#Batsalt

[glitter-stained]

Ngl it really peeves me when the debate about Jason's ethics regarding killing in the batfam mixes up the question of him being a moral character in regards to sticking to his own philosophy (aka compromising with what he thinks is right to salvage relationships, but also exploding trains to evade capture, killing random goons in a gang war, etc) and the question of him being a moral character in regards to whether his philosophy is right. And even with regards to his philosophy there is his philosophy on politics, crime control and harm reduction, and his ethical philosophy itself (utilitarianism, aka focusing on intended positive consequences of actions for the greater good rather than the action being fundamentally moral or immoral in itself). Those are different things. Those require different debates and should not be conflated together. I'm not even saying Jason is right! I think utilitarianism and deontology both suck and fail at providing sufficient guidelines for moral behaviour. ("Everybody still loses" like the nihilist clown says. The symbolism of that one scene is pretty cool on that regard.)

And I think some people at dc would very much like for you to make the connection that because Jason is harming civilians/killing unnamed goons, he is a bad person, and as such you don't need to examine the way his stance on moral philosophy (utilitarianism) opposes Batman's. But that's not right, they don't get to wiggle out of the fact that utilitarianism vs deontology is a complicated debate that has been going on for ages, that there is no clear-cut answer where Batman fundamentally comes out on top, they don't get to use the fact that Jason (in the era currently discussed) is a villain to saddle us with a false dichotomy of "well jason is wrong about stuff so batman has to be right" to avoid addressing the actual question. The traits of the people being tied on the tracks do not change the shape of the trolley problem. The traits of the person deciding to pull the lever do not change the shape of the trolley problem. It's still one lever, three people tied on one track, one on the other, do you pull the lever. That's it. Yes, bending the metaphor to address other questions (such as "who keeps tying people to the tracks" to question systemic violence or "how does my bias, my prejudice and empathy impact my decision to pull the lever depending on who is on the tracks") are interesting but that's not what the debate is about. If I wrote an essay about the trolley problem in high school and focused primarily on the nature of the people being tied on the tracks, I'd get a big fat zero with "off-topic" written in red all over my essay, so I'm not inclined to allow DC comics to get away with it.

[magnoliasandarson]

(T)imposter Syndrome

He didn't need Jason (his hero) beating him to a bloody pulp and calling him "replacement". He was already painfully aware he was a placeholder.

Alfred kept him at arm's length and Bruce could barely speak a sentence to him that wasn't case related. Dick was a light in the darkness, but even he was trying to prove he could be a good brother because he failed with Jason. His parents only tolerated his existence on the best of days, and the Titans were not the family Dick promised they would be. (Maybe Kon would miss him)

He had photographed the costumed Wayne's from afar for years. It was pathetic and sad, but because of it he knew them. He knew he was being looked through. Even if they were looking through him though, they were looking to him. It was beyond pathetic, but he could handle the vacant stares if it meant their eyes were on him.

Laying in a pool of his own blood, Tim stared at the steadily darkening ceiling. He hadn't cried when Jason attacked him, when his hero back-from-the-dead jammed their symbol into his chest. He hadn't cried when Jason walked away, leaving him to die alone. As strange as it was, he decided he wouldn't cry about this. He should've known better, he didn't deserve to cry about his folly. (I'll give you something to cry about.)

His eyes closed of their own accord, and he used whatever strength he had left to yank the bloodied R from his chest. This was what he deserved for trying to be the one in front of the camera.

[ijustthinkhesneat]

I genuinely like to believe that Bruce’s natural state is Brucie. His resting persona. I think Bruce is smart don’t get me wrong, but you can be smart and ditzy. My citation is Legally Blonde.

I think the Batman persona for him is ultimately a flexing of the mental muscles. Like he read one article on how to be a serious adult and was like I’m gonna do that at 9000%.

I believe that after Jason died is when Batman stopped being the mask, at least for a while. And yeah trauma, dead kid. But it’s also because Bruce was in the reverse position to when his parents were murdered. He was the parent who outlived his child. So he couldn’t afford to not be on edge, the vulnerability it takes to be silly and mess wasn’t going to keep his other son safe. It wouldn’t keep Dick or Tim or Damian safe.

I think if they steered back to Bruce learning to be vulnerable around his friends and especially around his family the comics could be so much better and set the base for many more stories that weren’t a repeat of the same cycle of abuse. It feels like the comics have been hell bent on breaking these characters for so long. Chipping them down to the worst, darkest parts of themselves. And that’s fine. But the writers don’t know when to stop. They can’t see that there is nothing left to break anymore.

