The Sympathetic Strawman Follow Up Video

[@Kub1na32]

Robochamp1 lost his sight so we could see.

[@schwarzerritter5724]

You would think if anyone could empathize with someone making a big mistake after becoming a living weapon, it would be Bucky.

[@SeanWinters]

"Emphasize"? You mean empathize?

[@schwarzerritter5724]

@@SeanWinters Maybe.

[@moonwhooper]

Yes it was weird how they bullied him for just not being Steve

[@ryszakowy]

but script says walker is wrong and literal terrorists are right

[@embrown1442000]

I don't think they were bullying him. Walker needed to earn their respect, but it's like he didn't even try. "Look at me, I'm Captain America." was the impression he gave. And no, he's no Steve Rogers, either. When he asked Sam to be his wingman, it wasn't to be a real team, it was so he would be legitimized as Cap. Sam knew that, and turned him down.

[@lol-hy4mk]

You see, Walker is the villain because ominous music plays when he does things.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

And blood is dramatically splattered on his shield. Unlike Steve Rogers who kills people by either shooting them in earlier films, throwing them some long distance to die off-screen, or beats them with his super powers until they're dead without any bloodshed.

[@bluephoenix7565]

​@@Lobsterwithinternethe literally throws one guy into a planes prop on screen once, turns him into a smoothie but noooo John walker bad cause reasons!

[@someguy8428]

but how are people meant to understand he's bad without the *bwaaaaaaaa*

[@asepsisaficionado7376]

@@Lobsterwithinternet It's not mentioned here, but at the end of winter soldier Steve ordered the helicarriers to shoot each other down, which caused quite a few innocent people to be killed in the collateral as the wreckage destroyed the buildings below. Granted, it's hard to think straight when suffering from a gunshot wound and it may be irresponsible to allow project insight even the chance of surviving, but Steve's clearly done far greater crimes than Walker has.

[@vincentthendean7713]

He evil cuz wypipo bad.

[@andrewdiaz3529]

12:58 Also, the show treats Walker killing a guy as the crime it is, but later one Zemo has an entire prison van filled with arrested and pacified Super-powered individuals killed with a car bomb that almost definitely also killed at least the innocent driver and jailers, yet thats considered a triumphant action

[@LiterallyAWesternHognose]

It's not a crime to eliminate a terrorist with superhuman strength.

[@oliviastratton2169]

Zemo is a villain. He was given a win to reinforce that he's a credible threat. But that doesn't mean his actions were meamt to be morally good. The fact Bucky and the Wakandans send him back to jail shows they don't think he's a good guy.

[@Avenging_Archer]

@@oliviastratton2169 It's not about what Bucky thinks, it's the hypocritical audience. They cheered for Zemo knowing he murdered King T'Chaka and more innocent people, framed Bucky and broke the Avengers, in addition to the shit he pulls in the show, but Walker puts down a murdering terrorist and they all lost their minds.

[@looinrims]

To those kinds of people who are the writers, cops are evil

[@petery6432]

The driver tells the flag smashers “One World, One People”, so it’s safe to say that he was in league with them.

[@andrewdiaz3529]

8:09 This is actually like a popular fan explanation for why Joker is deathly afraid of the IRS; Yeah, the usual reasons too, but you can't plead insanity to tax fraud, and since tons of gangster get jailed for taxes at first THEN tried for their other crimes, it would get rid of his insanity plea and bring the death penalty on the table

[@thefrozenyak5272]

When there's enough money involved, the government is always willing to look the other way, so long as you pay your taxes.

[@jahimuddin2306]

@@thefrozenyak5272, The IRS let’s you file taxes on ill gotten gains.

[@thefrozenyak5272]

@@jahimuddin2306 That's how they got Al Capone.

[@dogg-paws]

​@@thefrozenyak5272That's not even true. The government and IRS have gone after those who pay their taxes.

[@Luis-Sosa]

(Correct me if i'm wrong) It's funny in the dcau because in that universe the Joker dies in 2007 when the Death penalty in New Jersey was abolished

[@astra3310]

I never saw Walker as a Villain. Villains kill in cold blood, Walker tried to embody Captain America and got laughed at every turn. And his friend just fucking died. Plus the fact these terrorists ALREADY KILLED INNOCENT PEOPLE and were going to do so again. I’m exhausted of “we can’t kill remorseless mass murderers that’d make us Just As Bad!” narratives bc in real life you will find people who will hurt the innocent and will only stop when made to stop. Not everyone can be talked down with a rousing moral speech. Sometimes one must resort to the Violent path to ultimately prevent more innocents dying bc a group of people are unhappy 3.5 billion people un-died and weren’t thrown to the wolves by the living. Plus. The whole fact they could punch through walls and bend steel.

[@kingofhearts3185]

It's worth noting he's a soldier fighting terrorists, not a police officer. Very different rules about who and when they can kill people. Other comments are mentioning Clipped Coin is a vet who did a breakdown of that scene and explained why that wouldn't be considered surrender.

[@BibyteTheHarpyja]

People who say that John was wrong probably never tought about how battles/operations works. A split second a kid dies. But killing terrorist=bad

[@PosthumanHeresy]

Hippies truly fucking poisoned everything with the obligate non-violence infecting discourse and activism.

[@thefrozenyak5272]

@@BibyteTheHarpyja There's zero tactical sense in beating a prisoner to death in the middle of the street while his accomplices get away.

[@Johnnyupside]

@@thefrozenyak5272 terrorist know this was what they sign up for. If they didn't want to die then shouldn't have bomb people

[@hilgigas09]

I feel it bears mentioning that Steve and John are Soldiers not Cops. Their job is to kill not detain the enemy, if they wanted to bring in the Flagsmashers, alive, they shouldn't send Special Forces.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

That depends on their ROE or Rules of Engagement. But generally, when they don't make a clear sign of surrendering, terrorists are generally free game.

[@heartlessnobody1143]

"this isn't POLICE brutality, IM not a cop"

[@thefrozenyak5272]

Soldiers still end up taking prisoners, and special forces are the people they send when they specifically want to capture someone alive.

[@junior-fj8ud]

@@thefrozenyak5272 They can take prisoners, but are never required to unless they have orders to the contrary.

[@thefrozenyak5272]

@@junior-fj8ud So you've never heard of the Geneva Conventions or the Uniform Code of Military Justice? US Soldiers are bound by law to accept surrenders. It was one of the things they made sure to drill into our heads in basic back in the 90's.

[@frankficcle7081]

The Invincible comic does a really good job at the whole no killing rule. At the beginning of the comic Mark is young and naive. He believes in the no killing rule but as time goes on he sees situations where killing is objectively the right answer but also situations where showing mercy is the right answer. Some villains are insane psychopaths with no hope of redemption, while other villains eventually become heroes or a benefit to society.

[@nont18411]

Also, in the end Mark became a dictator too, which seems more realistic than him becoming a democratic leader of the Viltrumite considering their violent culture in the past.

[@platypipope328]

​@@nont18411 he becomes their emperor not the dictator

[@michaelavery5618]

Same difference. we just have a more negative connotation with dictator. most of the power is still concentrated into the hands of one person. There might be a few technical differences but its not significant @@platypipope328

[@C.Hendrick5662]

​@@platypipope328Even with his more progressive views, Mark effectively did become a dictator of sorts because even after getting them on track, the Viltrumites are a tradition based people who value and understand strength more than anything else. Mark by TEOAT, is unparalleled. He rules with compassion but his claim is built on ancient blood and the strength to handily kill any person who would ever try to oppose him.

[@mistertwister2000]

⁠@@C.Hendrick5662There’s an important distinction to be made between “Dictator” and “Tyrant”. Mark absolutely becomes a dictator, but he rules with compassion. You can be a dictator without being evil, although the chances of that happening aren’t high

[@aboxinspace]

Regarding the Fable III bit, this is why I absolutely love RTGame's "super evil" playthrough - he does all the worst stuff available, becomes an insane crazy tyrant, and the game still treats his character like "well at least he's not Logan", like BITCH WHAT

[@TheSimmr001]

if thats theresa who says it, shes always been manipulative like that. its also implied that Logan isnt just tyrannical, hes incompetant. that even when the hero is at their worst, they were still able to rule more effectively than logan.

[@cameronberra8838]

Same energy as " At least we don't have mean tweets from Trump."

[@abaren730]

@@cameronberra8838 to be fair, Trump’s “mean tweets” are the absolute shallowest thing you could criticize him for. Like, dude’s an incompetent autocratic serial conman. A dollar store Reagan and a wannabe Putin. You don’t have to strawman Trump to criticize him, and it really doesn’t make sense to (unless you’re a “liberal” major media company owned by wealthy elites who ultimately agree with Trump’s “tax the poor, liberate the rich” policy).

[@mrdaddycupcakes9890]

@@abaren730 bro is informed.

[@MmmMmph1968]

@@abaren730 One half of the country doesn't like Trump as a person, the other half doesn't care. At least the economy was better under him

[@Avenging_Archer]

There's also the instance in Civil War. Wanda killed a Wakandan group of peace workers via using her powers to lift Crossbones into the air as he was exploding his suicide vest. All in order to save Steve's life. Cap literally states that this is his fault. Wanda is a rookie Avenger still being trained and under his command. He also recognizes he could've and should've recognized the vest and taken Crossbones out earlier if he hadn't allowed himself to be distracted by Crossbones mentioning Bucky. So by Steve's own admission, his failure to act and his failure to properly prepare Wanda resulted in civilian deaths, yet nothing really happened to him other than being given the option to either sign the accords or retire. All Walker did was put down a dangerous terrorist with no civilian casualties and yet he's the bad guy. Walker didn't go on the run like Steve did btw, he came back to take responsibility.

