There’s a clip from The Batman ( the animated show) I can’t find at the moment, but it basically involves Batman clearing a room of thugs by offering them jobs. They all walk out, without a punch thrown.
In the real world, no one that has Bruce Wayne’s degree of wealth is a truly positive influence on the world on the whole. There are no ethical billionaires. But within the context of the DC Universe, Bruce has been routinely demonstrated as using his wealth in the most socially conscious, progressive, and generous ways. He is always shown in stark contrast with the likes of Lex Luthor.
Bruce has been routinely demonstrated as using his wealth in the most socially conscious, progressive, and generous ways. He is always shown in stark contrast with the likes of Lex Luthor.
Depends heavily on the author.
In “Kingdom Come”, for instance, Wayne and Luthor are partners and Wayne’s main contribution to Gotham is a fully automated dragnet of police-robots across a city he effectively owns lock-stock-and-barrel.
In “Batman 2099”, he’s a recluse whose personal tragedies have rendered him incapable of engaging in more than self-pity, while his board of directors does all sorts of evil shit completely off the leash.
In Joaquin Phoenix’s “Joker”, his family is just another one of the members of the criminal cartel that has corrupted the city, with Bruce’s doctor-father spending more time hob-nobbing with the elite socialites than attending to the city collapsing under his feet.
There are definitely more utopian takes on Bruce and his family. But Gotham is inherently dystopian, and you can’t escape how the city’s wealthiest family is - at least somewhat - responsible.
I think it’s awesome that different Batman stories can examine different versions of Bruce and his position as a billionaire - it allows different aspects of the world to be interrogated: criminals sometimes doing crime because they know of no other way to survive in a capitalist hellscape, the apathies of billionaires to the evils of their financiers, Batman’s obsession with order leasing him to militarise the streets of the city he loves, etc.
The point is that Batman is the archetype of a right-wing superhero. Batman is how rightwingers understand social justice: accumulate as much wealth as you can, use crushing physical violence to punish bad guys, act charitably at an individual level but do not ever work to solve social issues at a systemic level.
Even in-universe he’s nowhere near as much of a positive force as he could be if he used his money to force political and social change instead of as an outlet for his mental issues.
He’s not actively villainous because right-wingers don’t see themselves as such. But when that fantasy meets reality, you get Elon Musk.
There is any other kind? It seems to me that the entire genre is little more than right-wing individualism combined with right-wing power fantasy and right-wing vigilantism worship.
I mean yeah there are tons of other kinds. I can think of lots and lots of superheroes who are fundamentally anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian, anti-nationalist etc. Spider-man for example is hardly right-wing, his motto is literally antithetical to the individualism of right wing ideology: with great power comes great responsibility. He’s seen as a working class man’s superhero who isn’t an old rich guy, the friendly neighbourhood teenage hero. And when you get into iterations like Miles Morales it gets even less right-wing. I’m sure the presentation of Spider-man differs depending on the writer, but at the core he’s not what I’d consider a right-wing fantasy by any stretch.
Heck, even if you look at the Punisher, I haven’t read the comics so take this with a grain of salt but a lot of people who have read them have noted that the Punisher hates cops and the series does not actually align with right-wing ideals the way right-wingers seem to think he does. From what I’ve heard the Punisher comics, especially modern iterations, usually depict him as someone doing bad things as a result of the system failing him and driving him to try and take things into his own hands in all the wrong ways. Not a glorification of vigilantism but rather a deconstruction of it. But even if you set aside the problems with vigilantism, enjoying it as a fictional concept isn’t exclusive to right-wingers. A lot of people who fall under other political ideals can enjoy it for different reasons. Robin hood isn’t a superhero but he is a classic vigilante archetype who is not right-wing in nature. He literally steals from the rich to give to the poor. And enjoying the concept in fiction is fine, fiction can be escapist sometimes, what’s important is understanding why it isn’t a good thing in real life.
