Batman that he can't keep those "emergency powers" he's given himself indefinitely, and destroying the surveilance system at the end of the film.

Hell I from the word go agree this is a capability I shouldn't be allowed to keep. Fox uses a self destruct I built into the system

[Gandalf]

Uh doesn’t change that fury’s argument is clearly not supported. The decision to destroy shield and shut the plan down is ultimately seen as the right thing.

Considering that I'm talking about Avengers, why are you bringing up a different film?

Even in Dark Knight Bruce destroys the system at the end....and hilariously enough the comics themselves played with what would happen if someone less noble had free reign in the form of Azrael.

He’ll Bruce flat out admits that he’s backing Harvey because he realizes the city shouldn’t have to rely on him forever and that once the city’s fixed it’ll need someone like Harvey. Hence why Harvey’s fall is tragic.

All glory to the man of unaccountable power! He will hand it back to the people when the time is right. Riefenstahl couldn't have staged it better.

Then Batman and Gordon (the two "good guys" in Gotham) started a lie about Harvey Dent, because the truth is bad.

Also what did everyone think of my post about radicalization in regards to supergirl

I didn't care, but I don't speak for everyone else.

[Darth Yan]

Uh doesn’t change that fury’s argument is clearly not supported. The decision to destroy shield and shut the plan down is ultimately seen as the right thing.

Considering that I'm talking about Avengers, why are you bringing up a different film?

Even in Dark Knight Bruce destroys the system at the end....and hilariously enough the comics themselves played with what would happen if someone less noble had free reign in the form of Azrael.

He’ll Bruce flat out admits that he’s backing Harvey because he realizes the city shouldn’t have to rely on him forever and that once the city’s fixed it’ll need someone like Harvey. Hence why Harvey’s fall is tragic.

All glory to the man of unaccountable power! He will hand it back to the people when the time is right. Riefenstahl couldn't have staged it better.

Then Batman and Gordon (the two "good guys" in Gotham) started a lie about Harvey Dent, because the truth is bad.

Also what did everyone think of my post about radicalization in regards to supergirl

I didn't care, but I don't speak for everyone else.

Uh you do know that in Ancient Rome when they had dictators they often WOULD give up their powers when the term was up. In general no. You can't trust someone with that much power, but out of 100 people 1 might actually be able to handle that power (the problem is that again they're pretty fucking rare and as Azrael shows there's no guarantee the NEXT guy you trust with that much power won't be a complete wacko.)

Also as for Avengers....Fury could have evolved after Winter Soldier. Saying that the MCU as a whole supports surveillance like that after Winter Soldier is cretinous

[Ralin]

That's odd. Where does that leave superheroes who do work within said system, like Dozier's Batman, Captain America when he works for SHIELD, and so on? I think you're conflating superhero with vigilante.

Usually, it leaves them with a constant tension between the system and being superheroes. It often ends with them breaking with the system entirely unless it's just handwaved away.

But that same rationale of what makes a superhero is also what was used for the War on Terror. Is Dick Cheney a superhero?

Again with the dumb gotcha questions. No of course not. He's a real life politician. You know that.

[Darth Yan]

Ralin don’t bother. Gandalf has a lot of axes to grind just like Stas does and he isn’t going to let inconvenient stuff like facts or logic get in his way

[Gandalf]

Uh you do know that in Ancient Rome when they had dictators they often WOULD give up their powers when the term was up. In general no. You can't trust someone with that much power, but out of 100 people 1 might actually be able to handle that power (the problem is that again they're pretty fucking rare and as Azrael shows there's no guarantee the NEXT guy you trust with that much power won't be a complete wacko.)

I love the qualifier "often" in that text. How'd that work out for the Roman Republic?

Also as for Avengers....Fury could have evolved after Winter Soldier. Saying that the MCU as a whole supports surveillance like that after Winter Soldier is cretinous

Show me where Winter Soldier condemns surveillance. Not just surveillance by villains.

Usually, it leaves them with a constant tension between the system and being superheroes. It often ends with them breaking with the system entirely unless it's just handwaved away.

Dozier's Batman was fully deputised, and had fuck all tension with the police. Also, in the MCU there's people like Iron Patriot who's in the US military, at least until Infinity War. Black Panther is part of the Wakandan government, as are the other heroes from Wakanda.

Again with the dumb gotcha questions. No of course not. He's a real life politician. You know that.

They're both rich people who use their tools to advance their causes in the face of it being illegal. Dick Cheney believed in extrajudicial violence in the face of a threat to protect people. They also both engaged in rendition. Though to be fair, one was elected.