[@haxney]

That one pissed me off, too. It wasn't even that Wanda killed the peace workers, it's that she changed the situation from "100 people die" to "10 people die," and everyone is upset that she didn't perfectly save everyone. Literally no other hero could have done better than she did in that situation. They could have pretty easily made it more understandable that people were upset with Wanda by having her throw Crossbones from a deserted area into a crowded area out of anger or a lack of situational awareness or something.

[@baron6588]

⁠@@haxney Except she easily could have thrown Crossbones away from the building instead of close to it. Like it’s pretty obvious she easily could have thrown him into the air away from the building, but she obviously lacked the situational awareness or realize how huge the bomb really was to throw it close to a building, so that’s an obvious fluke on her parts. Also, governments in real life have gotten mad over incidents like this for more stupid reasons, they are just using this incident as another excuse to control the Avengers ignoring any excuse Wanda had for doing that.

[@Afineaddition]

Dawg you’re making me love John Walker more than Steve Rogers haha

[@Chirishman343]

one thing that is kinda annoying with more modern Batman stuff is that he used to work with the police. so he isn't killing ppl he turns them over to the cops and the system. the "detective" part keeps getting ignored and Batman kinda turns into a punisher who doesn't kill. the batman series is a victim of its own perpetual forever war, since Batman never definitively defeats any rogues so we can have more comics/episodes. what should be done is batman fixes most of gotham and then retires or semi-retires then reboot.

It's funny that this exact idea is on The Flash.

[@andrewdiaz3529]

It's weird because Batman doesn't really work with police anymore, but in most media that tries and make him "dark and gritty" he's basically just a cop with the superpower of ignoring people's civil rights who is always treated as right because they're "criminals", so he basically becomes a supercop with even less oversight than real cops and also exists outside the law and is legally untouchable

[@kingofhearts3185]

Yeah he's already voiolating everyone's civil rights and probably used enough excessive force to get even an American cop arrested. Remember Damien's brain damage line in injustice 2? Killing is a mercy compared to how badly crippled he leaves people.

[@silas0898]

That's exactly how he's trying to operate in The Batman though.

[@toddcarney6527]

When you say "batman fixes most of gotham" do you mean that he kills all the criminals? Is that the "definitive defeat" you want? Is that the cathartic ending you really want for Batman? And wouldn't Batman be the absolute worst by the end of it?

[@TheHearthGuy]

I couldn't help but feel bad for John throughout the series. Time and time again he tries to be reasonable only for the characters around him to beat him down for it (the scene where the Wakandan warriors attack him unprovoked as he's trying to talk comes to mind) and later on as all this begins to eat away at him and effect his actions, he's essentially gaslit by Bucky and Sam as they beat the hell out of him. Then he's made the scapegoat by an uncaring government that only ever wanted symbol to begin with. Honestly, John Walker's story feels like it could've been used as a great analogy for how the U.S. frequently screws over its veterans but all they wanted to do was make him into the bad guy. John's line to the Senators that were punishing him, "You made me" is perhaps more haunting than the writers intended.

[@thesuperiorhobgoblin9048]

It kinda reminds me of the ending to rambo were throughout the movie the general is almost proud of rambo for being so effective and primarily blames the cops for Rambo losing it only for Rambo to finally break at the end with his monologue, making the general realize that it wasn't just the cops or Rambo that caused this to happen, it was him that made Rambo and he didn't take responsibility for what happened because of it.

[@averykersjes3270]

Something I noticed in the MCU is how wakandans in general are all hero’s or the country of wakanda is its own hero which I noticed in wakanda forever which message I found is that imperialism is good and there should be these huge belligerents in control over important world resources and anyone else should be destroyed, like how Namor basically sinks a ship because they are trying to mine vibranium and justifies it by saying, if they get vibranium then they could become a threat to us so we should take any means necessary to stop them and black panther just kinda goes yea you right

[@imperialwalker]

Keep in mind an empowered flag smasher can kill a full grown man with years of training, with a single punch. Flag smashers are always armed and dangerous even without conventional weapons. The only material that could feasibly contain them is vibranium which hasn’t spread to the rest of the world. Also the flag smasher tried to chuck concrete at Walker before getting cornered by him so he was defending himself.

[@palladiamorsdeus]

The Flagsmasher also didn't start surrendering until he'd lost. If he had surrendered straight away and Walker still beat him to death they'd have a point. He didn't, they don't.

[@ItsAVolcano]

The claim the terrorist was "unarmed" reminds me of the outcry whenever police shoot someone in a car who tries to run them over. Just because the person isn't carrying a gun it doesn't mean they are safe.

[@purpseatpeeps8641]

I remember getting in an argument with someone and they said “If somebody is running at you with a baseball bat, you can’t just shoot them, that’s escalating the fight.” And I honestly don’t know what to say to that, are you just supposed to let them hit you? Do you have to have advanced CQC techniques so you can make sure not to kill them? I actually don’t know what you expect the soon-to-be-victim to do.

[@icehoof]

​@purpseatpeeps8641 They're escalating it by running at someone with a gun, if you fall, they have a gun now

[@TheAsylumCat]

​@purpseatpeeps8641 add in the potential scenario that the suspect is high on hard drugs and will power through non-lethal options like tazers.

[@allmightyweakling4167]

​@purpseatpeeps8641 Well you can say: " That’s not escalating the fight, thats stoping the fight."

[@silenthero2795]

@@purpseatpeeps8641 "You just have to parry instead of shooting them!" - DS enjoyer

[@death_reaver6638]

In regards to the Flagsmasher surrendering being why Walker shouldn't have killed him, there's actually a video by an ex military person who breaks down the scene and shows that the Flagsmasher made no effort to surrender and it goes into body language and actions that they do. Such as the fact they kept fighting until they were literally on the ground and even then Walker kicked them back down because they were getting up. The main thing though is the fact that when Walker is about to kill them they say that "IT WASN'T ME" in reference to Battlestar's death, which is pointed out as not being an actual sign of surrender. If I can find the link to the video Ill edit my comment to include it so my comment can make sense, but otherwise I find myself agreeing with a lot of your takes since I always try to look at problems from a logical point of view rather than an emotional one. Since as you pointed out in Fable 3, you either have to choose to keep your promises or let an untold number of people die; from a narrative standpoint at least. Plus I like how you actually Humanize Senator Kelly by looking at his actions from both his perspective and giving legitimate reasons for why, such as the phasing through a bank vault scenario. Plus since Mutants can arguably have any type of power set, what if someone is born with the ability to kill people by looking at them; I know id want to be aware that person existed. Not saying they should be vilified for it, but at the end of the day you cant put societal expectations from our non superpower real life and expect them to fully carry over into a universe where there's actual Gods and people who can be born with the ability to control magnetism and shape shift into anyone. Anyhow as I said previously, I enjoyed both this and the original strawman video, and look forward to your future content.

[@Shadow30.]

That mutant kid that had a power to desintegrate any organizm without controling it comes to mind Welp i shud have watched more of the video huh

[@caseyhart4999]

@death_reaver6638 that video is from a channel called Clipped Coin. It’s a very good video I’ve seen it twice now. He also has a pretty funny video showing some of the kills Sam has titled Sam Wilson is an angel or something like that haha.

[@MrRobot-0]

I mean scot summers can literally kill anyone that he looks at, that is his whole deal actually. But yeah mutants oppression make so lutle sence both why is a specific thing and why is opposed that specific way

[@Akkatlah]

​@@caseyhart4999I think his análisis is a bit off. The Flagsmasher was fleeing when Walker knocked him down. The guy tried to stand up to flee again and Walker knocked him down again. While asking where was Karli. Before the man could answer he killed him. If Walker had being in his right mind he could have kept knocking the guy down making him submit. Then procede to interrogate him

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@AkkatlahYou’re leaving out the fact that he was throwing 600-pound water fountains at Walker as he was running away.

[@Some_Really_Random_Dude.]

There's a show on netflix called "Super Crooks" that goes quite deep into the idea of petty criminals with superpowers. The main character, Johnny Bolt, has the power of lightning, he could cause destruction on an unprecedented scale if he put his mind to it and the way he discovers his powers does it on a small scale. He doesn't care about ruling the world, or being a walking nuclear bomb, he cares about paying rent and getting his girlfriend a nice ring for her birthday. And the only way he knows how to do that, because he has a bit of a reputation, is short circuiting the alarm on a jewellery store and pulling a mash and grab. This man can casually cause a blackout in a large city. Smash and grab. Despite the fantastical nature, it's weirdly real.

[@LordTyph]

It honestly makes sense. Not everyone will be heroic with their new super-powers... but that doesn't mean they'll be super-villains looking to rule the world.

[@durnaski3303]

I loved super crooks, it's a great telling of the saying "all the saints are sinners and all the sinners are saints" "cops are crooks and crooks are cops" like there's good and evil in everyone but the ones who show only the good are the real villains and the ones shown to be bad are just trying to do the right thing

[@00Boogie]

I was just reminded of the comic which gave us the New Guy meme. Not only was the strawman sympathetic, but the creator of the comic came across as a rather nasty person.

[@thereseemstobeenanerror1219]

I think I know who you're talking about regardless. It's probably more due to the creator living in a echo chamber to the point. They came across severely nasty was actually deprived of said chamber.

[@WanderTheNomad]

I regret looking that up😔 not that it's anything new, but just more of what I've already been seeing for the past however many years

[@HimekoIzayoi]

We really don't deserve New Guy, he's too good for this world.

[@danielfincher8439]

Have you considered that Walker might have been justified, legally, to kill that fleeing murderer/terrorist so he could stop the others that were still fleeing? Obviously the writers never considered this.

[@danielfincher8439]

Ah, lol, literally five seconds after I commented.

[@thefrozenyak5272]

The terrorist was no longer fleeing. He was caught and had surrendered, and everyone else had already gotten away. Walker could have incapacitated him, but he lost control and beat the guy to death. Killing him makes zero tactical or strategic sense. If he's alive, you have a prisoner to interrogate, and you have leverage over your opponents. If he's dead, you have nothing, and you give your opponents a martyr to hold up as proof that you are wrong.