Even rich superheroes aren’t automatically a right-wing power fantasy, it can be the fantasy of people with other political ideals for rich people to care about the little guy and take accountability. Tony Stark for example is someone who did become a billionaire by being a bad person and inheriting it from a father who was also a bad person. He becomes a superhero after being hit in the face with the consequences of that and seeing the truth of where his money is coming from, and after that point with most versions of his character he does use his money to try and enact real social change large scale and help people on top of funding himself and other super heroes, who are necessary in a universe with aliens and gods and magic and shit. His story is centered around him realizing that his money was ill-gotten and him trying to take accountability for that by trying to undo the damage he’s done and use his money to help people instead. That is at heart a fantasy that isn’t right-wing even if it is unrealistic. In comparison Batman as a character reads as more right-wing (if unintentionally) mainly because there’s generally not much criticism levied at him as a billionaire. Even his father is usually depicted as a good person, a loving parent who didn’t deserve to die, because the loss of his parents is his motivating factor, compared to Iron Man, whose motivating factor is making up for the things he and his father did to become rich in the first place. Batman is depicted as a good rich guy, son of another good rich guy, and you know he’s good because he doesn’t kill people. His money is bloodless and innocent. Though of course I’m sure there are iterations of him and stories which do address this, but the most well known version of him does present in a way that is appealing to right-wingers in a lot of ways.
That depends on when you’re talking about. He was very much “got mine, fuck you” when he initially gained his powers (which resulted in Uncle Ben’s death) and he kept some of that mindset for quite a while afterwards. He slowly grew out of it over time, though, and was pretty much always shown to be in the wrong by the text when he acted on those ideas.
That his initial view of his powers implications was flawed is central to his character. His entire moral philosophy is predicated on his feelings of guilt and regret for his selfish actions resulting in Uncle Bens death.
It’s fantasy for kids. There are constantly people getting hit in the head, with no sign of brain damage. In real life, Batman would be crippling people constantly, and he would die every week.
Are the Smurfs an Anarchist commune? Is the Federation in Star Trek space Communism? You can’t give them labels from political science in the real world because they are fantasy. They literally have different laws of physics.
You think it’s kids being enthralled by the hyper-violence of all these super-creep movies?
There are constantly people getting hit in the head
So they minimize the real-world effects of actual violence? Gee - do you perhaps think that a society that is entirely dependent on hierarchical violence to maintain the power and privilege of those at the top might be incentivized to gloss over the violence inflicted on those at the bottom?
You can’t give them labels from political science in the real world because they are fantasy.
There is no constructed universe that isn’t based on real-world political thought. None whatsoever. The political subtext that shapes them is no less real that which you can find in the real world.
Yes Batman movies are mostly for kids, as was the character originally. Did you want the latest Batman action figure for Christmas this year? Do you wear your Batman costume even when it’s not Halloween? Who do you think does that?
Do you think all violence is inherently “right wing”? Do you believe that no left leaning government has ever started a war? Since you seem well versed in “real-world political thought”, you must have an explanation for the following conflicts:
Lol! There is no such thing as a “left leaning” government. The USSR - killed and imprisoned more leftists than the US has. The PRC - killed and imprisoned more leftists than the US has.
Your understanding of what “left” and “right” even means is based on the hollow aesthetics fed to you by propagandists, so read this part carefully - when you become institutionalized power, you become the status quo right-wing politics exist to protect. That is what left and right is really all about.
So no… the USSR and PRC’s expansionist and imperialist actions was not some “leftist” thing.
I’d argue many super-heros actually embody a social force for good, which is depicted through the actions of a single person for practical writing reasons. When Captain America finds himself out of the Avengers and fighting against the government, it’s not vigilantism but thinly-veiled political commentary.
Of course what you describe also happens, and lots of the times it ain’t that deep. But I wouldn’t say it’s “all super-heroes”, and Batman stands out a lot for me with his ultra-individualistic values (at least among the mainstream superheroes).
I’d argue many super-heros actually embody a social force for good,
I’m afraid not. Here’s what you’re missing - the “powers” these super-creeps have? They are all - without exception in the universe these super-creeps exist within - metaphors for institutionalized and concentrated power in the real world.
