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

[Darth Yan]

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.

1.) Uh no I do. In general you should NOT give someone absolute power like that because even if you did give it to the one guy who could be trusted what’s to say the next guy won’t be a violent loon? That’s what the comics touched on

2.) Not really. My point is that the guy whose generally seen as the MCUs moral compass is opposed to the big brother network even before it turns out the masterminds are neo Nazis. Also even in Avengers Fury’s surveillance and actions are seen as rather shady and are frowned on by the heroes.

3 and 4.) Again the other cops were on the scene as well and joker was taken into custody without issue after Batman overpowers him

5.) oh fuck off. Because I don’t see all billionaires as evil monsters somehow I’m also fine with people like the Koch brothers? Yeah fuck you

[K. A. Pital]

Well dipshit, we are talking about facts, right? Fact: the Atlantic slave trade and mass enslavement of Africans by Europeans and their white descendants for centuries, and also maintenance of racially segregated societies where black people were treated as second-rate at best, as subhumans at worst. Do I even need to accuse the West in a „you stand accused“ way when the above fact is indisputable? No. So I‘m not „thinking“ about the above, it just happened, deal with it. Or you gonna make excuses?

Which part of „nuanced“ did you not understand? „Didn’t see anything wrong“ is a big statement which is not backed up by generally enjoying a film. It means that literally every viewer has found no flaws with the depiction of characters or the ideological thrust of the film.

Nonetheless you dismissed all critical opinions as „idiotic“ (and those of black people as „naive“, what could be more condescending), so I hope getting the same treatment isn’t a problem for you.

I‘m not „infantilizing“ generic unnamed people who are perfectly entitled to like or dislike the film, recognize its flaws or remain oblivious.

But your off-hand dismissal of any criticism as „naive“ and „idiotic“ actually relates to real people.

Address the depiction of Africans having advanced technology but self-mutilation, death fights and an absolute monarchy. Is that not condescending and extremely racist, coming from a Western position that they are incapable of anything but strongman rule?

Address the Wakandan nationalism which coexists with extreme racism towards others („not my people“ and killing „for Wakanda“ being right and good, but killing in the name of all black people bad and evil).

Don’t just run away to hide behind vague allegations. And is that Wakanda shield still there and is Wakandan nationality still exclusive, like a caste, with branding and such?

„Pan-African“ union which brings wealth and self-determination to all in Africa by openIng borders and sharing high technology isn’t what happened after BP - and you’re avoiding this fact. How about you address it as well?

[ray245]

Address the depiction of Africans having advanced technology but self-mutilation, death fights and an absolute monarchy. Is that not condescending and extremely racist, coming from a Western position that they are incapable of anything but strongman rule?

I do wonder if such a depiction is mostly coming from a very American perspective? The African-American population were mostly descended from people who have lost memory of their ancestral regional culture, and Wakanda exist as some sort of wish-fulfilment culture? A rich, powerful and technological advance culture, but at the same time retains many aspects of what Americans think of as being "traditional"?

[K. A. Pital]

Address the depiction of Africans having advanced technology but self-mutilation, death fights and an absolute monarchy. Is that not condescending and extremely racist, coming from a Western position that they are incapable of anything but strongman rule?

I do wonder if such a depiction is mostly coming from a very American perspective? The African-American population were mostly descended from people who have lost memory of their ancestral regional culture, and Wakanda exist as some sort of wish-fulfilment culture? A rich, powerful and technological advance culture, but at the same time retains many aspects of what Americans think of as being "traditional"?

It is, and also European-colonial, master race perspective.

The reality?

Nevertheless, during most of Africa’s precolonial history, a significant portion of African people lived in small-scale, egalitarian societies in which government was more a matter of consensus among the entire adult population than rule by an elite few.

How can this be reconciled with a one-man absolute monarchy? It seems like Westerners strike again by subversive attacks on the fact that Africa also had pre-colonial concepts of democracy and collective decision-making.

[ray245]

It is, and also European-colonial, master race perspective.