[@Johnnyupside]

@@thefrozenyak5272 If captain America headshot an ISIS member who was just fleeing after a failed bombimg attempt, no one would complain. It would be brutal but those people wouldn't illect any sympathy

[@thefrozenyak5272]

@@Johnnyupside If Captain America headshot an ISIS member while he had him pinned to the ground in the middle of the street, everyone would complain.

[@lweaver2988]

​@@thefrozenyak5272 *the terrorist sympathizers would complain

[@darkpuppetlordful]

Two things i think you kinda missed out on bringing up about the weirdness of Xmen First is in the wolverine/Xmen comic its professor Xavier who sent Wolverine in to kill a literally just tuned 18 mutant because his power was "i am a mile wide death field/radiation emitter" meaning Charles himself acknowledges the inherent danger some mutant powers present, yet hes never offered Kelly that same insight or looked at his actions through it. 2. During the 80s "oh hes got mutant powers" was a catchall explanation for how new heroes "gained" there powers so theres technically a lot of "mutants" who never get treated as such because they dont join the x-men comics, so Kelly isnt even really anti mutant, hes anti Xmen and Brotherhood, in his eyes two mutant supremacy organizations that cause untold damage en mass

[@christopherbennett5858]

Which makes sense because, back then, the X men were teams of human passing, powerful mutants that were handpicked by Xavier. This is also the time when Mystique’s brotherhood were pledging their allegiance to the government and Val Cooper. Ever since the animated series and Grant Morrison’s new X men, the institute feels more like a more peaceful version of the Morlocks.

[@darkpuppetlordful]

@christopherbennett5858 honestly the whole krakoa island stuff lately feels like a big step backwards, like they are now choosing to self isolate from society despite peaceful integration being the inital idea Charles had

[@christopherbennett5858]

@@darkpuppetlordful This isn’t new. Especially after Utopia. And Peaceful? The man excluded not so powerful or influential mutants when making teams. Not to mention how he treated characters like Sage. And here’s the other thing; they’ve tried everything. Complete isolation? Get genocided on Genosha or Usurped on Utopia. Live in coexistance? Well, let’s have entire buses of children get bombed by Stryker whilst the Avengers try and use you as an accessory in civil war. Not to mention stories like Excalibur, New Mutants and Marauders have shown the X men to be more socially active. X corp even displayed how Krakoa was providing everyone on with new technologies on top of the medicine, as seen in X corp. And then the terraforming of mars happened… which irked many and did cause rifts with the Arakko people but it has been mended. Heck, due to Krakoa, they can interact more with the wider cosmos of the marvel universe with the likes of the Shi’Ar, Limbo and the Galactic federation getting benefits in the storylines. And if they don’t want to live on Krakoa, there’s enough money to fund housing anywhere else like the Morlocks in Florida. It’s like if Zionism didn’t threaten any territorial disputes and was lax in terms of beliefs. Don’t get me wrong, Krakoa has issues. Like how rubbing elbows with the likes of Shaw only gets you so far before you tread on his toes, Hank going wild because he’s heading Krakoa’s CIA or the fact that Moira was trying to “cure them all”. But, if anything, it’s made mutantkind more social. Especially now during fall of X when everyone in the avengers is coming together with the x men to help out. And that’s why it scares a lot of Orchis. If anything, what’s

[@darkpuppetlordful]

@christopherbennett5858 its just seems weird that going "No, actually, we'll isolate ourselves over here" is the solution to peace and Co-socialization of the mutants

[@bad-people6510]

He didn't even do it because of the physical danger from the kid, he did it because his existence could be used as anti-mutant propaganda.

[@koroxo1152]

In your fable example you basically found the "Ludonarrative dissonance". Personally, although the story can work without the mechanics, it is correct to consider the mechanics also when looking at a game You did a good job looking back on this.

[@RavenCloak13]

Well no actually. The story can actually have that be how you deal with your brother that evolves into you using it to deal with the bigger threat. A victory through brains, not just brawns. Having a would be king or queen usurp their as seen "evil brother" but they have no idea how to actually run a kingdom would be rather stupid actually. Having them understand the economics or more so probably learn by looking moved old documents BEFORE the MC intact their coup would show how much better of a leader they are and give another way to meet everyone's expectations. Also have them talk to their brother better after they are now in control and deal with the threat better and grill him about WHY he didn't at least tell you about this.

[@Waitwhat469]

@@RavenCloak13 Agreed, or even just more steps to that stage that prepared you to think about how to properally secure money/troops so that it made sense in the narraritve that the idea of hard work and sound investment were options the whole time too. It was kind of funny to me, when I was like "thank goodness I faffed about so much trying to make tons of money" and that saved the kingdom. I did personally love the twist of "yeah you got power, and here's what responsibly of being in power looks like too" because it's a common thing over looked when people talk "revolution". I also give Fable a lot of leeway because it's "a Fable" it's so supposed to be look at a little simplistically.

[@shorewall]

Fable 3 proves the superiority of Capitalism over Planned Economy. Logan tries to take away more of the economy pie in order to pay for the defense. Your character has the ability to grow the pie through economics and innovation, and have enough for the people, and the defense of the Realm. Much like we saw in the Cold War between USA and USSR. :D

[@doc_eh2747]

Not giving any insight into what batman actually means when he says he wouldn’t stop killing really hurts that movie. Batman isn’t on some slippery slope where one kill would turn him into a psychopath, he’s just scared that he is on that slope. He’s worried that if killing started becoming the easy option he wouldn’t catch himself before he started becoming someone like the Punisher.

[@megabear8905]

Here's the transcript from Batman: Death in The Family. "So he crafted his final challenge for me. He wanted to look me in the eye while forcing me to make a choice between our ideals. Kill Joker or kill Jason to stop him from killing Joker. But life isn't a game and death is never a choice. To make it so is our undoing, it would be my undoing. I think about killing Joker every day ending the monster i let loose on the world. But I'll never allow myself that release, A promise i made to my father and mother, An example to a son that I will never stop fighting to protect from himself. I can never stop fighting to protect them from themselves... to protect them from me."

[@thereseemstobeenanerror1219]

Now that's right there, what actually make me feel sad for Bruce. If he had actually said all that instead of saying what he said.

[@apurbanaskar2240]

It's amazing how MCU contents are still giving people big opportunities even if we hate MCU now.

[@Tonbizzle]

Take every opportunity you can to learn. Every mistake is a lesson, and not just for the one that made it.

[@crashb800]

I think in a lot of ways, Walker is supposed to be a stand-in for US military overreach, but a lot of things are really not thought through well. First off, in various situations, he takes control of situations where, I think from the show's perspective, the US military itself should have never had jurisdiction in the situation. In such, Walker is blamed from the show's perspective since he is supposed to embody the US military, but obviously that doesn't work since walker realistically doesn't fully embody the US military. I think another part of this is the fact that the show can't decide whether the flagsmashers are terrorists or not. From what it seems like, they want the audience to sympathize with the flagsmashers, but they also want the audience to agree with the more liberal politics of the main heroes instead of the anarchist politics of the flagsmashers. To try to solve that problem, they have the flagsmashers do random acts of terrorism to in effect make them terrorists in the show, but it's unclear if they were really meant to be seen fully as terrorists even if that's what they are when looking at the events as shown. In such, John Walker ends up being a guy that's doing his task to fulfill a goal; however, the writers act as if he was in a place he never should have been in doing things he never should be doing when that particular framing is not actually justified.

[@Telmach]

I felt the first video conveyed your points sufficiently. If I could give some advice, some people are just going to deliberately miss the point and try to twist you words. You can try and explain yourself if you like, but don't ever apologize to them. They'll use that as a pretext to attack you further, if you apologize you are admitting that you're wrong and they were right to attack you in the first place.

[@phabiorules]

I thought he conveyed his points well, but I still disagree with him on some aspects. I’m not looking for an apology, just offering my perspective as to why I disagreed and maybe provide another perspective that he didn’t consider.

[@Telmach]

@@phabiorules That's fine. That's what the comment section is for. The advice I was giving in this context was not to bow to the mob. A lot of people have naïve opinions on how the internet works. Honest discussions rarely happen, and he only just got monetized. There are people out there that are jealous and hateful, and just want to cause pain (Ironically under the guise of tolerance). This is why you never apologize online - only clarify one's position or declare that you have a new position and give the justification for why.

[@channel45853]

Oh, the guide to being toxic, I know it well

[@bdhhsgbyddhggg]

There’s a quote that I always like to bring up with the Redhood vs Batman topic: Batman says “if you kill a killer, the number of killers in the world stays the same” Redhood then replies with “Okay Batman, but if I kill 100 killers then it goes down by like…99”

[@shadowednight1600]

Red Hood for the win

[@MG_Spy]

Except for the fact that Batman never said that and people just like to attach that quote to him to rebuke it and win an imaginary argument.

[@untunedguitar45]

@@MG_Spythat’s why it’s important to check sources to see where the origins of certain memes come from so that Mandela doesn’t have any effect towards history

[@cardescomedioses3674]

The thing with batman isn't about morality, it's about restraint and his own moral being surprisingly vulnerable, he knows he isn't in a right mind to do violent vigilantism, he is in a dark place and a lot of repressed anger, he is not that far from falling into insanity himself, hence why he can't let that straw reach the camel's back I think it is a bit of a misinterpretation of the context, as in "i am not saying that isn't right, i just am not the right person to be the executioner" mentality, the way it was exwcuted or conveyed is another topic

[@Nyghtking]

On that Fable example, yeah you can do the good actions and still build up the money to save everyone, if you know it's coming. If, say, you've never played the game before and don't know the story before hand, the twist is going to side-swipe you because you won't have built up a whole lot of money since you wouldn't have needed it for anything, so unless you then spend several IRL hours grinding money you end up getting the bad ending, which is what happened to me, because another side-swipe that happens is the game will jump ahead several days without telling you that will happen and without triggering your passive income, and day 70 will skip directly to the battle. Suffice it to say I got the bad ending.