[redhoodinternaldialectical]

"Murder is Werewolves" - Batman

I don't got the SPOONS to do this thought train justice, I have seriously been trying to write this thing for MONTHS so just, idk, have this half baked skeletal outline of the essay I guess:

I don't believe that Batman's no-kill rule is primarily about rehabilitation or second chances.

His refusal to believe that Cassandra could have killed someone when she was eight years old because "how could a killer understand my commitment not to kill" is absolute fucking MOON LOGIC from a rehabilitationist standpoint. No jury on the planet would think for even a second that she could reasonably be held accountable for her actions in that situation! Her past cannot condemn her to being incapable of valuing human life under a rehabilitation centering framework. However, Batman's reasoning makes perfect sense if he believes that killing is a spiritually/morally corrupting act which permanently and fundamentally changes a person, and that corruption can never be fully undone.

Dick Grayson killing the Joker is treated both narratively and by Batman as an unequivocally WIN for the Joker. The Joker won by turning Nightwing into a killer. Note that this is during a comic in which the Joker transforming people was a major theme! Batman didn't revive the Joker because the Joker deserved to live; he revived the Joker to lift the burden on Dick.

His appeal to Stephanie when she tried to kill her dad is that she shouldn't ruin her own life. He gives no defense of Cluemaster's actual life. Granted this is a rhetorical strategy moment and should be taken with a generous pinch of salt, but it fits in the pattern.

When Jason becomes a willful killer, he essentially disowns him, never treats him with full trust ever again, and... Well, we can stop here for Bruce's sake. Bottom line is that his actions towards Jason do not lead me to believe that he thinks Jason can become a better person without having his autonomy taken from him, either partially or fully.

The Joker is, for better or worse, the ultimate symbol and vessel of pure, irredeemable evil in DC comics now. He hasn't been just another crook in a long time. He will never get better, he will only get worse. If you take it to be true that the Joker will not or can not rehabilitate, then there's no rehabilitationist argument against killing him.

Batman does not seem to consider it a possibly that he'll rehabilitate. Batman at several points seems to think that the Joker dying in a manner no one could have prevented would be good. Yet Batman fully believes that if he killed the Joker, he himself would become irredeemable.

Batman's own form of justice (putting people into the hospital and then prison) is fucking brutal and clearly not rehabilitative. He disrespects the most basic human rights of all criminals on a regular basis. It is genuinely really, really weird from a rehabilitationist standpoint that his only uncrossable line is killing... But it makes perfect sense if he cares more about not corrupting himself with the act of killing than the actual ethical results of any individual decision to kill or not kill.

In the real world cops are all bastards because they are too violent to criminals, even when that violence doesn't lead to death. Prison is a wildly evil thing to do to another human being, and you don't use it to steal away massive portions of a person's life if your goal is to rehabilitate them. In the comic world, Batman is said to be necessary because the corrupt cops are too nice to criminals and keep letting them out of jail. I don't know how to write a connector sentence there so like I hope you can see why this bothers me so damn much! That's just not forgiveness vibes there Batman!!

I want to make special note here of the transformative aspect. You don't simply commit a single act when you kill, no, you become a killer, like you might become a werewolf.

The narrative supports this a lot!

Why did Supes go evil during Injustice? He killed the Joker. Why did Bruce become the Batman Who Laughs? Bruce killed the Joker. Why was Jason Todd close to becoming a new Joker during Three Jokers? Because he killed people, to include the Joker.

Even if these notions of redemption being impossible aren't the whole of his reasoning (people never have only one reason for doing what they do) it is a distinct through-line pattern in his actions and reasoning, and it is directly at odds with notions of rehabilitation, redemption, and second chances.

So why does he give so many killers second chances?

Firstly because this doesn't apply to all versions of Batman. Some writers explicitly incorporate rehabilitation and forgiveness into his actions. You will be able to provide me with examples of this other through-line pattern if you go looking for them. The nature of comics is to be inconsistent.

Secondly the existence of that other pattern does not negate the existence of this one. People and characters are complex, and perfectly capable of holding two patterns of belief within themselves, even when they conflict to this degree. You can absolutely synthesize these two ideas into a single messy Batman philosophical vibescape.