Ralin don’t bother. Gandalf has a lot of axes to grind just like Stas does and he isn’t going to let inconvenient stuff like facts or logic get in his way

[The Romulan Republic]

Uh doesn’t change that fury’s argument is clearly not supported. The decision to destroy shield and shut the plan down is ultimately seen as the right thing.

Considering that I'm talking about Avengers, why are you bringing up a different film?

Even in Dark Knight Bruce destroys the system at the end....and hilariously enough the comics themselves played with what would happen if someone less noble had free reign in the form of Azrael.

He’ll Bruce flat out admits that he’s backing Harvey because he realizes the city shouldn’t have to rely on him forever and that once the city’s fixed it’ll need someone like Harvey. Hence why Harvey’s fall is tragic.

All glory to the man of unaccountable power! He will hand it back to the people when the time is right. Riefenstahl couldn't have staged it better.

Then Batman and Gordon (the two "good guys" in Gotham) started a lie about Harvey Dent, because the truth is bad.

Also what did everyone think of my post about radicalization in regards to supergirl

I didn't care, but I don't speak for everyone else.

Seriously, you're going to equate TDK to the Nazis?

[Darth Yan]

Uh you do know that in Ancient Rome when they had dictators they often WOULD give up their powers when the term was up. In general no. You can't trust someone with that much power, but out of 100 people 1 might actually be able to handle that power (the problem is that again they're pretty fucking rare and as Azrael shows there's no guarantee the NEXT guy you trust with that much power won't be a complete wacko.)

I love the qualifier "often" in that text. How'd that work out for the Roman Republic?

Also as for Avengers....Fury could have evolved after Winter Soldier. Saying that the MCU as a whole supports surveillance like that after Winter Soldier is cretinous

Show me where Winter Soldier condemns surveillance. Not just surveillance by villains.

Usually, it leaves them with a constant tension between the system and being superheroes. It often ends with them breaking with the system entirely unless it's just handwaved away.

Dozier's Batman was fully deputised, and had fuck all tension with the police. Also, in the MCU there's people like Iron Patriot who's in the US military, at least until Infinity War. Black Panther is part of the Wakandan government, as are the other heroes from Wakanda.

Again with the dumb gotcha questions. No of course not. He's a real life politician. You know that.

They're both rich people who use their tools to advance their causes in the face of it being illegal. Dick Cheney believed in extrajudicial violence in the face of a threat to protect people. They also both engaged in rendition. Though to be fair, one was elected.

Ralin don’t bother. Gandalf has a lot of axes to grind just like Stas does and he isn’t going to let inconvenient stuff like facts or logic get in his way

1.) In the end it didn't; for 500 years it did but in the end it didn't. Yet again the comics themselves addressed them when the Mayor gives batman carte blanche....and bruce winds up temporarily replaced as batman by Jean Paul Valley, a guy who really IS a violent lunatic who (the results are not at all pretty)

2.) Steve himself is opposed to the project even BEFORE we learn that HYDRA is the driving force. Fury (a guy painted as morally ambiguous on the best of days) is ok with it but he's the only one. So there's that. If anything the movie makes the assumption that the people who CLAIM They're doing it for good reasons really are just a bunch of selfish a holes out for power (Fury does ultimately go along with the plan to ditch it as well.)

3 and 4.) Batman works with the police (he'll overpower criminals and leave them for the cops), he still leaves sentencing in the hands of the courts (one reason why he doesn't kill the joker) and when he does overpower criminals it's in a murky area but depending on jurisdiction CAN be possibly spun as citizen's arrest (which DOES allow force if it's proportionate to stopping the crime). Even then Batman realizes that the system shouldn't rely on him forever and also tries to use his wealth to actually help people (but oh wait you think all billionaires are evil).

5.) Oh please. You and Stas are constantly looking for meaning where there's none. When I pointed out that the writers of Black Panther were black and that a lot of black people loved the movie he was like "Well I was just giving my opinion" (he was, and it was a fucking stupid opinion). In politics you seem to have a "White people and capitalism are evill" mentality.

Uh doesn’t change that fury’s argument is clearly not supported. The decision to destroy shield and shut the plan down is ultimately seen as the right thing.

Considering that I'm talking about Avengers, why are you bringing up a different film?

Even in Dark Knight Bruce destroys the system at the end....and hilariously enough the comics themselves played with what would happen if someone less noble had free reign in the form of Azrael.

He’ll Bruce flat out admits that he’s backing Harvey because he realizes the city shouldn’t have to rely on him forever and that once the city’s fixed it’ll need someone like Harvey. Hence why Harvey’s fall is tragic.

