• davel@lemmy.mlEnglish
    432·
    19 days ago

    Reporter: [REDACTED]
    Reason: Given the timing with a murder of a health insurance CEO, the OP appears to be supporting murdering.

  • CloutAtlas [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    22·
    19 days ago

    I don’t trust the “benevolent superhero” trope because realistically, you may get some Batmen, you’d get twice as many Banes and then a statistically small but present number of Jokers. That’s not even accounting for a Freeze style situation where someone is committing crimes to fund a relatively justifiable cause and your Ivy’s who are doing a net positive for the world but the methods are technically illegal.

    • HiddenLayer555@lemmy.mlEnglish
      1·
      18 days ago

      Also you ever notice that the most common crime that superheroes fight is robbing of banks, jewellery stores, etc? And they cause TONS of collateral damage to the surrounding city while doing so?

      Oh you’re a struggling worker living in a run down studio apartment next to the bank? Fuck you, a plasma bolt through your window incinerating everything you own is absolutely worth the banker oligarch losing the tiniest amount of capital in the eyes of this city’s supposed saviour!

      Oh you’re riding the train on your way to your dead end wage slave job? Hope you don’t mind the fighter for all things good using that train as a projectile to launch at the villain! Just pull your broken legs up by their bootstraps and crawl out of the wreckage of your train to work, peasant.

      Oh you’re the bank teller working minimum wage? You wouldn’t mind if we turned this already dangerous holdup you’re caught in into a literal fucking warzone with lasers and missiles right? After all, it doesn’t matter if you die horrifically as long as the money is safe!

      All popular depictions of super"heroes" were always in the best interests of the bourgeoisie. They’re even depicted to have largely replaced the police in their cities. They’re not superheroes, they’re just supercops.

  • TheDoctor [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    124·
    19 days ago

    Yeah but The Incredibles is basically Randian propaganda about how the unexceptional are intimidated by exceptional people and force them to perform inadequacy for the comfort of others and how this is a net loss for society.

    • rudyharrelson@lemmy.radio
      81·
      19 days ago

      The Incredibles isn’t Randian propaganda by any stretch. This interpretation is wildly missing the film’s messages about society. Brad Bird, the director, called the “Ayn Rand” interpretation of the film “nonsense” and “ridiculous” in multiple interviews when this interpretation started getting parroted by people who didn’t get the point of the film.

      I think it got misinterpreted a few times. Some people said it was Ayn Rand or something like that, which is ridiculous. other people threw Nietzsche around, which I also find ridiculous. But I think the vast majority of people took it the way I intended. Some people said it was sort of a right-wing feeling, but I think that’s as silly of an analysis as saying The Iron Giant was left-wing. I’m definitely a centrist and feel like both parties can be absurd.

      • TheDoctor [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        103·
        19 days ago

        This does literally nothing to refute the interpretation. I could care less that the director heard the Rand comparison and thought that meant people thought he was a Republican or whatever.

        • rudyharrelson@lemmy.radio
          1·
          19 days ago

          So, can you tell me in your own words what scene(s) in the film makes you think this Randian interpretation is valid?

          I’ve seen this film more than most people (it’s my favorite movie; I’ve seen it probably two dozen times since it released), and I am comfortable discussing any scene wherein you think the viewer’s takeaway is meant to be that “the unexceptional are intimidated by exceptional people and force them to perform inadequacy for the comfort of others and how this is a net loss for society.”

          • Autonomarx [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            4·
            19 days ago

            Yes it’s a very common take but I don’t think it’s correct. Bob basically makes this exact speech when arguing with Helen in the house, and then proceeds to nearly get his entire family killed to sate his own ego. Syndrome is literally a consequence of Bob’s superiority complex not allowing him to treat a normal person with dignity.