• DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      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.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          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.

          • doctortran@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            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.

            • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              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.