All glory to the man of unaccountable power! He will hand it back to the people when the time is right. Riefenstahl couldn't have staged it better.

Then Batman and Gordon (the two "good guys" in Gotham) started a lie about Harvey Dent, because the truth is bad.

Also what did everyone think of my post about radicalization in regards to supergirl

I didn't care, but I don't speak for everyone else.

Seriously, you're going to equate TDK to the Nazis?

Indeed. I wasn't entirely comfortable with Dark Knight but Gandalf is being silly and engaging in Purity Culture.

(this article covers it in context of the dresden files but Gandalf Stas and others like them all embrace the mindset.) https://www.thefandomentals.com/purity- ... den-files/

Look. I get it. Oftentimes there are problematic portrayals in media. But we are learning and improving (jokes that would have flown only a decade ago are no longer making it into movies, which is one reason why reactionary conservatives are bitching so much. They wouldn't do that if they weren't scared.) Even in the MCU Diversity is improving (Davos in Iron Fist Season 2 is much more nuanced than the Hand were, and even with the Ancient one they would have been accused of racism no matter HOW they played that one so it was damned if you do damned if you don't; even then they took a character who was basically a cringing manservant in the source material and made him one of Strange's teachers.)

[K. A. Pital]

Yes, and given that a lot of black people disagree you it's an idiotic opinion.

Is it? The opinion is evaluated not based on how many people disagree with it, but on its own. Incidentally I am not the only person to notice this:
https://kifkif.be/cnt/artikel/15-reason ... movie-6036
https://theconversation.com/amp/black-p ... cism-93095

My disagreement has a foundation (I find the trope-y depiction of Africans insulting, as well as villainizing a black liberation activist and whitewashing the CIA), but of course you have a solid reason to dismiss my opinion as „idiotic“: unsourced claims about „a lot“ of „black people“. Can I see the numbers, or was that another one of „everyone knows“ or „experts say“ arguments you‘re so fond of?

Also people can take nuanced stances and accept the merits of even a flawed movie. See here for example:
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/indepth/o ... 20981.html

The idea that disagreement by unnamed masses means the opinion is incorrect is plain wrong. A lot of Americans disagree climate change exists and is anthropogenic. Does it make my opinion that it does, and is anthropogenic, idiotic?

Moreover, it is the opinion of black people that coincide with mine which you have called „idiotic“: scholars like Russell Rickford https://africasacountry.com/2018/02/i-h ... k-panther/ or authors and writers like Patrick Gathara https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/glo ... of-africa/ or Christopher Lebron http://bostonreview.net/race/christophe ... ck-panther

All idiots?

[Darth Yan]

Yes, and given that a lot of black people disagree you it's an idiotic opinion.

Is it? The opinion is evaluated not based on how many people disagree with it, but on its own. Incidentally I am not the only person to notice this:
https://kifkif.be/cnt/artikel/15-reason ... movie-6036
https://theconversation.com/amp/black-p ... cism-93095

My disagreement has a foundation (I find the trope-y depiction of Africans insulting, as well as villainizing a black liberation activist and whitewashing the CIA), but of course you have a solid reason to dismiss my opinion as „idiotic“: unsourced claims about „a lot“ of „black people“. Can I see the numbers, or was that another one of „everyone knows“ or „experts say“ arguments you‘re so fond of?

Also people can take nuanced stances and accept the merits of even a flawed movie. See here for example:
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/indepth/o ... 20981.html

The idea that disagreement by unnamed masses means the opinion is incorrect is plain wrong. A lot of Americans disagree climate change exists and is anthropogenic. Does it make my opinion that it does, and is anthropogenic, idiotic?

Moreover, it is the opinion of black people that coincide with mine which you have called „idiotic“: scholars like Russell Rickford https://africasacountry.com/2018/02/i-h ... k-panther/ or authors and writers like Patrick Gathara https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/glo ... of-africa/ or Christopher Lebron http://bostonreview.net/race/christophe ... ck-panther

All idiots?

At best deeply naive (the boston globe guy cheerfully ignores that Killmonger's methods would have not only hurt a lot of black people but also would have brutalized other POC who were victimized by slavery seeing as one of his first targets was Hong Kong (Which is in some ways still has effects from colonial rule), and that T'Challa himself admits that Killmonger's motives were understandable (in fact it's WHY HE ENDS WAKANDA'S ISOLATION AT THE END OF THE MOVIE SO THAT THEY CAN USE IT'S VAST RICHES AND RESOURCES TO HELP THE BLACK COMMUNITY!) The movie itself acknowledges that Wakanda SHOULD be doing more to help the global black community. It's just that Killmonger's methods were, in addition to being violent, based more on him lashing out at a world that hurt him rather than actual positive change.