It could be an overseas-African perspective as well?

How can this be reconciled with a one-man absolute monarchy? It seems like Westerners strike again by subversive attacks on the fact that Africa also had pre-colonial concepts of democracy and collective decision-making.

The concept of democracy is still seen as an inherently modernist idea, as opposed to a traditional idea. It's why democracy has often been portrayed as an advancement from authoritarian or monarchical regime. But the lack of a monarchy in the US might have produced a very rose-tinted lens of the idea of monarchy, as the Americans tend to be utterly enamored with the British monarchy, even more so than British at times.

[K. A. Pital]

Democracy as „Western democracy“ - yes, but collective decision-making, councils and votes predate the purely-Western concept of bourgeois representative democracy. That is what I meant- democracy as rule of the people, not in the narrow Western sense.

[ray245]

Democracy as „Western democracy“ - yes, but collective decision-making, councils and votes predate the purely-Western concept of bourgeois representative democracy. That is what I meant- democracy as rule of the people, not in the narrow Western sense.

Yes, but this film is made for an audience that don't fully grasp the difference.

[Elheru Aran]

Address the depiction of Africans having advanced technology but self-mutilation, death fights and an absolute monarchy. Is that not condescending and extremely racist, coming from a Western position that they are incapable of anything but strongman rule?

I do wonder if such a depiction is mostly coming from a very American perspective? The African-American population were mostly descended from people who have lost memory of their ancestral regional culture, and Wakanda exist as some sort of wish-fulfilment culture? A rich, powerful and technological advance culture, but at the same time retains many aspects of what Americans think of as being "traditional"?

Without getting into you guys' discussion about democracy or whatever: yes, this is absolutely the case. It's an Utopian fantasy for African-Americans.

We discussed this to some extent in Fantasy a while ago: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=167313

[Darth Yan]

Stas is the one who came into the thread talking about how racist the movie was, and also took offense at Killmonger being portrayed as a lunatic despite it being shown he’s willing to victimize other POC. If anyone’s reviving an old debate it’s him

[ray245]

I've seen some comments that argues that the role of the society in creating a bad person like the Joker is one of the questions being asked in the movie, and I wonder if some of the outrage and anger towards this movie is coming from the people who are unwilling to accept some of the blame for creating a joker-like person?

There's a review that talks about this, and he thinks some of the people who are upset about the movie is just being reactive for the sake of it.

[Darth Yan]

Well dipshit, we are talking about facts, right? Fact: the Atlantic slave trade and mass enslavement of Africans by Europeans and their white descendants for centuries, and also maintenance of racially segregated societies where black people were treated as second-rate at best, as subhumans at worst. Do I even need to accuse the West in a „you stand accused“ way when the above fact is indisputable? No. So I‘m not „thinking“ about the above, it just happened, deal with it. Or you gonna make excuses?

Which part of „nuanced“ did you not understand? „Didn’t see anything wrong“ is a big statement which is not backed up by generally enjoying a film. It means that literally every viewer has found no flaws with the depiction of characters or the ideological thrust of the film.

Nonetheless you dismissed all critical opinions as „idiotic“ (and those of black people as „naive“, what could be more condescending), so I hope getting the same treatment isn’t a problem for you.

I‘m not „infantilizing“ generic unnamed people who are perfectly entitled to like or dislike the film, recognize its flaws or remain oblivious.

But your off-hand dismissal of any criticism as „naive“ and „idiotic“ actually relates to real people.

Address the depiction of Africans having advanced technology but self-mutilation, death fights and an absolute monarchy. Is that not condescending and extremely racist, coming from a Western position that they are incapable of anything but strongman rule?

Address the Wakandan nationalism which coexists with extreme racism towards others („not my people“ and killing „for Wakanda“ being right and good, but killing in the name of all black people bad and evil).

Don’t just run away to hide behind vague allegations. And is that Wakanda shield still there and is Wakandan nationality still exclusive, like a caste, with branding and such?