What does that power look like in the real world? There’s a good reason we say, “there is no such thing as a good billionaire.”
The characters don’t really exist. They’re fictional plot devices.
You are still missing it - the “powers” these super-creeps have? They are all - without exception in the universe these super-creeps exist within - metaphors for institutionalized and concentrated power in the real world.
They’re fictional plot devices.
Let me fix that for you - they are fictional characters that justifies institutionalized and concentrated power.
Jesus Christ, you keep repeating the same ridiculous argument without processing what anyone else is saying to you. Are you drunk, dude?
Do you think Stan Lee made all his characters as explicit references to “institutionalized and concentrated power in the real world”?
You seem like you’ve never read a comic in your life, but maybe watched a few YouTube videos about superhero politics, sort of understood them, and then made it your mission to proselytize those ridiculous opinions.
Appealing to Christ will not magically make your super-creep “heroes” less problematic.
Do you think Stan Lee made all his characters as explicit references to “institutionalized and concentrated power in the real world”?
Yep. I have to give Stan Lee credit that, at least, with some (not all) of his characters he tried to circumvent the fundamental nature of the super-creep genre - such as with Peter Parker, for instance - but that doesn’t change the rigidly Ayn Randian nature of the universe this genre exists within.
You seem like you’ve never read a comic in your life
I was reading this stuff (and discovering far better stuff) long before the Berlin Wall fell, Clyde - sure you want to go down this route?
mission to proselytize those ridiculous opinions.
It doesn’t matter how reactionary you get about this - the subtext of the super-creep genre is what it is and can never be anything else.
They are still fictional characters that justifies institutionalized and concentrated power - no matter what the good but naive intentions of their creators might be - that is what they always have been and always will be.
Honestly, the MCU could have been a lot better for me if they actually gave a bit more attention to Stark using the arc reactor to solve dirty energy globally. Hammer could have had big old investments and been opposed to Stark for that in additional to the other stuff. Then then Thanos showed up, it would have been two different environmental philosophies, but instead it was status quo vs radical, strawman environmentalists.
I wouldn’t say that - I’d say that somebody could write a book on how Captain Planet represents superficial “green” capitalism. The great conceit of Captain Planet is pretty much the exact same conceit all of super-creep-dom perpetrates - that the problems are caused by a “few bad apples” that simply requires institutionalized “heroic” violence to solve, when, in reality, it’s that very institutionalized power systems that are the root cause of said problems. It’s not the Joker that is the problem - it’s the parasitic system of exploitation that allows people like Bruce Wayne to exist that is.
could have been a lot better for me if they actually gave a bit more attention to Stark using the arc reactor to solve dirty energy globally.
No, it wouldn’t, because they’d be pretending that capitalists will (somehow) be solving the problems capitalism created. We have a word for that - it’s called propaganda.
Captain Planet is considered a joke by modern pop culture. If nothing else, it’s way better at bring awareness of environmental issues to children then anything else. Anymore to say is just a litmajor spew.
No, it wouldn’t, because they’d be pretending that capitalists will (somehow) be solving the problems capitalism created. We have a word for that - it’s called propaganda.
Missing the point. I offered a minimum change to the story so it wouldn’t be anti-envromental, pro status quo. And honestly, I don’t think Hollywood has enough self awareness to create propaganda like that. Certainly not a machine produced MCU movie. Kingsman yeah, that’s a libertarian morality tale, but that’s on Mark Millar.
I didn’t know that… but I guess he should know. He tried (and failed) to deconstruct that universe in Watchmen. In that universe, you cannot escape the “logic” of fascism - the Watchmen essentially ends using the same plot device as that MCU movie where Purpleface McMalthus murders half the universe because reasons that must never be questioned.
Bruce also didn’t do all the scummy things people typically have to do to become that rich. He inherited his wealth and there’s so much of it that it’s self perpetuating. He could sell his company, give 99% of his money away, and still have enough to live comfortably on just the interest it generates.
In the real world, no one that has Bruce Wayne’s degree of wealth is a truly positive influence on the world on the whole.