[@FriendlyDarkwraith]

I actually like the idea that Batman is self-aware enough to realize that if he killed one of his enemies, he'd most likely fall deeper and deeper into that Punisher-like mindset, which would deprive the people he has seen turn themselves around of that opportunity. The man is a billionaire who dresses up as a bat and stalks alleys at night so he can beat criminals to within an inch of their life, he's never been the most sane individual. It creates an interesting dichotomy within the character, while also being probably the only half-decent reason for why the Joker is still alive, since, you know, comics. That being said, I never understood why he wouldn't let Jason kill Joker for him, since he's already taken lives as the Red Hood, and despite his other villainous actions, everything he did was specifically to get his hands on the Joker, and once he's dead, Jason probably wouldn't have any reason to continue his killing spree. I understand that he doesn't want to see someone he trained and raised as a pseudo-son to fall to that level, but that ship has long since sailed, so he might as well just let him kill the clown before escorting Jason to prison.

[@goazer2]

I mean literally in injustice superman does it and goes off the deep end. This is also how it usually plays out in real life as well. When someone decides they can determine who lives and who dies they tend to keep going because you can't uncross the line.

[@nahuel3433]

Well you kinda said that that is the best reason while at the same time showing why that isn't the best reason.

[@fordderek2429]

I agree with you on why Batman should not kill joker. But there is on DC character that I does not make sense has not killed joker. Mammoth. The big guy is only a criminal to provide for his little sister and to watch out for Gizmo his best friend. Like how has Mammoth not been sitting in the cafeteria in prison like 40feet from joker and not been like "this mans very existence puts my little sisters life in danger." Then just walked over and popped his skull?

[@christopherbennett5858]

Honestly, I’m surprised the US government hasn’t put Joker down. I mean, Amanda Waller got Harley Quinn on the suicide squad so a plea of insanity isn’t a problem.

[@joeyjojojrshabadoo7462]

This is my problem with anyone trying to argue Batman has a responsibility to kill the Joker. It's not like both super powered individuals who average people would be powerless to stop. He's literally just a clown.

[@christopherbennett5858]

@@joeyjojojrshabadoo7462 A clown that everyone uses to do all of the awful things. I mean, Batman has a rogues gallery. Share it out.

[@RandomCarrot2806]

The real question is, why the fuck doesn't Gotham, or really any city in comics with villains with the death tolls they do, have the death penalty? People ask why the hell Batman isn't killing someone like Joker, as you point out the real question really should be why the hell doesn't every police officer, every prison guard, every citizen and even most of the other prisoners try to kill Joker on sight?

[@ked49]

@@RandomCarrot2806Bruce removed Gotham’s death penalty.

[@asepsisaficionado7376]

Personally, I didn't get the impression that we're meant to see Batman as the morally correct one in Under the Red Hood. The movie is considered a sequel to the Killing Joke, which carries the theme "all it takes it one bad day." Batman had his bad day in that alleyway, and while it didn't drive him mad like the Joker, he got close. He is about as crazy as the criminals he fights, and he's terrified of the day he steps ove rthe line. You can see even at the end of the movie when Batman digs through the rubble and finds the Joker still alive and he's furious about it. He knows the world would be better off with him dead, but Batman can't be the one to do it. Also, Jason cared less about the Joker being dead and more about the fact that Batman didn't avenge him.

[@shorewall]

Yeah, Jason could have killed Joker, but instead he used him to try to manipulate Bruce.

[@notthefbi7015]

The whole point of the killing joke was the Joker is wrong. That it doesn't take one bad day. So no your still wrong, and that still requires you to ignore the butchering of who batman is

[@asepsisaficionado7376]

@@notthefbi7015 Batman outright starts strangling the Joker to death while laughing like a mad man in the original comic ending. You really weren't paying attention at all were you?

[@MontySlython]

@@asepsisaficionado7376 I think its you who wasn't paying attention, the person the joker tried to give a bad day wasn't batman, it was Gordon, who absolutely did not break under the pressure and proved the joker wrong.

[@asepsisaficionado7376]

​@@MontySlython You're just misreading what I said, dude. Your reply isn't at all relevant to my point. I said Batman broke in the alleyway where his parents were shot, that's what I'm saying. That's what the Joker is hinting at by the end, even if he doesn't know the cause.

[@shadowsniper9542]

Kelly was a powerful moderate figure who kept the pro and anti-mutant factions stabilized while trying to find a compromise between the idyllic and pragmatic solutions. His death at the hands of a group that he had fought to maintain the dignity, rights and freedoms of, much to the chagrin of those who wanted outright discrimination against them, greatly radicalized many moderates who had agreed with Kelly against mutants, leading to their eventual genocide. His character feels like it draws many parallels to historical leaders who did the same thing, often with the same ends.

[@luscinius2933]

The mutant regestry argument always made me confused. We register people who own guns, mutant powers could be even more destructive and on a wider scale. I see creating a mutant regestry as a reasonable decision.

[@rainmorga]

The MRA is more than a registry in the stories. Anyone who is in that registry is basically a slave to the government. The mutants' usage of their powers will be regulated and will be assigned missions which they have to do or face imprisonment.

[@YouGottaShootEmInTheHead]

Its the same slippery slope as gun resgistry, which actually came from insurance registry being mandatory with cars. Except that with cars, because they are not a part of the bill of rights, they come with every stretch of bullshit the law brings just to fine you out of your wallet. You dont have to agree, but then again, people have always lived and died their entire lives while being wrong, and time just moves on.

[@Asrael-xy7uk]

I think it's because of choice. Mutants can't choose to become mutants, so if they are forced to register themselves in a special database, it feels like a personal attack for things they have no control over. I think it would be different, if people just put being a mutant into confidential medical documents like diabetes or blood type...

[@b_donnas863]

Well ignoring this strange fellow replying to you, I think it is different. The only difference being that owning a gun is a choice, while mutants are just the way they are. Registering a person just for who they are feels wrong. I still agree with you, but there is that difference which makes it more of a concern.

[@bb.english3829]

We don’t register people who own guns in the US is both immoral and illegal

[@Ze_N00B]

In regards to the X-men comic, the body's powers weren't even active. He was passively dessimating people without any control over it, making him more like the sick fusion of a plague carrier and a hydrogen bomb.

[@Saxton_Hoovy]

The fable 3 example worked perfectly for me. As when played I just tried to get the game not focusing on side quests , so when I got to the countdown , I failed it by not having enough money.

[@dontthinkjustcharge]

I agree with the falcon and winter soldier thing. I spent the whole season thinking he would make the evil choice at the end of the show and it would be a tragic fall from grace, like everything was set up against a well meaning individual. Then he helps at the end and I realised they were trying to do a redemption and really were trying to make him seem unsympathetic the whole time!

[@andrewdiaz3529]

My one big response to the original video is about the "senators" of the GRC that falcon talks to; They aren't really in the right, but Sam's talk to them is so detached from the situation that no is really talking about the actually problem. Like, they very much want to forcibly deport basically everyone who had moved to a new country in the last 5 years, turning a massive fraction of the population into stateless illegal immigrants; Imagine if only a fourth of the surviving half of the world ended up immigrating, thats still like a billion people who's rights are being threatened, some of whom are already stateless and live in refugee settlements that the GRC pushed them into and are now keeping aid from as an effort to starve them into leaving. Like, "you need to do better" isn't wrong, but it's more important than that. Also, the only reason they are called "senators" is because they want the US audience to understand, because they are supposedly an international organization so representatives would be more right

[@CoalBee01]

I hope the writers for The Thunderbolts movie do him justice in it.

[@therealloomar]

Amen to that

[@mishaelcalhoun1165]

Original video was fine, people just like the cherry pick. That being said a follow-up The Briefing video is a pretty fun idea. I like it, maybe you should make it commonplace on your Channel.

[@so_bonkers]

Dude your John Walker video was really very informative and fell right in line with audience perspectives. Please upload more content soon!

[@hatster401]

One thing I think about the mutant registry is that it would be really easy to abuse. Do employers have access to the registry? What if a non-harmful mutant is denied jobs just because they're a mutant? Even if employers don't gain access, the government could still abuse the registration. If cops knew the person they were arresting was a mutant, I could definitely see police brutality happening where it doesn't need to.

[@someguy8428]

The problem with the first point would be the numerous lawsuits and public backlash if an employer did that and on the police point the police are going to need to know if the guy they're going to arrest has the ability to control metal or can transform into a 14 feet tall rock monster, mutant powers are an even more juiced up version of guns and in some case straight up WMDs. Every system is going to be abused and yes the mutant registry would, but every single sect of the government and control of weapons has a level of corruption to it as well, the act would basically be a necessity in order to avoid far worser problems down the line.

[@platypipope328]

Because of what mutants are it is reasonable that some would be rrsrricted from certain professions by virtue of what they are. Take cyclops and any job that involves handling volatile substances, for example

[@ElemArkef]

and people wonder why nobody who owns a gun wants a gun registry.

[@kingofhearts3185]

And if cops don't know they're arresting a mutant they can be killed. There was a case of cops pulling someone over for a speeding, and getting shot because the guy had a ton of coke in the car. Now imagine instead of a 9mm it was someone like cyclops.

[@PosthumanHeresy]

​@@ElemArkefYou aren't born with a gun. That's a personal choice, unlike being a mutant. You can just _not_ buy a gun and the problem is solved. It's like the "assigned cop at birth" joke about "police rights". Things you choose cannot be compared to things you are born with. Having a gun is a personal choice, nobody is forcing you to do it. Gun registry is more like a sex offender registry than a mutant registry. It's the result of your personal choices. Nobody who does sex crimes wants a sex offender registry either, but the rest of us want to know who has chosen to be a danger to everyone else around them. The sex offender registry isn't "everyone whose brain has those thoughts", it's "those who made the personal choice to offend". A registry caused by your personal choices differs greatly from one caused by innate aspects of you.