„Pan-African“ union which brings wealth and self-determination to all in Africa by openIng borders and sharing high technology isn’t what happened after BP - and you’re avoiding this fact. How about you address it as well?

1.) It’s implied they ARE sharing the technology (the literal closing scene is T’Challa about to demonstrate the true technology to sceptics at the UN). The borders.....just because you’ve decided to be more open doesn’t mean you throw away safety either and the only time we’ve seen Wakanda since Black Panther was Infinity War when preparing for Thanos would have taken more importance They’re working on a sequel so at this point I’m of a wait and see mindset. We’ll probably see how they’re interacting with the world there (since they’ll have more time to show it.)

2.) as pointed out on the earlier thread the reaction the native wakandans gave implied that by this point the ceremonial challenges are seen more as a formality than standard (everyone’s surprised when M’Baku makes the challenge at all). There have also been instances where tribes emulated tribal qualities in worship and other traditional ceremonies as well. We also see that the council does have some degree of power. So writing them off as primitive in mindset is itself a simplification especially since the mere existence of the heart shaped herb and the spirit realm show that their gods and religious beliefs are actually valid (why disregard the tribal religion when the god is the real deal?)

Stas does this constantly. He finds flaws in western works and advocates violent uprising as the way to go (hence why he ignored the article pointing out how if anything Killmonger could be seen as internalizing white patriarchy or instances where Killmonger displays blatant hypocrisy such as murdering his own girlfriend or destroying the heart shape herb so that no one can challenge him.)

[Gandalf]

1.) Uh no I do. In general you should NOT give someone absolute power like that because even if you did give it to the one guy who could be trusted what’s to say the next guy won’t be a violent loon? That’s what the comics touched on

So there shouldn't be unaccountable superheroes? Cool.

2.) Not really. My point is that the guy whose generally seen as the MCUs moral compass is opposed to the big brother network even before it turns out the masterminds are neo Nazis. Also even in Avengers Fury’s surveillance and actions are seen as rather shady and are frowned on by the heroes.

Opposed to it, but we don't see him quit or anything. Also, where is the mass surveillance shown as shady in Avengers?

3 and 4.) Again the other cops were on the scene as well and joker was taken into custody without issue after Batman overpowers him

Exactly my point. Those law abiding (and conveniently useless) police just get in the way of the strongman who knows and sees all. Conveniently all goes well.

5.) oh fuck off. Because I don’t see all billionaires as evil monsters somehow I’m also fine with people like the Koch brothers? Yeah fuck you

Brave defender of capitalism! Maybe Warren Buffett will float by and grant you a wish.

[Darth Yan]

I just realized

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“?

So let me get this straight. If Wakanda DOESN'T hand out weapons to fund bloody revolution, than they're being patronizing and "keeping them down?" If they try community outreach like say handing out their technology, using their vast wealth to fund youth centers....they're also being patronizing and keeping people down?

Seems that you think any solution that doesn't involve violent uprising is somehow weak and for sissies.

As for Dessalines and Mugabe......yes there have been cases where violent revolutions have been necessary (Nelson Mandela used violence and it's pretty damn clear that violence was needed on some level to bring down apartheid). Thing is fighting against oppression does NOT make mass murder okay. When Dessalines butchered the White Haitans they were essentially beaten, and the very logic he used to justify his crime (the idea that they'd give birth to future oppressions) was literally the same logic Colonel John Chivington used to justify the massacre of sand creek (which was so brutal that even back then white americans denounced it as an atrocity).

And you might say "oh the French committed even greater crimes against them, therefore it's not a big deal that Dessalines killed them. Why don't you have pity for the subaltern....." No. Fuck that. Murder is murder and like it or not it's ENTIRELY possible for people who are victims of oppressions to become as monstrous as those who oppressed them. It doesn't always happen (and the South were dishonest for suggesting it) but guess what? It's still a possibility. Jean Jacques Dessalines was an example of that and that you so cavalierly argue that revolution is the only way implies that you don't see a big deal with people dying, or are at best indifferent if the revolution goes full circle. So no. The idea that Killmonger as a self serving psychopath who's using revolution to justify his own agenda is NOT racist in and of itself, especially since "gasp" THEY ACTUALLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT A LOT OF HIS POINTS ARE LEGITIMATE!