Bill Gates almost completely eradicated polio, contributed seriously towards the eradication of malaria, and is addressing the AIDS epidemic in Africa. He and Buffet have been working on a micro-reactor energy project for several years now.
He’s also done a lot of wide-spread horrible things to get that money though, that’s the thing, the good stuff billionaires do rarely makes up for the stuff they’ve done to get that money in the first place. The most fantastical thing about Batman is that he and his parents are usually depicted at face value as good rich people who get their money legitimately without hurting anyone and then only do good things with that money. And despite that Gotham is still an eternally crime-ridden cess pit. Most billionaires donate huge amounts to non-profits or start their own. Hell I bet trump himself has done plenty of philanthropy, but that automatically doesn’t make up for the way they earned their blood money in the first place. Is Bill Gates going out of his way to lobby for taxing the rich, or universal healthcare, or other systemic changes that would help a lot of people but likely reduce the rate he accumulates wealth? Because he has more than enough money to make large waves in those political arenas and still be rich for the rest of his life. If he never made another cent and gave away 90% of his money to homeless people he would still have enough left to be rich for the rest of his life.
That’s true. He was a ruthless businessman while running Microsoft, and hurt a lot of people, and the industry as a whole.
Hell I bet trump himself has done plenty of philanthropy
I seriously doubt that. Every one of his charities that I’ve heard of was actually a fraudulent grift. He stole from cancer patients! I’d be seriously shocked to learn that he’s done a single charitable thing in his life that didn’t directly benefit him.
Is Bill Gates going out of his way to lobby for taxing the rich
No, but he has stated that he thinks he and his peers should be taxed a lot higher than they are.
Idk if Gate’s overall influence balances towards the negative or positive, but I do recognize that he has done some seriously positive things for the world after accumulating his wealth.
Does Taylor actually do much? I thought she just hung out being a rich person and occasionally influencing people on social issues by her presence alone rather than by explicit action?
There’s a clip from The Batman ( the animated show) I can’t find at the moment, but it basically involves Batman clearing a room of thugs by offering them jobs. They all walk out, without a punch thrown.
In the real world, no one that has Bruce Wayne’s degree of wealth is a truly positive influence on the world on the whole. There are no ethical billionaires. But within the context of the DC Universe, Bruce has been routinely demonstrated as using his wealth in the most socially conscious, progressive, and generous ways. He is always shown in stark contrast with the likes of Lex Luthor.
Depends heavily on the author.
In “Kingdom Come”, for instance, Wayne and Luthor are partners and Wayne’s main contribution to Gotham is a fully automated dragnet of police-robots across a city he effectively owns lock-stock-and-barrel.
In “Batman 2099”, he’s a recluse whose personal tragedies have rendered him incapable of engaging in more than self-pity, while his board of directors does all sorts of evil shit completely off the leash.
In Joaquin Phoenix’s “Joker”, his family is just another one of the members of the criminal cartel that has corrupted the city, with Bruce’s doctor-father spending more time hob-nobbing with the elite socialites than attending to the city collapsing under his feet.
There are definitely more utopian takes on Bruce and his family. But Gotham is inherently dystopian, and you can’t escape how the city’s wealthiest family is - at least somewhat - responsible.
I think it’s awesome that different Batman stories can examine different versions of Bruce and his position as a billionaire - it allows different aspects of the world to be interrogated: criminals sometimes doing crime because they know of no other way to survive in a capitalist hellscape, the apathies of billionaires to the evils of their financiers, Batman’s obsession with order leasing him to militarise the streets of the city he loves, etc.
Of course he does.
The point is that Batman is the archetype of a right-wing superhero. Batman is how rightwingers understand social justice: accumulate as much wealth as you can, use crushing physical violence to punish bad guys, act charitably at an individual level but do not ever work to solve social issues at a systemic level.
Even in-universe he’s nowhere near as much of a positive force as he could be if he used his money to force political and social change instead of as an outlet for his mental issues.
He’s not actively villainous because right-wingers don’t see themselves as such. But when that fantasy meets reality, you get Elon Musk.