[@Akakikukaku]

As me and my friend called it, "Captain Falcon" Because the only Cap is Steve Rogers Walker's cool tho, even if I don't condone, I understand his view

[@georgemeyers7172]

The Fable one is an example of how different games are to Tv. Gameplay wise... well there is a good solution as the comments and even you say... It's complicated as things are and sometimes the Gameplay can make a Narrative more complicated or simple that it looks and can otherwise Break a story in twain.

[@kingofhearts3185]

It''s like the fallout 4 meme of how much other stuff thr player can do before ever actually looking for their kidnapped infant son.

[@RavenCloak13]

Not actually in this case. I can see the gameplay side and story working to show how the MC IS better then their brother to figure out a different solution because the brother became to focused on one thing and stopped considering new options. If you don't want to use the rent exploit, have the Fable 3 MC through trying to start a coup tries to gain allies outside of the country to fund them to then call on those contacts later to deal with the worse threat later. It would show the MC actually has the ability to rule, gain relations, broker trade, combine might and brains to get the job done and why explain why the brother didn't consider the options with his isolationist mindset. Fixes some logic problems by giving a better explanation and show that the would be new ruler actually DOES have the credentials to rule.

[@georgemeyers7172]

@@RavenCloak13 Hmm.

[@shorewall]

@@RavenCloak13 Yeah, MC's brother took a conflict Theory mindset, that there is only one pie, and to make more, you must take from someone else. A lot of people believe this. As the MC, you have the option to just grow the pie, so that there is enough for everyone. See the Cold War between USA and USSR. USA could afford both guns and butter, USSR ran out of money trying to just match guns with the USA.

[@flutterbyedreams5188]

Give me a protagonist who is willing to get their hands bloody to protect innocents over a protagonist who keeps their moral high ground while innocents die around them.

[@DreamersOfReality]

You just want to see people murder those you disagree with. "Enemies". These are STORIES, the author makes everything in them. If the enemy "needs" to be killed, it's because the author wanted it to be that way.

[@DrakeKnight99]

This reminds me of people blaming Quill for Endgame when Strange had the damn time stone and shouldve used or couldve took them to Wakanda It wasnt 100% Quills fault

[@A_Random_Ghost]

Many people have thought of many solutions they could have picked for Infinity War instead of the one in 14 million bs.

[@00Boogie]

Captain America said "We're not trading lives" and nobody had a problem. Quill had the "kill me if Thanos ever gets me" demand dropped on him five minutes before he was expected to make good on it. He reluctantly pulls the trigger, then when he learns what happened has a freakout. Few people could stay cool as a cucumber in that situation, and I think those lambasting the character are being petty.

[@embrown1442000]

Thor should have gone for the head. Even Thanos knew that. It's on Thor, IMO. But, Thor is more popular than Quill, so...

[@goazer2]

It was clearly Tony's fault as soon as he made the choice to go after Thanos the snap was ensured. But he had no way of knowing that and Strange didn't use the stone until they were on the planet.

[@bethanyh1637]

It's a cool fight scene, but there's a dozen problems with it and more when you start thinking about it. Starlord is who the writers wanted us to blame and if it were real he'd be largely responsible. The biggest problem with Strange was they used the 1in14M BS to nerf him here, but then Endgame wasn't written smart enough to make that payoff.

[@PosthumanHeresy]

7:50 Jason _already_ expressed the response to this. "Just him." Batman's reasoning is nothing like this, it's his own psyche. The rule is because, well, actually step back and think about what he is. Theme, naming, stalking the night, the predator, _he is a serial killer_ who is just not killing people. The rule is because he knows _he_ cannot stop. _He_ would become a monster if he did it, because of his psychopathology. We are NOT expected to agree with him, except that _he_ is sick and would become a mass murderer if _he_ did it because once he gets that first taste it would be an addiction. Jason is supposed to be correct, but Batman unable to do it because Batman is mentally ill just like all his villains. If he crossed that line, he could not stop himself from killing every problem he has. He wants to. He wants to _so_ badly. And he's holding himself back, but he needs perfect consistency to manage that. If he slips, it'll feel too good, too gratifying, too relieving. He'll chase that high forever.

[@axelperez2917]

Man, the Junko Enoshima profile picture comment is writing fire! I hope that there is/will be a comic from this point of view and something about getting batman to go therapy.

[@noahrombough2802]

Which also has a measure of precedence in Batman's story, as prior to the CCA cracking down on depictions of violence, Batman had two .45's in his hands and took much the same view as Red Hood does.

[@PosthumanHeresy]

​@@noahrombough2802It's also the subtle overarching plot in the late-20th century movies. Think about 89 and Returns Batman. Once he kills Joker, he's leaving a trail of bodies in Returns. Then in Forever, what is his reasoning for telling Dick not to kill Two-Face? It's that Dick won't be able to stop.

[@forickgrimaldus8301]

I agree its really apparent Bats is not all there and also remember that Vigilanties are a Grey area in the Law by Definition, by Killing the People he makes Citizen's Arrest on Bats would Cross the Line and become a Criminal himself (Which is why I like The Batman because it tackled Vigilantism and its effects on Society and where it crosses the line to Criminality and Terrorism), But the point of the Video is how bad the Writers botch the Hero's motives for "the Plot" or "the Drama" and thinking people will just take the Hero's word because he or she is one.

[@justinweber4977]

I think i remember in the novelization of the first X-Men movie, Xavier admits at one pointe he accidentally gave one of his college professors a heart attack when he read the man's mind and found out he was going to fail him and planted the idea that he was having a cardiac episode in his mind unintentionally.

[@oliverg9056]

If you keep uploading consistently, I genuinely see you as one of the next big film KZbinrs. Well done! If there is one place you could improve, I think it would be your thumbnails. A better design would definitely draw in more viewers

[@laserprime9471]

In regards to your criticisms of Under the Red Hood. Batman was going to allow Jason to kill joker. That was why he turned away. He was going to look the other way. It's a big change from the comic. Jason however initiated an attack towards Bruce. Not understanding what he was doing. Remember that the Lazerous pit leaves the individual unstable.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

That's not true. Jason was trying to get Bruce to choose between killing him or the Joker and he refused to choose either, which is why he turned and walked away and why Jason pointed the gun at him and shot at him.

[@RavenCloak13]

​@@Lobsterwithinternet I mean, Jason should still shoot Joker still to be fair. And the logic honestly is Batman is crazy. He has said that before. This is the same dude that made a bunch of plans to deal with super powered individuals that got grabbed by villains. Actually having the plans isn't a problem. Him not telling people was the problem. He doesn't trust people which is part of his personality. Him being insane which is a parallel used a lot with him and Joker but the difference is how they are insane. So insane he is sane. This movie which is an adaptation of a comic also was around the time of showing Batman having issues. You have Batman Beyond show that the older Bruce got he became more willing to kill even if he didn't which broke his will to continue the fight. He doesn't trust himself not to slip given just how fucked Gotham is and how easy it be for him and how much SUPPORT he would get from the public. Say he actually did kill Joker, it just keep going since yeah, Bats is willing to kill now more readily with the crazy fucks in that city. And we have stuff like Kingdom Come that shows a Batman who became totalitarian to try and NOT be genocidal. This also ignores when Batman HAS KILLED in the past which yeah is the point of the movie/comic which takes the more know mainstream version of Batman and have that be critiqued. Of course Batman isn't going to kill Joker but your also supposed to sympathize with Jason cause this is around the time people would have actually agreed with Jason's logic because the want to see stories progress, Jokers a monster. Who cares if he's mentally unstable when he is stable enough to cause all this death and destruction. He doesn't even have powers yet he can do this! Having Jason kill Joker would have been better honestly as it would have Jason show he can do what Batman can't cause of his own fears of what he become. Jason still idolized him as a mentor and father figure even as much of a shit as he was. It would also have had Jason say what Batman couldn't or more so think it. Have it be a flashback to when Jason was with Batman as Robin and have him shown the protocols for the other League members. Have that be the moment he remembers WHY even after Joker killed him, Batman can't kill Joker cause he probably just start killing not just the major criminals but the ones who would try and move in after those holes are made in the underworld. The trickle down effect. Best bet would be marital law honestly if someone else couldn't have Joker killed. Like honestly, would even other criminals want him alive? People on his pay roll? Or other pay rolls?

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

@@RavenCloak13 True enough.

[@goazer2]

Batman turning around has layers and layers on it. But at the basic level he recognizes that what Jason actually wants isn't to kill Joker he wants to get his way. Basically he's a child throwing a tantrum and a parent knows you lose just by playing their game.

[@RavenCloak13]

@@goazer2 HE DIED AND WAS BROUGHT BACK. This is far from JUST a tantrum.

[@strawheartpirates]

If you think Red Hood makes more sense in the movie, you should read the comic. Batman loses it and goes into a frenzy, almost killing Jason to attempt to save Joker.

[@RavenCloak13]

Which actually would show the main thing the comic wanted to show. Batman IS insane and him not killing is literally that last straw that keeps him from doing worse. His money, resources, knowledge, etc. One bad day and all that.

[@junior-fj8ud]

A couple of items - First, given some of the examples that you noted of flubbing the conversation in various comic-related media, I think Daredevil Season 2 - particularly the interactions with The Punisher - is worth noting as a relatively decent take on the topic. Second, part of the problem with the argument in the Injustice Comic Book is that the comic book is basically the back story to the already existing video game (and yes, I recognized that you had some cutscenes from the game, suggesting that you're aware of it). Given that, I suspect the writers didn't really care about making any reasonable attempt to make a decent counter-argument. By the time the storyline advances to the video game, Superman makes it clear that he's willing to publicly execute a Batman from an alternate reality as a public display of power even though that particular Batman hasn't even had a chance to oppose Superman yet.

