I see you’re just going to deliberately leave out the context.
That wasn’t a homeless person, it was a patient at the asylum. Hugo Strange had injected him and 4 others with grown hormone that turned them into mindless, rage filled monsters, and there was no cure. It’s needlessly violent and careless but that is in no way “Batman lynching a homeless man”
I don’t know what it is with people on Lemmy trying to dishonesty reframe the legacy of that character just because he’s wealthy. It’s so petty and pointless.
I feel like that is a comic nerd specific context.
Or maybe we’ve just agreed, as a society, not to bring it up, like that time Batman lynched a homeless guy and laughed.
When did that happen?
It should be noted that Batman’s no killing rule is a later addition to the character, so early comics are cheating a bit.
I think it says a lot about the original character concept and his position as a millionaire/billionaire regardless.
I see you’re just going to deliberately leave out the context.
That wasn’t a homeless person, it was a patient at the asylum. Hugo Strange had injected him and 4 others with grown hormone that turned them into mindless, rage filled monsters, and there was no cure. It’s needlessly violent and careless but that is in no way “Batman lynching a homeless man”
I don’t know what it is with people on Lemmy trying to dishonesty reframe the legacy of that character just because he’s wealthy. It’s so petty and pointless.
1: Guess where 40’s asylums got a lot of their patients. Guess what happened to most of them if they did get released.
2: There was a cure, Batman himself made it in the comic.
3: Do you think being a victim of a medical experiment makes it better?
Nice “real context,” simp.