There is any other kind? It seems to me that the entire genre is little more than right-wing individualism combined with right-wing power fantasy and right-wing vigilantism worship.
I mean yeah there are tons of other kinds. I can think of lots and lots of superheroes who are fundamentally anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian, anti-nationalist etc. Spider-man for example is hardly right-wing, his motto is literally antithetical to the individualism of right wing ideology: with great power comes great responsibility. He’s seen as a working class man’s superhero who isn’t an old rich guy, the friendly neighbourhood teenage hero. And when you get into iterations like Miles Morales it gets even less right-wing. I’m sure the presentation of Spider-man differs depending on the writer, but at the core he’s not what I’d consider a right-wing fantasy by any stretch.
Heck, even if you look at the Punisher, I haven’t read the comics so take this with a grain of salt but a lot of people who have read them have noted that the Punisher hates cops and the series does not actually align with right-wing ideals the way right-wingers seem to think he does. From what I’ve heard the Punisher comics, especially modern iterations, usually depict him as someone doing bad things as a result of the system failing him and driving him to try and take things into his own hands in all the wrong ways. Not a glorification of vigilantism but rather a deconstruction of it. But even if you set aside the problems with vigilantism, enjoying it as a fictional concept isn’t exclusive to right-wingers. A lot of people who fall under other political ideals can enjoy it for different reasons. Robin hood isn’t a superhero but he is a classic vigilante archetype who is not right-wing in nature. He literally steals from the rich to give to the poor. And enjoying the concept in fiction is fine, fiction can be escapist sometimes, what’s important is understanding why it isn’t a good thing in real life.
Even rich superheroes aren’t automatically a right-wing power fantasy, it can be the fantasy of people with other political ideals for rich people to care about the little guy and take accountability. Tony Stark for example is someone who did become a billionaire by being a bad person and inheriting it from a father who was also a bad person. He becomes a superhero after being hit in the face with the consequences of that and seeing the truth of where his money is coming from, and after that point with most versions of his character he does use his money to try and enact real social change large scale and help people on top of funding himself and other super heroes, who are necessary in a universe with aliens and gods and magic and shit. His story is centered around him realizing that his money was ill-gotten and him trying to take accountability for that by trying to undo the damage he’s done and use his money to help people instead. That is at heart a fantasy that isn’t right-wing even if it is unrealistic. In comparison Batman as a character reads as more right-wing (if unintentionally) mainly because there’s generally not much criticism levied at him as a billionaire. Even his father is usually depicted as a good person, a loving parent who didn’t deserve to die, because the loss of his parents is his motivating factor, compared to Iron Man, whose motivating factor is making up for the things he and his father did to become rich in the first place. Batman is depicted as a good rich guy, son of another good rich guy, and you know he’s good because he doesn’t kill people. His money is bloodless and innocent. Though of course I’m sure there are iterations of him and stories which do address this, but the most well known version of him does present in a way that is appealing to right-wingers in a lot of ways.
That depends on when you’re talking about. He was very much “got mine, fuck you” when he initially gained his powers (which resulted in Uncle Ben’s death) and he kept some of that mindset for quite a while afterwards. He slowly grew out of it over time, though, and was pretty much always shown to be in the wrong by the text when he acted on those ideas.
That his initial view of his powers implications was flawed is central to his character. His entire moral philosophy is predicated on his feelings of guilt and regret for his selfish actions resulting in Uncle Bens death.
Yes, that’s called a story arc. Reasonably good stories tend to have them.
The fact that it’s portrayed as wrong by the text is my point when I say that Spider-man isn’t right wing.
You don’t understand right wing philosophies. Lack of responsibility is a liberal feature, not right
Lol okay buddy
It’s fantasy for kids. There are constantly people getting hit in the head, with no sign of brain damage. In real life, Batman would be crippling people constantly, and he would die every week.
Are the Smurfs an Anarchist commune? Is the Federation in Star Trek space Communism? You can’t give them labels from political science in the real world because they are fantasy. They literally have different laws of physics.