[@DatHypnoboi]

Batman's fear that he would lose his way if he ever chooses to take a life is an extremely common idea in most modern Batman stories. It isn't something unique to UTRH.

[@johnark4723]

My question is, why doesn't batman move Arkham Asylum to the phantom zone? No one can die, including the therapists and gaurds. They can stay in there for as long as they need to get better. They're also a lot less likely to escape.

[@roryscott2941]

Exactly! If it can hold the worst criminals from an scientifically advanced planet it will definitely hold the guy who wears a pig as a mask

[@RavenCloak13]

That's called Kingdom Come. They do end up dying actually.

[@johnark4723]

@@RavenCloak13 How is that even possible? The only way I know that people can die in there, is if they go into a pocket of reality like in Superman: The Last Son of Krypton.

[@cQunc]

I'm not too familiar with it, but doesn't the phantom zone cause hallucinations and such? Seems like the last place you'd want to set up a mental health facility.

[@johnark4723]

@@cQunc I've only seen that be shown in young justice. Superman friend has been trapped in there since he was a teen and is perfectly fine. Then you got people like zod who is just as crazy as before he entered.

[@gerardomunoz6725]

Regarding the Mutant Registration Act. There is a situation to consider ( spoilers for the movie Logan.) The X-Men were killed because Xavier had a stroke and lost control of his powers and has chronic seizures as a result of that stroke making him too dangerous to be near anyone besides Logan because of his uncontrollable psychic attacks. What if this happened to Storm causing weather disasters. I think the problem with the registration act is that it's mostly one-sided against the mutants but if there were incentives to register such as subsidized medical and mental health care, also include if a mutant needs special accommodations based on the nature of their mutation they can write it off on their taxes.

[@kingofhearts3185]

Maybe they do, maybe they will. It's never been explored in depth. Checking the marvel wiki shows it's never been elaborated on beyond a name and concept. According to the wiki only the Superhuman Registration Act from civil war (which was for all superhumans, not just mutant) had specifics: "It enables the government to monitor all powered individuals and is drafted to facilitate the government's licensing and/or employment of individuals who are actively using their powers. The powered individual must fulfill some requirements or meet some criteria before they are allowed to fully use their abilities and gain legal authorization to continue to use their abilities to fight crime. Government employment is not mandatory, though it is available to those who wish to take it."

[@christopherbennett5858]

And I do agree. Problem is that, in Marvel, a bunch of the human villains actively work with the government. William Stryker is usually one of the bigger ones. Most notably, his followers bombed and gunned down over 50 of the students when most were depowered post House of M. It also didn’t help that efforts like the civil war comics had many characters holding the idiot ball.

[@channel45853]

An antagonist isn't a bad guy, it's someone who opposes the protagonist

[@ked49]

Actually no. It is someone hostile. Sam and Bucky are antagonists as they are actively hostile to John. The flag smashers are antagonists to Sam and Bucky and John as they are hostile

[@kingofhearts3185]

I thought you did a good job ripping this trope to shreds in the first video, here it is you did a great job. Subscribed for more.

[@bluephoenix7565]

Liked john walker from the start, and as you said he's a SOLDIER it's his job to use lethal force.

[@KaiserShounen]

9:49 I think there is a good reason as to why people were confused about your Senator Kelly example. It is because you don't pick a specific version that applies to this Symapthetic Strawman phenomena. Much less how the protagonists of these stories do a poor job explaining why Kelly is wrong. As far as I am ware, most versions of the X-men are perfectly fine with mutants (in a just society of course) being kept in check within reasonable limits as to reduce the potential harm to civilians. They themselves do this ALL THE TIME, by your admission. Unless I am ignorant of a different version or some comic issue or whatever, there was never a case where Kelly merely wants mutants to be kept on some kind of leash and the X-men disagree with him outright. They only argue against him when these goals come about by mistreating mutants (i.e methods that are too harsh or too drastic) or GENOCIDING THEM. So yeah, maybe you should pick a specific version of Kelly and the x-men and tell us how this even applies. You did this for Jason todd and Injustice Superman. Why not this?

[@koroxo1152]

Agree, Kelly's example is context and version dependent. Cross referencing between works to look for character qualities is a slipery slope

[@KaiserShounen]

@@koroxo1152 Absolutely. I have no idea which version of Kelly he is referring to that does apply to this fallacy

[@mothman4191]

​@@KaiserShounenmy best idea to situation is that the Injustice superman is important given that's the only superman in this mindset. Due to specific story points. I don't know if it's as specific with Jason Todd but most red hood arches follow along the story in movie pretty beat for beat now. Senator Kelly is more or less baseless because the idea he's arguing for Kelly is consistent with most iterations. The severity or extremes aren't. But the mutant registration is always a part of the character. I think he's less arguing for the character itself but the mutant registration act. That's what I got from it. Still doesn't work when you think of moral and ethical implications of corruption through said Registration act. But that's another thing. From a purely unbiased view. There's logic for the registration act. Kelly is complex character so I wish he dived more. Was kinda a hard defense to make.

[@KaiserShounen]

@@mothman4191 Well that logic falls when the X-Men (at least in the versions that I have seen) have zero problem with idea of mutant registration. Unless you can prove me wrong, this has never been the case. They only have an issue with what Kelly does in those versions because there is evidence of him doing some heinous shit with the act that goes beyond him simply keeping people safe. Name me three or more mainstream versions that where this is not the case and I will shut up.

[@mothman4191]

​@@KaiserShounen thing about X-Men from what I view is that they aren't all mutants. They are a group of specific ones that act as heroes under Xavier's ideas of mutant human relations. Some mutants see him as good. Some as a coward. Some as evil. We can't represent an entire race by one man's ideals and many X-Men stories focus on that fact. And some X-Men agree with registration. Some don't. I know Logan and Cyclops is usually seen against it seeing it should be managed in house. And some fully agree. I know Beast did. Problem is again. The registration is the point not Kelly's other ideals. But he brings up that idea of registration in first place. Not X-Men. If you support that idea you support Kelly's idea. Even if some X-Men agree with it.

[@TheGodOfGravy]

Your final point on the funeral scene is even bulletproof from a writer’s perspective. The scene is there to facilitate the escape of the Flag Smashers and to further the plot. Hence why we have Walker bungle the plan or lack thereof (making everyone look stupid) in order to allow that to happen. So when everyone is acting competently we remove this plot progression and need to replace it. Fast forward the Dora Explorers coming to get Zemo; this disrupts the plan and allows the Flag Smashers to escape. Result. Everyone looks more competent and more resourceful, including the Flag Smashers as they’re able to think fast and escape an ambush. And it doesn’t even make the Wakandans look any worse seeing as they were already ignoring international law anyway.

[@Yoshimitsu4prez]

The last video completely changed my opinion on John Walker, made me realize I wasn’t even thinking about it 💀

[@Shadowkiller-dq2ju]

Let’s be honest if Bucky and Sam weren’t petty and being childish then Battlestar would still be alive. John Walker earned the right to be Captain America because Sam didn’t want it until someone else got it

[@johnnycrown5097]

Captain America doesn't kill people because the writers don't put him in such a scenario... I hate it when writers make superheroes who don't kill, kill because they misuse it... The superhero can kill but it should weigh on them and it should be their last resort... And that doesn't mean self defense and killing for the sake of law enforcement and the rules of engagement is now a bad thing... It just means the superhero that doesn't kill is that righteous... And no, John walker shouldn't live up to captain America's beliefs... He's a soldier... Soldiers kill bad people, that doesn't mean they're evil... Bucky has killed many people before he became the winter soldier, so as captain Carter and the howling commandos... So why are they perceived as good and John walker bad??? What of iron man one whereby stark killed all those terrorists as they run away from him??? I don't remember any of you guys calling him evil... What if the flag smashers themselves, they're terrorists, how many people have they killed??? Is it because they weren't wearing an American uniform and a shield??? My god, westerners and their warped morality... And I know the type of westerners who have this twisted cognitive dissonance...

[@nont18411]

"Captain America doesn't kill people" - The most iconic scene in The First Avenger was him leading the howling commando using a gun. - He threw a hydra soldier into a rotor. - He decapitated Batroc's henchman in the beginning of the Winter Soldier. - He ordered the destruction of 3 helicarriers which killed a hell lot of Hydra soldiers.

[@Artemisarrowzz]

He also kicked a random dude in the chest and launched him off a ship in the middle of the ocean, at night@@nont18411

[@fernandoreimpell2818]

​@@nont18411yeah, cap kills people all the time, realisticly speaking, its just that the movies ignore it while puting patrotic music on the background

[@arnabbiswasalsodeep]

@@nont18411 Okay, nuances aside, what he or anyone else from saying something like that means that he never has to be in a situation where he has to kill zeemo or bucky or even rumlo. Whereas, Tony literally uses his powers to kill Obadiah in reactor explosion, whiplash with the thruster blast & even Aldrich killian with putting him in a suit & blowing it up. Tony actively kills his non-fodder enemies & makes the decision to do so, Steve just grabs them be collar to wall slam then & ask then "WHY?" & just kills the fodder npc whom you wont even remember by the end of the movie. Yet he's supposed to be a "soldier" who doesn't like bullies.

[@Akkatlah]

The difference between Steve and Walker is That when Zola got Bucky (apparently) killed. Steve didn't execute Zola

[@crosshair9907]

John Walker is the best part of Falcon and the winter soldier. US Agent show when marvel

[@Wolffman109]

Well, he doesn't check DEI boxes, so he probably won't get one.