You than call me a "sick motherfucker" repeatedly and imply that I'm conservative simply because I disagree, and ignore that at least one of my articles DIRECTLY TACKLES ONE OF YOURS.

[Darth Yan]

1.) Uh no I do. In general you should NOT give someone absolute power like that because even if you did give it to the one guy who could be trusted what’s to say the next guy won’t be a violent loon? That’s what the comics touched on

So there shouldn't be unaccountable superheroes? Cool.

2.) Not really. My point is that the guy whose generally seen as the MCUs moral compass is opposed to the big brother network even before it turns out the masterminds are neo Nazis. Also even in Avengers Fury’s surveillance and actions are seen as rather shady and are frowned on by the heroes.

Opposed to it, but we don't see him quit or anything. Also, where is the mass surveillance shown as shady in Avengers?

3 and 4.) Again the other cops were on the scene as well and joker was taken into custody without issue after Batman overpowers him

Exactly my point. Those law abiding (and conveniently useless) police just get in the way of the strongman who knows and sees all. Conveniently all goes well.

5.) oh fuck off. Because I don’t see all billionaires as evil monsters somehow I’m also fine with people like the Koch brothers? Yeah fuck you

Brave defender of capitalism! Maybe Warren Buffett will float by and grant you a wish.

1.) No. Some degree of accountability was needed and the films acknowledge that (the whole point of civil war is that both Tony AND Steve have legitimate reasons for their positions.

2.) In Avengers at the very least the secret weapons projects Fury has been using are called into question so the idea that it supports all his actions carte blanche is silly. You haven't even fully explained HOW it supports shady surveillance (and even if you did the fact that the organization using it turns out to be evil kinda puts a damper on your argument).

3.) Given that Bruce himself sees retiring as an inevitability and that there are other instances where the cops do help in the trilogy (Gordon's the one who derails the train during Batman's fight with Ra's, during the problematic fight at the end of DKR the cops fight bane's supporters (and yes the scene IS problematic)) you aren't being fair. Looking at the evidence over the course of the trilogy makes it far murkier than you want to admit.

4.) You know what? Fuck you. At this point what you're doing is barely above sealioning. There are PLENTY of asshole billionaires out there, but you seem to assume that me refusing to say all billionaires are like the Koch brothers means I'm somehow ok with what the Koch brothers are doing. You don't want a good faith argument, you want to pontificate about how EVIL superheroes and billionaires are. Just like how in all those decolonization and communism threads you wanted to pontificate about how capitalism/white people are evil.

[Gandalf]

I trimmed the quotes down because your rants are weirdly wrong.

1.) Accountability stuff.

And Stark's argument is undermined by the fact that a superhero is on the superhero oversight team, and one of his first acts is to spring his friends from potential consequences. Are any of the heroes ever truly accountable?

2.) Shield sees all stuff.

The film supports surveillance by (in quick succession) estahlishing that they can do it, having one of the heroes leap to work on it, and not long afterwards it finds Loki. At no point is it questioned.

3.) Cop stuff.

You really want to bring the whole trilogy into this? Where in DKR Batman gets out of prison through a triumph of the will, it's revealed that Gotham imprisoned a bunch of people without due process based on the myth of Harvey Dent, and somehow the only person that can stop Bane is someone that can punch him well? Yeah, think that through.

4.) Billionaire stuff

Are those the same decolonisation and communism threads where you ran away after admitting that you knew nothing of the subject matter and refused to engage with people?

[Darth Yan]

I trimmed the quotes down because your rants are weirdly wrong.

1.) Accountability stuff.

And Stark's argument is undermined by the fact that a superhero is on the superhero oversight team, and one of his first acts is to spring his friends from potential consequences. Are any of the heroes ever truly accountable?