You think it’s kids being enthralled by the hyper-violence of all these super-creep movies?
So they minimize the real-world effects of actual violence? Gee - do you perhaps think that a society that is entirely dependent on hierarchical violence to maintain the power and privilege of those at the top might be incentivized to gloss over the violence inflicted on those at the bottom?
There is no constructed universe that isn’t based on real-world political thought. None whatsoever. The political subtext that shapes them is no less real that which you can find in the real world.
Yes Batman movies are mostly for kids, as was the character originally. Did you want the latest Batman action figure for Christmas this year? Do you wear your Batman costume even when it’s not Halloween? Who do you think does that?
Do you think all violence is inherently “right wing”? Do you believe that no left leaning government has ever started a war? Since you seem well versed in “real-world political thought”, you must have an explanation for the following conflicts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War
Like this one?
Lol! There is no such thing as a “left leaning” government. The USSR - killed and imprisoned more leftists than the US has. The PRC - killed and imprisoned more leftists than the US has.
Your understanding of what “left” and “right” even means is based on the hollow aesthetics fed to you by propagandists, so read this part carefully - when you become institutionalized power, you become the status quo right-wing politics exist to protect. That is what left and right is really all about.
So no… the USSR and PRC’s expansionist and imperialist actions was not some “leftist” thing.
The Federation is definitely socialism, lol.
I’d argue many super-heros actually embody a social force for good, which is depicted through the actions of a single person for practical writing reasons. When Captain America finds himself out of the Avengers and fighting against the government, it’s not vigilantism but thinly-veiled political commentary.
Of course what you describe also happens, and lots of the times it ain’t that deep. But I wouldn’t say it’s “all super-heroes”, and Batman stands out a lot for me with his ultra-individualistic values (at least among the mainstream superheroes).
I’m afraid not. Here’s what you’re missing - the “powers” these super-creeps have? They are all - without exception in the universe these super-creeps exist within - metaphors for institutionalized and concentrated power in the real world.
What does that power look like in the real world? There’s a good reason we say, “there is no such thing as a good billionaire.”
Yeah, of course if you apply real-life power dynamics to superheroes you get “The Boys”.
In-universe however superheroes seemingly have a super-power that makes them super-resistant to moral corruption (unlike super-villains).
This is because, now get this: The characters don’t really exist. They’re fictional plot devices.
You are still missing it - the “powers” these super-creeps have? They are all - without exception in the universe these super-creeps exist within - metaphors for institutionalized and concentrated power in the real world.
Let me fix that for you - they are fictional characters that justifies institutionalized and concentrated power.
Jesus Christ, you keep repeating the same ridiculous argument without processing what anyone else is saying to you. Are you drunk, dude?
Do you think Stan Lee made all his characters as explicit references to “institutionalized and concentrated power in the real world”?
You seem like you’ve never read a comic in your life, but maybe watched a few YouTube videos about superhero politics, sort of understood them, and then made it your mission to proselytize those ridiculous opinions.
Appealing to Christ will not magically make your super-creep “heroes” less problematic.
Yep. I have to give Stan Lee credit that, at least, with some (not all) of his characters he tried to circumvent the fundamental nature of the super-creep genre - such as with Peter Parker, for instance - but that doesn’t change the rigidly Ayn Randian nature of the universe this genre exists within.
I was reading this stuff (and discovering far better stuff) long before the Berlin Wall fell, Clyde - sure you want to go down this route?
It doesn’t matter how reactionary you get about this - the subtext of the super-creep genre is what it is and can never be anything else.
They are still fictional characters that justifies institutionalized and concentrated power - no matter what the good but naive intentions of their creators might be - that is what they always have been and always will be.
Captain Planet… which is kinda of a joke.
Honestly, the MCU could have been a lot better for me if they actually gave a bit more attention to Stark using the arc reactor to solve dirty energy globally. Hammer could have had big old investments and been opposed to Stark for that in additional to the other stuff. Then then Thanos showed up, it would have been two different environmental philosophies, but instead it was status quo vs radical, strawman environmentalists.