More importantly the movie WAS widely beloved by Black audiences so quoting a WHITE BELGIAN (Jonas Slaats) seems rather rich.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fans-in-af ... k-panther/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2018/ ... humanised/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... ode=rsaf20
https://www.africanews.com/2018/02/17/b ... africans//
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/glo ... iberators/

Alease A Brown and Russel Rickford were also foolish (as Karen Attiah pointed out, there have been a lot of CIA backed African dictators and Kilmonger is if anything an internalization of white patriarchy.) Also given how Robert Mugabe and Jean Jacques Dessalines were revolutionaries who cheerfully embraced authoritarianism and committed mass murder to fuel their murder boners the idea that black revolutionaries shouldn't ever be portrayed in a negative light is foolish. Malcolm X got a bad rap for years (in part because in his early years he DID think whites were inherently evil) but he and Nelson Mandela (as well as Martin Luther King Jr) were examples of revolutionaries who were able to be forceful without being violent lunatics

(Mandela in particular was not afraid to kill people or use violence when peace failed after 12 years of efforts; thing is he also understood that at some point one of the two parties has to lay down the sword and that just lashing out and killing isn't going to make things better; in addition when it came time to address pass wrongs he wasn't afraid to hold his own followers accountable).

You and the writers you cite seem to be the kind of people who think Nelson Mandela should have just expelled all the Boers from South Africa and that adopting a policy of reconciliation made him an uncle tom of some kind, that people on the receiving end of oppression can become as bad as the people they hate is somehow a bad thing, and ignore anything that contradict their ideas (the whole point of the ending is T'Challa realizing that Wakanda needs to do more to help Black's worldwide....which if anything seems close to Pan Africanism if anything.)

[K. A. Pital]

Predictable strawmen: Wakanda turned to „outreach“ instead of revolution, a decidedly white and colonialist way of „helping“ black people, when in fact it is patronizing and designed to keep them down. That’s „Pan-Africanism“?

They still haven’t let refugees in and they still maintain that shield and their own ICE-like border guard, so where is that shit even coming from? Your inability to delineate the facts and your own feelings about what is what?

You are a dense motherfucking idiot if you think that the way Killmonger was depicted was _not_ itself an attack on black liberation movements in real life, and his exaggerated „badness“ itself was a very racist take on how black people from the ghetto are evil people if they challenge the status-quo.

The whole film is about status-quo and upholding it. The CIA „heroes“ prevent a black empowerment by shooting down Wakandan ships that give weapons to the most vulnerable and oppressed. And you see no problem with that? You’re a pathetic fucking shithead.

You seem to keep putting words in my mouth or suggesting how I feel about Mandela - or, indeed, the black people whose opinion I find a lot more valuable than the rambles of a shithead like you. So how about you fuck the motherfucking fuck off right now?

You keep harping on about Mugabe and Dessalines - like a lot of white racist motherfuckers do, trying to thereby prove that black people can be „bad“ and thereby undermine the idea that regardless of how misguided they are, they still deserve self-rule and full independence without fucking white saviours and their „white man‘s burden“ myth.

In this regard you‘re just another right-wing hack coming to criticize scholars for not accepting at face value the whitewashed Hollywood story of how whites are helpey-helpers and black people are the source of their own troubles (not by being enslaved for centuries by the ancestors of the well-meaning Europeans playing CIA good guys there).

Same goes for any other social criticism. You’re a big fan of the status quo (probably fucking benefitting from that colonial plunder you sick fucker) and so you’re churning up more and more convoluted justifications for things like Africans still having honour killings/death fights despite super-technology, and making ooh-ooh sounds.

Sickening motherfucker.

[Gandalf]

1.) In the end it didn't; for 500 years it did but in the end it didn't. Yet again the comics themselves addressed them when the Mayor gives batman carte blanche....and bruce winds up temporarily replaced as batman by Jean Paul Valley, a guy who really IS a violent lunatic who (the results are not at all pretty)

Got it. Awesome unaccountable power, except for when it goes bad. So how do you replace said unaccountable guy without having another unaccountable one take him out somehow? Are you seeing the problem posed here?