2.) Shield sees all stuff.

The film supports surveillance by (in quick succession) estahlishing that they can do it, having one of the heroes leap to work on it, and not long afterwards it finds Loki. At no point is it questioned.

3.) Cop stuff.

You really want to bring the whole trilogy into this? Where in DKR Batman gets out of prison through a triumph of the will, it's revealed that Gotham imprisoned a bunch of people without due process based on the myth of Harvey Dent, and somehow the only person that can stop Bane is someone that can punch him well? Yeah, think that through.

4.) Billionaire stuff

Are those the same decolonisation and communism threads where you ran away after admitting that you knew nothing of the subject matter and refused to engage with people?

I withdrew in large part because I realized that Loomer and you were set in your ways and I just didn’t feel like digging in to try and persuade people who had made up their minds.

My memories of DKR are mixed since the only time I saw it was 8 years ago at a drive in without subtitles. I’ll concede that to you.

In any case that you think all billionaires are satan shows that no you are still a raving idealogue.

[Bernkastel]

The films also make it quite clear that most of the Gotham politicians aren't saints (Dent sure as hell isn't), and that Batman is only necessary because the system has failed. You can certainly see it as promoting unaccountable vigilantism- but Batman is also shown to need people (in Fox and Alfred and Gordon) who are willing to call out his excesses. At most, its saying "Emergency powers can be useful in the hands of a person of exceptional character, if they are temporary and that person has advisers around them to reign them in if they go too far."

Its not a perfect message, I don't completely agree with it, but I don't take it as an unqualified endorsement of the military-industrial complex, as you seem to.

Yeah, those people question Batman periodically, but they also encourage him a lot. It's effectively the Bush era politics of "trust the unaccountable strongman, your liberties will be restored when the fear abates."

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.

From what I recall, the events involving the mass extra-legal surveillance, Lucuis decides to warily trust in Bruce and in his character. The story is such that the mass extra-legal surveillance was needed and that the person in control of it was indeed a good man. The end point of that is Lucius watching the system self-destruct while the narration tells viewers that sometimes trust is rewarded. In my experience, those who are reasonable and might support extra legal means to defend society tend to view their support with basically that narrative. That is, the extra legal means aren't good, but they are necessary. They also will be in the hands of fundamentally decent people who can be trusted to use them and hold onto them only as needed. You just need to have a bit of faith in such people and everything will ultimately work out.

That's where there's a problem in the message, that it puts forward a idea that is used to justify surveillance. That is of having the person in charge of such systems being a decent person who must reluctantly use extra legal means if they are going to defend society from a threat that can't be dealt with without such means.

In in my opinion, this is a narrative that needs to be dealt with to make effective criticism of extra legal power/means of defending society. The average supporter of such things will agree that having a person with a bad character in possession of such power is bad. But they'll say that's not what they support. They support the good person who must unfortunately use extra legal methods because society cannot combat the threat without them such as, for example, extra legal surveillance. So any criticism of something like extra legal surveillance in itself needs to address the sort of narrative that TDK puts forward.

Yes, TDK is not a defense of unaccountable strongman. But it does put forward the ideal used to support extra legal powers, that of times where such means are essential as society cannot be defended with normal legal measures and of the good person using such power to successfully defend society/save the day in such times and who will give up their extra legal power when the crisis is over.

[Darth Yan]

Yeah there are parts of Dark Knights that are weird but it's hardly the unambiguous propaganda piece that Gandalf seems to believe it to be. It's his pattern actually

[Gandalf]

Yeah there are parts of Dark Knights that are weird but it's hardly the unambiguous propaganda piece that Gandalf seems to believe it to be. It's his pattern actually

So are you going to answer my post, or is this another one of those threads where you'll get huffy, and then storm off while dodging arguments and complaining about evil commies?