[@TS-ln5ix]

​@@Wolffman109 blue bettles(?), she hulk, marvels, yep check out

[@baron6588]

He’ll be a main character in the Thunderbolts movie, so you kinda got your wish. Lol to the other guy, dunno what he’s talking about.

[@ked49]

@@Wolffman109he has a movie

[@Wolffman109]

@@ked49 It's not HIS movie, though. If the M-She-U continues to have its way, it will just be the "Yelena and Friends" show, and will desecrate his character, alongside Winter Soldier, Sentry, and Red Guardian.

[@elcalabozodelandroide2]

6:36 oh no , that was pre 2005 batman. Nolan inmediatly and perpetually condeem all versions of batman , not juat dark knight returns inspired ones , but all of them. To be fully insane and only retaining enough sanity to not kill or kill all.

[@pink_kino]

I feel like the Mutant thing for a registry is honestly no different than the registry for owning a firearm. You are a Mutant, you register your powers and you're fine after that.

[@ked49]

Most similar to checking yes on preexisting medical conditions, as unlike with guns it is not a choice.

[@bad-people6510]

As for the Batman argument, I think you might be approaching his argument a little too simplistically. I don't think he has much hope of the Joker reforming, but I also don't think what he meant in that speech is that murder is like Pringles and once you pop you just can't stop. What he's saying is he had drawn a line in the sand and he's done it in an absolute, objective place. The line between killing and not killing is an absolute. The line between killing the Joker and not killing Firefly or Black Mask is blurrier. Once you cross the line it's harder to justify not crossing the next one because there will always be a next worst guy, there's always a rough edge. The "some criminals reform" argument is not going to convince Jason about The Joker, because everyone in that room is fully aware that the Joker is not going to do that.

[@samueldimmock694]

Furthermore, Batman is a mentally unwell vigilante. That makes the slippery slope a bit more slippery, and reduces the chance of someone else catching him before he goes off the cliff.

[@Artemas_16]

​@@samueldimmock694mentally unwell vigilante at peak of physical and intellectual form, with billions of dollars and technology/weapons behind his back.

[@theresnothinghere1745]

One thing to note for the 'gameplay vs narrative' perspective you lay out is that imo gameplay IS narrative. That's the reason, in my opinon, you got many of the comments you did from fable because the gameplay the players see reflect badly on the written dialogue and gives them a different narrative as a result. Consider if Fable's property system was capped so that it didn't remove the issue entirely but that properly engaging with it (and other side activities) eased the burden by giving you some amount of monetary resources. Then you would have had mechanics that reflect back on the overall narrative rather than running counter to it. If the theme was 'hard work and sacrifices are needed to overcome the darkness' then these mechanics show how going beyond the role of King, by doing literally everything that can be done within their power, would ease the sacrifices needed to be made. It gives the narrative an extra layer by giving the player options beyond becoming like Logan or being nicer with a heavier costs by creating a third option of being able to overcome him by notably lessening but still making sacrifices. Additionally it being borne out of gameplay rather than binary choices further's the theme of hard work and sacrifice by requiring the player to figure it out themselves and commit to it on their own without the game presenting it to them.

[@gavinferguson2938]

Yeah I feel like the purpose of the gameplay intertwining with narrative acts as proof that you CAN run the kingdom better. And by doing so youl be able to afford to make the right descisions despite being under stress. The moral implication here is that when we are left with no options we will be forced to make to less ethical descisions. So then we should conclude that we should avoid having less options or reducing our own options, which in turn means we should have a better economy to sustain those alternative options therein allowing us to make more ethical descsions.

[@crocidile90]

The property system (in real time) kind of blunts all the decisions. IF it was incorporated as an option that tanks the opinion of you harder than the bad option as people see you as a greedy guy with a veil of goodness where the previous king at least let you own property while you "steal" it and rent it out to others. At least then the gameplay wouldn't seem to run counter to what was in act 2 (the king act) which was sacrifice is needed to save everyone, the gameplay is "LOL, just jam out in pubs and use the money to buy property with tape on your controller to make you spin in a circle to not have the story AFK progress you (which happened to Yatzee of ZeroPunctuatio) and win by abusing the mechanics to be a billionaire xD".

[@gavinferguson2938]

@@crocidile90 Yeah there were certaintly better ways of doing it than exploiting the games methods of money making. But hey atleast it still had the audacity to try place you in the same position as its villain at the half way mark. Never been done before as far as I am aware.

[@Mindteaser4022]

Whats really funny is Captain America would absolutely work with them lol

[@SympatheticStrawmanVA]

Brings to mind the absolute trainwreck of a "debate" that we see in "The Last Church" "THE DIFFERENCE IS I KNOW I AM RIGHT" is a terrible line and i will die on that hill.

[@StriderStryker]

Even if this show gets fumbled from the plot, Bucky and Falcon deserves better than we have today.

[@danielfincher8439]

I tend to reserve these types of judgements, but I agree with everything you said.

[@bane_0f_heroesx226]

On the batman killing joker leading to kill more. A good way they could go about that argument would be for him to say people kill easier and easier the more they kill. Soldiers become desensitized to death after seeing it. The first kill is the hardest and the subsequent are easier. So batman could argue that he will start to lose track of his moral compass. Still not great, but better.

[@samueldimmock694]

It gets a bit better in Under The Red Hood, where the already mentally damaged Bruce Banner is being confronted by his dead child, resurrected by the Lazarus Pit as a twisted shadow of his former self and consumed by rage and pain until he became the opposite of everything he once stood for (or at least that's how Bruce would see it in the moment), who now demands that Bruce walk the same road "because morality".

[@cane6074]

Russell played him in a vague Ash Williams kind of way, which I really liked and went with the character, flawed yet good man who became the hero despite himself. He became the hero he aspired to, just not as Captain America, but as US Agent, a role that he is well suit for. I like the concept of superhero who has flaws.

[@jesster402]

Yknow I just watched the first one yesterday and thought "man I'd like to hear more about this kinda thing"

[@orelyosif5852]

Fable 3 unknowingly gives an interesting message: to be good - you need to have money

[@robonator2945]

the much bigger issue with injustice for me is batman being against killing Clark after he's already become a megalomaniacal god-king wannabe. In Injustice 2 Clark outright says that if his dad was more like Zod maybe Krypton would still be around and, in his ending, uses brainiac's tech to invasively torture/mind control people to bend them to his will while conquering the entire multiverse with an army of superpowered kryptonians. In Batman's ending they use yellow kryptonite on him and put him in the phantom zone which he openly says he'll escape from. I can understand Batman's distance with Superman killing joker because 1 : he's always emotionally reserved, 2 : he sticks to that as a principle that, while not necessarily always the best option, is almost unilaterally never the wrong one, and 3 : it could be argued he's trying to protect Clark from himself since, as we see, once Clark DOES kill the joker, he finds it a lot easier to kill later because it's a line he's already crossed. (alternatively even in a non-injustice storyline I highly doubt that's an action Clark wouldn't later go on to regret since revenge killing isn't exactly his MO) However, when you're dealing with Injustice Superman, looooooong after he's conquered your world, killed millions, and is considering conquering the multiverse to impose his will by force, then I'm sorry no you need to put that principle down and take action. Quit being the Batman after you do it or something or, hell, if you're really worried just kick your own can afterwards, but you can't stand by the "no killing" principle when it's injustice clark. Unfortunately, that isn't a good example since no-one involved even brings up any of those fairly obvious arguments meaning there is no "sympathetic strawman". Still, it seems a bit odd to highlight the "hey supes don't kill the joker and simmer down" over "yeaaaah I'm just gonna keep the interdimensional super-terrorist world-conquerer alive because I don't wanna compromise and kill him" as an issue with batman's morality in Injustice. Don't get me wrong, there are SOME principles I could see being resolute in no matter what, but it's literally one already-condemned soul vs the entire multiverse. edit : bit surprised you didn't bring up the fact that even calling what the guy did a "surrender" was generous given the circumstances. I personally wouldn't have considered it a surrender and it's only because the scene was shot deceptively and with slow-mo that so many people did. He only even put his arms up at all as Walker was already wound-up for the swing after he was already tackled and whatnot.

[@driftermorshu5397]

I think they retcon batmans argument in a (kinda) sequel to under the red hood where he tells superman he didn't kill joker because it would betrayed the memory of jason to abandon his morals or something along those lines

[@christopherbennett5858]

Honestly, the only explanation I have ever liked is the one in Hush. That Batman can be allowed to operate in Gotham because the police agreed that, as long as he doesn’t kill, he can bypass the law.

[@randomlychosen850]

Fable 3: Oh if you want to avoid being evil, become a landlord for everyone and leech money from everyone like a parasite. Being a huge landlord is objectively immoral and it completely avoids making meaningful choices at the end since ultimately you're just avoiding consequences.

[@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl]

Joker isn't mentally ill. He is completely aware of all his actions and has a philosophy to justify it.

[@klaykid117]

Honestly a lot of Arkham inmates just shouldn't be there not to mention it can't hold the supers from breaking out. Like Bane isn't crazy he's a Latino drug lord who wants to prove to the criminal world that he's the strongest by breaking Batman, he should be in whatever jail they send Superman and Flash villains to.

[@catsareevil101]

@@klaykid117 Bane very often is in Blackgate prison in fact. But some writers forget that and act like Arkham is the only jail for Gotham.

[@thereseemstobeenanerror1219]

Unironically I do believe the Joker has _something_ wrong with this psyche. But it's not to the point where it's actively crippling him.

[@asepsisaficionado7376]

The classic Joker that's most famous is not insane. An Arkham nurse even describes him as "hyper-sane" in one comic, which I tend to prefer since it's a much more disturbing concept. Under the Red Hood draws from the continuity of the Killing Joke, where the Joker is definitely insane. He believes (or, WANTS to believe) anyone can be as crazy as him after just one bad day.