2.) Steve himself is opposed to the project even BEFORE we learn that HYDRA is the driving force. Fury (a guy painted as morally ambiguous on the best of days) is ok with it but he's the only one. So there's that. If anything the movie makes the assumption that the people who CLAIM They're doing it for good reasons really are just a bunch of selfish a holes out for power (Fury does ultimately go along with the plan to ditch it as well.)

You're dodging my question (poorly). Answer it.

3 and 4.) Batman works with the police (he'll overpower criminals and leave them for the cops), he still leaves sentencing in the hands of the courts (one reason why he doesn't kill the joker) and when he does overpower criminals it's in a murky area but depending on jurisdiction CAN be possibly spun as citizen's arrest (which DOES allow force if it's proportionate to stopping the crime). Even then Batman realizes that the system shouldn't rely on him forever and also tries to use his wealth to actually help people (but oh wait you think all billionaires are evil).

In TDK he strings a bunch of cops from a building in the third act. Better hope none of Joker's goons take a shot, and that the rope holds!

5.) Oh please. You and Stas are constantly looking for meaning where there's none. When I pointed out that the writers of Black Panther were black and that a lot of black people loved the movie he was like "Well I was just giving my opinion" (he was, and it was a fucking stupid opinion). In politics you seem to have a "White people and capitalism are evill" mentality.

I'm so glad we have you to stand up for rich people. They have it so hard nowadays.

[Gandalf]

Seriously, you're going to equate TDK to the Nazis?

No, I'm likening one work which lionises the strongman taking over, to the works of a filmmaker more known in that field.

Predictable strawmen: Wakanda turned to „outreach“ instead of revolution, a decidedly white and colonialist way of „helping“ black people, when in fact it is patronizing and designed to keep them down. That’s „Pan-Africanism“?

What could be more Pan-African than... buying a few buildings in Oakland?

[Darth Yan]

Predictable strawmen: Wakanda turned to „outreach“ instead of revolution, a decidedly white and colonialist way of „helping“ black people, when in fact it is patronizing and designed to keep them down. That’s „Pan-Africanism“?

They still haven’t let refugees in and they still maintain that shield and their own ICE-like border guard, so where is that shit even coming from? Your inability to delineate the facts and your own feelings about what is what?

You are a dense motherfucking idiot if you think that the way Killmonger was depicted was _not_ itself an attack on black liberation movements in real life, and his exaggerated „badness“ itself was a very racist take on how black people from the ghetto are evil people if they challenge the status-quo.

The whole film is about status-quo and upholding it. The CIA „heroes“ prevent a black empowerment by shooting down Wakandan ships that give weapons to the most vulnerable and oppressed. And you see no problem with that? You’re a pathetic fucking shithead.

You seem to keep putting words in my mouth or suggesting how I feel about Mandela - or, indeed, the black people whose opinion I find a lot more valuable than the rambles of a shithead like you. So how about you fuck the motherfucking fuck off right now?

You keep harping on about Mugabe and Dessalines - like a lot of white racist motherfuckers do, trying to thereby prove that black people can be „bad“ and thereby undermine the idea that regardless of how misguided they are, they still deserve self-rule and full independence without fucking white saviours and their „white man‘s burden“ myth.

In this regard you‘re just another right-wing hack coming to criticize scholars for not accepting at face value the whitewashed Hollywood story of how whites are helpey-helpers and black people are the source of their own troubles (not by being enslaved for centuries by the ancestors of the well-meaning Europeans playing CIA good guys there).

Same goes for any other social criticism. You’re a big fan of the status quo (probably fucking benefitting from that colonial plunder you sick fucker) and so you’re churning up more and more convoluted justifications for things like Africans still having honour killings/death fights despite super-technology, and making ooh-ooh sounds.

Sickening motherfucker.

Cute. So because I don’t support you’re radical views of fire and blood I’m conservative. How charming.

I posted articles showing that most Africans liked the movie and didn’t see anything wrong with it. I also posted an article that directly countered one of your own (written by a black woman I might add). Seems to me you’re infantilizing blacks who don’t agree with your ideas of glorious revolutions.

I brought up Mandela because he’s proof self rule is entirely achievable and that yes there are instances when violence is necessary. Even a goatfucker like Ian Smith grudgingly praised Mandela. Thing is your idea of armed uprising and revolutions are not liberation so much as revenge.

Killmonger didn’t want liberation. He was more than willing to conquer other POC but apparently that don’t mean much. Here’s a hint jackass. Revenge is not justice and just giving weapons won’t fix a damn thing.

You think the west is evil and that the only way black people can solve their problems is armed uprising.....I suppose all blacks who don’t see it that way are childish sheep who don’t know what’s good for them?