[loomer]

Hey, Yan. Stop bringing up the decolonisation debate, it’s getting weird. I know you wish I’d take you over my knee and spank you again but unless you’re actually willing to debate it, shut the fuck up. I’m getting tired of reading threads only for you to pop up gibbering and raging because you couldn’t argue your corner.

[Darth Yan]

I already did answer them. You're the one who accused me of being a defender of billionaires after I said that the idea that they're all like the koch brothers is ridiculous (and even . I conceded the harvey dent law and also said DKR was problematic in some regards, and I'll concede the surveillance thing in Avengers (Though I'll also maintain that Winter Soldier is a good counterpoint.) Your argument that Tony being involved with oversight somehow undermines the idea when Tony DOES in fact try to obey the law and DOES for the most part (only outright refusing to when Ross ignores crystal clear evidence that Zemo was the mastermind); and how does he try to get people off the hook? STEVE broke them out at the end of the movie. Tony was trying to get them registered with the government the entire time. You also ignored other elements of DK (when the people themselves prove Joker wrong and prompt his first real showing of anger in the movie by proving they won't blow each other up, that Bruce himself feels that Batman should be retired once the system is fully healed etc) as well as Romulan and others pointing out that the issues with the surveillance system can be interpreted in other ways. Hell you even ignored when I pointed out clear examples when the comics themselves deconstructed lack of accountability and showed that people like Batman DO need to cooperate with the system to a degree.

Thing is that you'll just insult me and imply that I'm a secret conservative just like Stas did.

Stas meanwhile ignored the articles I posted about how not only was Black Panther widely loved by African audiences but also where I directly addressed one of his sources, as well as the argument about how portraying Killmonger as a damaged sociopath doesn't undermine the idea of black liberation, or that pointing out that some Black revolutionaries WERE violent monsters who became as bad as their oppressors is NOT inherently racist like Stas seems to think. He just devolved to calling me a "twisted motherfucker" so if anyone's gotten huffy it's him.


You ignore most what your opponent says, make accusations about their character and then cry innocent when people call you out on it.

You're a bad faith debater who leaps in with an axe to grind (as for the evil commies.....bitch please. Stas is OPENLY proud about being a communist, ranting about the EVULS of CAPITULSM and YOU said with a completely straight face that all billionaires are evil. What the fuck am I supposed to conclude except that you sympathize with communist ideals despite the fact that every last attempt at communism has been a failure and that Communists have committed atrocities just like Capitalists.)

So don't pull any of that moral high ground nonsense with me.

[K. A. Pital]

I have forgotten and ignored nothing. If and when I get the time for this debate, I will go back to the articles you posted, and reply accordingly.

[Gandalf]

Yan, if you want to religitate the billionaires/communism/other thing, go back to those threads rather than stalking people around the forum. It's odd.

I already did answer them. You're the one who accused me of being a defender of billionaires after I said that the idea that they're all like the koch brothers is ridiculous (and even . I conceded the harvey dent law and also said DKR was problematic in some regards, and I'll concede the surveillance thing in Avengers (Though I'll also maintain that Winter Soldier is a good counterpoint.)

"Person destroys superpowered surveillance when someone else uses it" may not be the argument you think it is.

Your argument that Tony being involved with oversight somehow undermines the idea when Tony DOES in fact try to obey the law and DOES for the most part (only outright refusing to when Ross ignores crystal clear evidence that Zemo was the mastermind); and how does he try to get people off the hook? STEVE broke them out at the end of the movie. Tony was trying to get them registered with the government the entire time.

Protip; study the texts you intend to argue.

"Sometimes I wanna punch you in your perfect teeth. But I don't wanna see you gone. We need you, Cap. So far, nothing's happened that can't be undone, if you sign. We can make the last 24 hours legit. Barnes gets transferred to an American psych-center... instead of a Wakandan prison."
"I'm not saying it's impossible, but there would have to be safeguards."
"Sure. Once we put out the PR fire, those documents can be amended. I'd file a motion to have you and Wanda reinstated..."
"Wanda? What about Wanda?"
"She's fine. She's confined to the compound, currently. Vision's keeping her company."
"Oh God, Tony! Every time. Every time I think you see things the right way..."
"What? It's a 100 acres with a lap pool. It's got a screening room. There's worse ways to protect people."
"Protection? Is that how you see this? This is protection? It's internment, Tony."
"She's not a US citizen."
"Oh, come on, Tony."
"And they don't grant visas to weapons of mass destruction."
"She's a kid!"
"GIVE ME A BREAK! I'm doing what has to be done . . . to stave off something worse."
"You keep telling yourself that."