[@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl]

@@asepsisaficionado7376 yeah that joker is also isn't insane. To be criminally insane you need to be completely unaware of your surroundings or your actions such that you can't be liable for your crimes...... Joker isn't that he is completely aware of his actions and the world around him. And even has a idealogical motivation for his actions, his 'every one can be just like me and I am out to prove it' makes him a terrorist not a insane person

[@cyl_genderfluid-furry]

Walker looks like a clean shaven Bo Burnham

[@jewellier]

Congratulations on monetization and growth! You make interesting and insightful content and really deserve this

[@777ynk]

I got in a Facebook argument over this opinion Anna used some of your points to strengthen my stance

[@TheUruse]

And then they made Skrull Flagsmasher 2.0

[@MoostachedSaiyanPrince]

Yeah, I agree with your points on Fable 3. I think it's a bit of a bad example because of the way the gameplay allows you to completely circumvent the narrative. And that would all but guarantee that people would use that loophole to argue aginst that point. Narratively, it's a good point, but the gameplay makes it a moot point unless you're absolutely clear that you're using the narrative exclusively while ignoring the contributions of the gameplay.

[@kingofhearts3185]

As many people have pointed out, it's such a large amount of money that unless you already know the twist when you start and grind from minute 1, you won't have enough. A lot of people get the bad ending on their first run because of that.

[@MoostachedSaiyanPrince]

@@kingofhearts3185 You can always get enough money, THAT'S the point I'm making. Yes, it takes a LONG time unless you know about it beforehand, but the option to grind out that money is ALWAYS there, and the player knows that. Which is what I meant by saying that the gameplay can circumvent the narrative. Because the player knows they need money from roughly the halfway point of the game, and the game has introduced a number of ways to grind out money and the player knows this. So the gameplay of Fable 3 allows the player to bypass all the moral choices so long as they're willing to take the time to do it. So getting the bad ending doesn't end up being a choice between doing the right or wrong thing or any kind of moral conundrum, it ends up being a test of how much patience the player has, because they know they can get the good outcome and sacrifice nothing but their time, which nullifies the narrative's attempts at a moral dilemma. Which is why Fable 3 isn't a great example to use in a video like this. Not unless you specifically mention you're excluding the gameplay aspects and focusing on the narrative because the player knows that so long as they are willing to put in the time, they can circumvent the narrative that the game is trying to create.

[@guillermoelnino]

​@@kingofhearts3185i actually made a point to own all the realestate i could before i even realized i actually had an opportunity to put my mountqin of gold to use. But thats because im insane.

[@samueldimmock694]

@@MoostachedSaiyanPrince Kind of. There is a third option, but it's incredibly difficult (in terms of effort requires) and, this being a video game, might cost too much for it to be a viable option for many players (which could be seen as a metaphor for things being so difficult that they might as well be impossible). Which doesn't really do anything to your point, but it does make it closer to changing the moral conundrum than invalidating it.

[@funkbundunker3298]

I heavily admire your point of view on the Fable argument but my own mentality is that with games where you have a lot of decisions that actively affect the world the narrative is implicitly chained to the gameplay, and with thinking if the story was made into a movie or tv show I can find the merits behind this way of thinking but I find it blatantly against the principle of it being a multi-choice game. But with the clarification that the video was more about a villain who ends up more sympathetic than the hero then yes i can heavily agree that is the case, I don't think it's entirely accidental due to the artistic choices they make with Logans animations and facial expression in the later cutscenes but I do believe to the exact degree he ended up becoming sympathetic wasn't entirely planned.

[@music79075]

10:45 That someone can be born with the mutant powers that one poor kid was born with or Magnetos power set is reason enough to justify the mutant registration.

[@Zinlain]

I think Walker attacking the funeral was the writers trying to make some manner of comparison to the way the US has drone striked weddings, funerals, etc in the "War on Terror"... but the writers arent very good and suffer from the same comprehension issues your average twitter user does and stopped at the shallowest "attacked a gathering of US's enemies" thinking that was just fine no more detail or thought needed.

[@TheGreatBackUpVIDEOS]

The mutant one in the original video was definitely a case of bad editing. You were showing Magneto throwing a table when talking about mutants with dangerous powers...a mutant who built an island for mutants to live because despite Charles Xavier's best efforts, humans were still treating mutants like dangerous animals. Magneto in various continuities has felt pushed into a corner, and acts out, which wouldn't happen if people like Senator Kelly didn't do what they do. You are absolutely right that there are mutants whose powers are so dangerous that they can hurt people entirely by accident, but the editing suggested you thought Magneto was an example of this. But also, in this video your example was a mutant who didn't even know they were a mutant until it was too late. What precautions can you take against that, and what on earth can a list do when not even the individual knows about the risk factor? A list is literally only helpful when you want to hunt down those members, and has only been utilised in cases of known criminals or by groups (Both in the past, and today) who are attempting to commit genocide.

[@demi-fiendoftime3825]

It doesn't help that the writers try multiple times to paint the flag smashers as sympathetic despite the fact their an anarchist terrorist group that has hurt and killed innocent by the start and killed dozens of Police officers and solders who were just doing their dam jobs but no because Carly had a family and orphans living in poverty depending on her we're supposed to feel bad for her which is stupid because her actions show multiple times like real life terrorists she'll kill anyone in the way of what she wants

[@hunterackerman1697]

I know a good line to speak for both Walker and those who want to kill the Joker: "Men aren't hanged for stealing horses. But that horses may not be stolen."

[@bohemianharpsicord4294]

Logan is considered evil because he still lives lavishly while the only ways he tries to raise money is through ways that only hurt the citizens and not himself. The heros journey shows that its possible to raise money through hard work and still take care of the citizens. Its not even grindy to do it you make money throughout the main story helping people and just have to invest it.

[@crystalpokedude4329]

Honestly, I think halfway through the Red Hood scene, Batman stops trying to talk Jason down and instead wants him to lash out and fire at him so he can dodge and implement the plan he does to break the gun. Bruce has better arguments and could articulate it better, but he doesn't so that Jason will take the shot and he can beat him. Words aren't going to get through to Jason, and Bruce is aware of this.

[@carljensen333]

It was my first visit. It made good sense and I appreciated it.

[@GOODYGOODGOOD789]

On the note of Senator Kelly, I have to bring up how the mutants Registration Act is unconstitutional because it goes against the right to testify against yourself, and in the Days of Future Past Comic the Supreme Court does rule it unconstitutional. And, while you could say that this is needed because it's an emergency it doesn't change the fact that the Constitution says you can't do it so you can't do it. You may say that "Mutant registration makes everyone safer" but that argument doesn't work if it's unconstitutional and if it's unconstitutional it can't happen, no matter how good or bad it may be it really is as simple as that.

[@newmoonshadow3038]

I've always felt like Senator Kelly being somewhat sympathetic is intentional. The Marvel Universe has always managed to be pretty good about portraying the actual complexity of prejudices, and Magneto and the Brotherhood of Mutants JUSTIFYING the government's prejudices against mutants is the primary source of contention between Magneto and Professor X. And even Magneto himself is often portrayed sympathetically, as having purehearted goals being pursued through inhumane methods. Heck, the conflict as to whether it's moral or not to allow superhumans the freedom to go around doing whatever they want when it keeps costing normal civilian lives was the entire central conflict of the original "Civil War" storyline. I guess that doesn't really change the overall point that he's a "sympathetic strawman" who is supposed to be wrong but who isn't ENTIRELY wrong, but I feel like in that case it's intentional on the writers' part rather than a mistake. He is wrong, but you can't fully blame him for being wrong. Just like Magneto.

[@leafyishereisdumbnameakath4259]

6:50 no hes saying if he can JUSTIFY killing joker, he can justify killing scarecrow or anyone else. Its not on him. The justice system should have killed joker. That isnt on batman.

[@mentkansleyunitedstatesgov6364]

ooooh yooooo you brought up the x-men example I mentioned in your last video

[@noodles24601]

Personally I think the real estate/other money making tools in Fable 3 make perfect sense from a narrative perspective. Like sure, a year isn't that long, but it's not a week or a month; the main character only makes a handful of decisions during that time to either keep their promises or raise funds, so I don't see why they wouldn't try to find any other method to raise the treasury. Even if it's debatable if every single promise could be realistically kept off of like, property rents alone, it should at least allow for some promises to be kept, like not instituting child labor. I mean even if you drain Bower Lake it's not like you're personally working in the mines, you have time over the year to raise other funds.

[@jorge23483]

I many, and I include writers in the bunch, really miss the difference between an Antagonistic and a villianous. When a Protagonist character faces against a character wich ideological or hands-on approach to the problems is different (slightly or just diametricallly) that is an antagonist i.e a hero that's doing good for profit instead of selflessness. A villian is a character that is diametricallly different in the objective of the hero, doing evel for whatever reason (insert the cartoonish or sympathic reason). I think sometimes we sympathize more with an antagonistic character, than the protagonist, and we created the anti-hero title for them. And yes, sometimes an Antagonist could be a villian, but an antagonistic character is not always a villian, sometimes it's another hero. Thank you for this and your previous video.

[@ked49]

For anyone else reading, here is an easy way to view this If good: true. If agree: true. =supporter If good: false. If agree: true. = uneasy ally. If good: true. If agree: false. = anti-hero If good: false. If agree: false. = villain If good: true. = moral If agree: true = sub-protagonist. If good: false. = immoral. If agree: false. = antagonist.

[@jeremypayne5078]

I don't think Batman's justification is that he wants to kill people and would do it indiscriminately if he killed a single mass-murderer. I think it's that if he killed Joker, it would blur what, to him, is a strict, solid line. He will not kill Joker because if he did it once, he would not trust himself to know where the line is between Joker and, say, a serial killer who killed 5 people, disregards human life, and deserves to spend a life behind bars. That's why he will only ever do things by the book. Whether you agree or whether you think he makes a good argument against Jason's is another question.