Finally and most importantly to this essay: he has mercy on killers the same way that werewolf hunters sometimes have mercy on someone who is clearly struggling against their monsterous nature, especially if they were turned in exceptional circumstances or against their will. They understand that they are sick, damned beasts, cursed to always be fighting against themselves and the evil they harbor within. It is vitally kind to help them fight themselves by curtailing their autonomy in helpful ways and providing them with chances to do some good to make up for their eternal moral deficiency.

I think in many comics Batman views killers as lost souls. Battered and tormented monsters who must be pitied and given mercy wherever possible. (The connections to mental health, addiction, and rampant, horrifying ableism towards people struggling with both is unavoidable, but addressing it is sadly outside of the scope of this essay.)

Above all, the greatest care possible must be taken to never, ever let yourself become one of them, because once you have transformed the beast will forever be within you growing stronger.

To Batman, it is the most noble burden, the highest mercy, the most important commandment: Thou shalt suffer the monsters to live.

[comicslina]

It's not perfect, but at least we have WFA, where the writers obviously care about the characters.

....the movie is going to treat Jason like shit, isn't it?

[notdexterousatall]

Catatonic!Jason fic where he ends up back with the Bats before Talia grabs him. Due to situations, he gets left alone with the Joker for a bit before the rest of the Bats show up to rescue him. Jason's first lucid act of his second life is to strangle Joker to death. Bruce and family come back to find Jason wringing the life out of Joker's lifeless corpse, viciously.

[cologona]

The victim-blaming of Jason Todd is such an ugly refutation of what his Robin was meant to stand for it’s depressing.

Worse yet the victim-blaming ultimately neither absolves Bruce nor works as a proper narrative patch for the hole his death left in the fantasy. If Jason wasn’t good enough to be Robin and Bruce’s greatest mistake was to give him the mantle, it’s still Bruce’s mistake for putting a vulnerable unprepared kid in the line of fire.

So now not only is the narrative making the ugly statement that actually, some people (*cough cough* poor and marginalized people) are not worthy of being empowered, and are better off keeping their head down than to try and make a positive impact, Bruce still looks like a total piece of shit.

I for one am comfortable with Bruce being a piece of shit. He’s a complex and flawed character etc etc. What I won’t stand for is Batman’s greatest mistake being believing in Robin; that condescending mess of a moral the story turned to. Bruce fucked up nine kinds of ways when he met Jason, but the one thing he got right was recognizing Jason’s worthiness to be a hero.

The child soldier issue is only an issue so long as we’re unable to articulate how it was Bruce’s continual failure to understand and provide for Jason’s needs as an individual and communicate with him, that created the precarious situation which lead to his death. (Bruce’s self-centerednsss leads to a teenager’s death twice after Steph.)

I don’t think it was an accident that Jason’s introduction included an arc where he found out Bruce hid his father’s death from him right as he officially became Robin. That was meant to be a wake-up call for Bruce. This boy isn’t Dick, he isn’t you. He doesn’t do this out of grief or out of anger. He is the will to do good given power, and to be his partner you must step outside of your own perspective.

[glitter-stained]

Currently writing the csa meta and having, uh, big feelings about Starlin's decisions, so here's to remembering that, on a fundamental level, his plan failed:

Oh you want us to hate Jaybin? You want that kid to die? You want to kill Robin as a character entirely? Lmao

+ bonus because it's funny:

[magnoliasandarson]

Dick Grayson, Golden Boy

It pissed Dick off when Jason called him “Golden Boy,” but he understood why he said it. 

Dick Grayson had been the first- the first son, the first Robin, the first failure, and the first success. He was the prodigal son, the runaway who returned to his place at Bruce’s side. It was a position earned with blood—a terrible privilege. He couldn't stay away, he'd tried, he was the only one that could temper Bruce's fire.

Dick drew lines in the sand- screamed in Bruce’s face, called him out on his failings, demanded better of him- then he took the man’s punches “for not knowing his place.” There was never an apology (not that Dick would accept it). He wiped the blood off his face, and when someone asked what happened, he said he slipped up, and some random mugger got in a lucky shot. He wasn’t sure who he was protecting when he said it. He still rushes to Bruce's side when called.

He recognizes bits of Bruce eating away at his soul. He tries desperately to stay Mary and John’s son, tries to keep the light alive in his soul. Robin is magic. He feels the darkness creeping in at the edges of his mind. He’s Nightwing; he’s not in Gotham, not in Bruce’s shadow, but he’s never been more of a Bat. He isolates himself and pushes people away. He’s too controlling, too morally rigid. The fearless leader become tyrant.