What's the first thing we see Stark do when he's somehow in the position of power? Try to spring his friends from going to superGitmo, and inter one of them at his compound. His ultimatum to Captain America is to either sign on or go to gaol.

You also ignored other elements of DK (when the people themselves prove Joker wrong and prompt his first real showing of anger in the movie by proving they won't blow each other up, that Bruce himself feels that Batman should be retired once the system is fully healed etc) as well as Romulan and others pointing out that the issues with the surveillance system can be interpreted in other ways. Hell you even ignored when I pointed out clear examples when the comics themselves deconstructed lack of accountability and showed that people like Batman DO need to cooperate with the system to a degree.

Firstly, I did address the sequence where people didn't blow each other up. Read the thread.

If you're going to cite comics in a film discussion, prove their relevance. It's a whole different medium, and I've tried to be specific in the materials I've critiqued.

Thing is that you'll just insult me and imply that I'm a secret conservative just like Stas did.

Stas meanwhile ignored the articles I posted about how not only was Black Panther widely loved by African audiences but also where I directly addressed one of his sources, as well as the argument about how portraying Killmonger as a damaged sociopath doesn't undermine the idea of black liberation, or that pointing out that some Black revolutionaries WERE violent monsters who became as bad as their oppressors is NOT inherently racist like Stas seems to think. He just devolved to calling me a "twisted motherfucker" so if anyone's gotten huffy it's him.


You ignore most what your opponent says, make accusations about their character and then cry innocent when people call you out on it.

You're a bad faith debater who leaps in with an axe to grind (as for the evil commies.....bitch please. Stas is OPENLY proud about being a communist, ranting about the EVULS of CAPITULSM and YOU said with a completely straight face that all billionaires are evil. What the fuck am I supposed to conclude except that you sympathize with communist ideals despite the fact that every last attempt at communism has been a failure and that Communists have committed atrocities just like Capitalists.)

So don't pull any of that moral high ground nonsense with me.

I wish I could sig this.

[FaxModem1]

Actually saw the film. Made a thread about it here.

[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?

So if they don't support tearing everything down in an orgy of fire and blood than they're "colonialist"? Okay gotcha. Let's ignore that earlier they were discussing the utter hypocrisy of them not using their resources to aid the world

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?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0
Killmonger is openly planning to send his "liberation" to places like Hong Kong (which also suffered under Colonial rule) AND he also doesn't make any mention about Latinos, Arabs, Asians or OTHER people of color so when you combine the two it's made clear that his "liberation" is blacks only if that. Moreover the fact that he's willing to murder and exploit his fellow blacks to get what he wants and rather hypocritically abuses Wakandan tradition (burning the herb so that NO ONE will be able to challenge his position is the act of a wannabe tyrant not a liberator). The guy doesn't give a donkey's left asscheek about liberation.

You're sources, while well intentioned, seem to get rather offended at the insinuation that yes it's entirely possible to advocate for Black Revolution and STILL be an evil contemptible shithead, and they ignore that Killmonger IS in fact played for tragedy (the whole scene where he takes the herb and has the conversation with his dad shows that if anything his dad's violent death fucked him up rather than any generic "blackness").

You say "The CIA „heroes“ prevent a black empowerment by shooting down Wakandan ships that give weapons to the most vulnerable and oppressed". A more accurate reading of the scene is "CIA guy aligned with the heroes shoot down a Wakandan ship that gives weapons for the explicit purpose of triggering a global uprising that will tear the entire world down in an orgy of fire and blood and kill countless innocents of ALL races". You utterly whitewashed the implications of what Killmonger was planning because golly gee fighting the EVIL West sure seems heroic to you.