I wouldn’t say that - I’d say that somebody could write a book on how Captain Planet represents superficial “green” capitalism. The great conceit of Captain Planet is pretty much the exact same conceit all of super-creep-dom perpetrates - that the problems are caused by a “few bad apples” that simply requires institutionalized “heroic” violence to solve, when, in reality, it’s that very institutionalized power systems that are the root cause of said problems. It’s not the Joker that is the problem - it’s the parasitic system of exploitation that allows people like Bruce Wayne to exist that is.
No, it wouldn’t, because they’d be pretending that capitalists will (somehow) be solving the problems capitalism created. We have a word for that - it’s called propaganda.
Captain Planet is considered a joke by modern pop culture. If nothing else, it’s way better at bring awareness of environmental issues to children then anything else. Anymore to say is just a litmajor spew.
Missing the point. I offered a minimum change to the story so it wouldn’t be anti-envromental, pro status quo. And honestly, I don’t think Hollywood has enough self awareness to create propaganda like that. Certainly not a machine produced MCU movie. Kingsman yeah, that’s a libertarian morality tale, but that’s on Mark Millar.
Alan Moore agrees with you
I didn’t know that… but I guess he should know. He tried (and failed) to deconstruct that universe in Watchmen. In that universe, you cannot escape the “logic” of fascism - the Watchmen essentially ends using the same plot device as that MCU movie where Purpleface McMalthus murders half the universe because reasons that must never be questioned.
And, of course, Moore is absolutely correct.
Bruce also didn’t do all the scummy things people typically have to do to become that rich. He inherited his wealth and there’s so much of it that it’s self perpetuating. He could sell his company, give 99% of his money away, and still have enough to live comfortably on just the interest it generates.
Oh, to the extent everyone else can be they are. Which is very little.
Bill Gates almost completely eradicated polio, contributed seriously towards the eradication of malaria, and is addressing the AIDS epidemic in Africa. He and Buffet have been working on a micro-reactor energy project for several years now.
He’s also done a lot of wide-spread horrible things to get that money though, that’s the thing, the good stuff billionaires do rarely makes up for the stuff they’ve done to get that money in the first place. The most fantastical thing about Batman is that he and his parents are usually depicted at face value as good rich people who get their money legitimately without hurting anyone and then only do good things with that money. And despite that Gotham is still an eternally crime-ridden cess pit. Most billionaires donate huge amounts to non-profits or start their own. Hell I bet trump himself has done plenty of philanthropy, but that automatically doesn’t make up for the way they earned their blood money in the first place. Is Bill Gates going out of his way to lobby for taxing the rich, or universal healthcare, or other systemic changes that would help a lot of people but likely reduce the rate he accumulates wealth? Because he has more than enough money to make large waves in those political arenas and still be rich for the rest of his life. If he never made another cent and gave away 90% of his money to homeless people he would still have enough left to be rich for the rest of his life.
That’s true. He was a ruthless businessman while running Microsoft, and hurt a lot of people, and the industry as a whole.
I seriously doubt that. Every one of his charities that I’ve heard of was actually a fraudulent grift. He stole from cancer patients! I’d be seriously shocked to learn that he’s done a single charitable thing in his life that didn’t directly benefit him.
No, but he has stated that he thinks he and his peers should be taxed a lot higher than they are.
Idk if Gate’s overall influence balances towards the negative or positive, but I do recognize that he has done some seriously positive things for the world after accumulating his wealth.
I guess Mark Cuban is the closest we get to ethical billionaire
Edit you chuds didn’t really realize this was a joke? Lemmy has just continually gotten worse the more redditors it absorbs
Taylor Swift. Fight me.
Scratch that. Dolly Parton. Her net worth shows as much less because she keeps giving it away.
The upvotes have spoken 👍
Does Taylor actually do much? I thought she just hung out being a rich person and occasionally influencing people on social issues by her presence alone rather than by explicit action?
In the continuum of “ethical billionaire” (as much as that’s possible) to “evil billionaire” she’s pretty much “neutral”.