He fails each of the Robins in new and increasingly horrifying ways, but always for the same reason: he puts the mission first. Bruce is proud of him for it; somehow, that approval hurts him more than any punch ever did. It keeps him up at night, Tim’s face when he left (forced away by Dick’s actions), Damian’s pride at becoming Robin (he was only ten), Jason’s eyes filled with resentment and deep sadness (he had been right all along). 

He hates Bruce when he sees him in the mirror. He hates Bruce when he hears him in his own voice. Bruce Wayne was the worst person on Earth, but Dick Grayson was his favorite son. So what did that make him?

[cologona]

Which is it Bruce? Is it your fault or his?

(Trick question. It is Bruce’s fault for not having control, and Jason’s fault because Robin is an extension of himself (Batman). Robin should’ve had control of the situation (should’ve been like Dick) and failing that he should’ve given control to Batman (obeyed Bruce).

As a side note: because it’s all ultimately Bruce’s fault, Batman’s failure, this means that justice for Jason comes in the form of Bruce’s self-flagellating manpain. Surely if Bruce punishes himself with a big fat display and stews in his misery that does something good?

The original 80′s Jason Todd vs how writers perceive him now. 

[jasontoddsno1simp]

It's infinitely humorous to me how, in 2025, we're still having conversations and discussions - discoursing, as the children say - about why Jason's on screen death matters more than any of the other on screen deaths within the Bat comics.

A Death in the Family was the end of the road for Jason. He was meant to die and stay dead. This is rare for comic book characters because the medium is serialization taken to its (il)logical extreme. Removing a character from the chess board is a waste. There's always something Deeper^TM.

Not with Jason.

That bitch was dead and he was supposed to stay dead.

The only other Robin who died and was meant to stay dead was Stephanie. And let's be fucking real here - most of you do not care about that girl. You're not thinking about her, you're thinking of your favorite Batboy. And that's fine!! But let's not kid ourselves here.

There's a million reasons why Jason's death is a cut above most other deaths in the Batfam that we can discourse endlessly about but the main one - the one that truly matters, imo - is that he died was supposed to stay that way.

A Death in the Family was supposed to be his curtain call. It is not cruel or callous to say that that was not the case for your Blorbo.

I can imagine that some JT stans are being cruel and callous when they say that, but then again, a lot of Batstans are being cruel and callous when they say Jason's death wasn't that big a deal and he needs to get over it. They're being cruel and callous when they compare their faves' on screen death to his, as if they werent gonna get their fave character back within six months to a year, tops. That their fave wasn't gonna slot their way back into their spot in the narrative, as if they never left.

And, if I may,.it's honestly fucked up to high heavens that some of y'all are okay with the writers killing off your fave for cheap character drama just so you can lord it over JT stans. I know most of y'all don't think of it that way, but how else am I supposed to see that?! You talk about a potentially traumatizing event as if it's just some kind of Gotcha you can use to shut up people you don't like.

Friend, that's fucked.

Anyway, I've said what I needed to say. I don't expect y'all to care for my Blorbo the way I do cause that's not how that works. But can we exercise the baring hints of critical thinking?!

I'm begging.

[cologona]

Jason and Talia both attempting to separate themselves from their fathers and both being forcibly chained back to them by love by the status quo by the fact that they don’t get to have their integrity matter.

[glitter-stained]

No actually I'm tired of this dunking on jason fans for real. "Jason fans are stupid", "Jason fans are such special snowflakes", "jason has no personality aside from fanon but his fans are too dumb to see it"

Like no, actually. I'm not gonna apologize on behalf of my fellow fans or bend over backwards to prove that we're not all like that, or play the fandom pick-me because someone decided we were stupid annoying fanon fangirls just for having different taste. If we're gonna pretend like this isn't a profoundly absurd take have we considered that maybe we see something in him that you don't and that makes you stupid? Like, some people really are out there acting like being another character's fan makes them morally and intellectually superior how do you not see the shallowness and absurdity of that position.

Like, fandom is annoying. This is Tumblr. You will see people making it all about their blorbo and having takes you definitely don't agree with and you would be amazed by the potential of the block button and filter option of this website. Like, you don't actually have to interact with people you disagree with, you just don't have to be a dick about it. I would rather defend my fellow fans with the most incorrect takes than prove my worth to someone who thinks making assumptions about people's intelligence (and fucking sharing them unprompted) based on what character they like is appropriate and justified.