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.

Dude. There have been cases where oppressed have become as bad as their oppressors and Mugabe and Dessalines are BOTH excellent examples. That the south shamelessly overplayed the fact that a massacre in haiti happened to try to justify slavery (and in the process shamelessly ignored that it COULD end peacefully) DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT PEOPLE WERE FUCKING MASSACRED! More importantly the entire reason it occurred was to "prevent new frenchmen from being born" which is the EXACT logic Colonel John Chivington used to justify the Sand Creek Massacre. That white supremacists shamelessly played up the event does not change that it was an atrocity. Mugabe not only committed mass murder against people of the Mdebele tribe (my teacher told me how he encountered a nurse who had witnessed a mass grave and was reluctant to talk about it to him) but also ran Zimbabwe into the ground and specifically made it so that only He and HIS Supporters benefitted (Which shows that he never really cared about his countrymen all that much). So in that regard they WERE examples of people who fought oppression and either became corrupt themselves or committed needless acts of violence to satisfy their own prejudices. Pointing out that Killmonger is like those guys is NOT racist despite what you so desperately want to believe.

Moreover given that Killmonger is willing to murder and boss around black people to get what he wants, that he destroys the heart shaped herb so that no one will challenge him, is planning to attack HONG KONG as his first strike (which given that Hong Kong ALSO suffered under Colonial rule and is predominantly ASIAN shows that he doesn't really care about liberating people if they aren't black. He also is willing to overlook Wakanda's complicity in the slave trade, blatantly states "the sun shall never set on the Wakandan Empire" (which is basically what ALL colonial empires argue) and after using Wakandan law to get the throne shamelessly ignores it when it's convenient. So no. He's NOT a good leader; even if violent revolution IS necessary (which is dubious) Killmonger would be a HORRIBLE choice for a leader.

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?

I explicitly brought up Mandela because he's proof that Blacks CAN be trusted with self governance. Hell Mandela using violence was entirely acceptable given that the Apartheid government was resistant to meaningful reform for years. Thing is, Mandela ALSO understood that at some point one has to be the bigger man and lay down the sword. When he was elected there were South African Blacks who would have liked nothing more than to forcibly expel all the white people. Mandela DID NOT DO THAT because he realized that moving on and healing meant that on some level you had to let go.

Moreover there are nations like Ghana that have been doing pretty well for themselves overall. So no. Pointing out that revolutionary leaders CAN potentially become as bad as their oppressors is NOT inherently racist. And given that you were portraying Killmonger's actions as "heroic liberation" and shamelessly ignored that he was entirely willing to conquer OTHER oppressed peoples AND that his goal was to create a colonial empire himself you basically made it clear that you think Black people should overthrow the system violently, or at the very least view violent revolution as unquestionably good rather as something that is justified in some cases such as 60s-early 90s south africa and Zimbabwe (though it would have been better if someone better than Mugabe had been in charge) but which can also potentially be corrupted or can become a vehicle for something ugly. So no. I'm entirely comfortable judging you.

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.

Ok this largely boils down to attacks on my character, except for the tribal stuff which ignores that a.) in African Tribal customs priests often did imitate animals to "capture their power" and b.) since tribal religion is still alive in Wakanda that M'Baku is imitating a gorilla on purpose is not a way of saying "oh black people are savages" and more "oh they balanced their tribal traditions with being high tech". Otherwise you're just saying I'm an EVIL terrible person for not agreeing with you and that I MUST be a horrible disgusting racist. No substance, just you launching ad hominem attacks on me and ultimately coming off as rather juvenile.

Hell here are a few academics who rather liked the movie and thought it celebrated black culture
https://www.academia.edu/36489552/The_p ... ther_movie
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/glo ... iberators/
https://www.academia.edu/36559591/Repre ... ck_Panther