[magnoliasandarson]

Stephanie Brown, Stained Glass

It's easy to disregard Stephanie Brown. She was unremarkable, through and through. Another loudmouth who never learned when to shut up. Another Gotham reject harboring a bone to pick with the world. 

Her mom loved her; she had at least that going for her, but it wasn't motherly love as seen on TV. Whenever her mom wasn't popping pills to drown out her emotions, she was weeping about Stephanie's dad. Speaking of the douche, Cluemaster, how original. She couldn't make her dad behave as Stephanie, but if she donned a mask, she'd be able to spoil his fun.

Spoiler took to the streets, and suddenly people saw her. Not the loudmouth whose dad got his ass kicked by Batman, Spoiler. And she was glorious. Course the Bat disagreed, said she was unpolished and unprepared. But that emo furry didn't get an opinion on how Stephanie lived her life, and Tim was always there to smooth things over if B took it too far. Tim was sweet and all, but Stephanie knew damn well what it felt like when people looked at her and saw only a step in their path. So when Boy Blunder fucked off, she donned a new mask because she'd always been worthy of his time, and he was an idiot.

She was good at being Robin; whether Batfuck would agree or not is totally irrelevant. She saved his life, and he fired her. Her eyes caught on the memorial in the cave, A Good Soldier. Yeah, maybe Stephanie wasn't a good soldier, but being one hadn't done Jason any favors. If the Bat's idea of a good Robin was a rule-following pushover, Stephanie would show him a great Robin was anything but.

She set out to prove once and for all that she, Stephanie Brown, was good- at her job, at being a hero, at being a daughter- good. She nabs one of Batfuck's underdeveloped schemes off the Batcomputer and modifies it to suit her. Maybe she wasn't the problem, maybe- just maybe, the problem was B's bullshit. Her plan goes beautifully. She's alive, brilliant, and better than ever- and she was right all along: she was a hero. They find her body hours later.

She didn't even get a memorial.

[cologona]

“Red Hood is a pimp-“ yeah, I sure hope he is!! If Mr ‘Controlling Crime’ isn’t also keeping things cool for sex workers then that’d be pretty scummy of him wouldn’t it?

[glitter-stained]

Look, I'll say it: Zurr isn't a magical demon that took over Bruce's body, it's a vilifying, demonizing take on induced DID. I can't keep seeing people fight to defend Bruce's honour in Gotham War by saying "it wasn't actually him so it's not his fault", reject the Lazarus Pit Madness headcanon because "Jason and he alone did his crimes and he has no excuse", and then we're talking about how Bruce's or Dick's trauma is what made him a hero, one post later on my board it's "the lazarus pit madness headcanon is unnecessary because Jason's behaviour is completely explainable and logical if you just take in account that he has cptsd" (or bpd depending on the post) and then that fanfic I had to stop reading because a character literally was screaming at Jason "so what you died get over yourself but you weren't magically controlled by the pit so you have zero excuse and justification for being angry" and then a post about "wow why is Batman punching down on all these mentally ill people", and then in the replies "are you dumb it's because those crazies are bombing orphanages..."

I'm still thinking about that moment in "dumpster slasher" where Batman is like "the killer is still free while poor Elmore [a homeless guy with substance use disorder and major neurocognitive disorder] is being shipped off to Arkham... This doesn't sit right" yeah buddy I'm sure if you ponder that for a while, the reason why the fact the only mental health facility in your city is also a prison for dangerous criminals with no apparent mental illness doesn't sit right with you will appear to you eventually.

Maybe it's time to confront the fact that the difference between a hero and villain in dc is often whether their mental illness is demonized, glorified or minimized. Or the fact that attenuated circumstances and responsibility exists on a gradient and there is such thing as "altered responsibility due to mental illness" in a trial. Maybe it's not "oh it was this evil Zurr/Batman entity, not Bruce/Batman, so there is no responsibility to be taken and anyone condemning those actions as abuse is talking in bad faith" maybe it's "this is a terrible representation of something that exists and should be treated respectfully" and "I don't have to accept this terribly harmful rethoric and fucked up depiction into my conception of my fav's characterization in such a dislocated, often incoherent canon if I don't want to."

And also maybe it's "if we accept this event/depiction as canon it doesn't mean that we have to either bash the character completely or erase his mental illness into something vaguer/mystical that would somehow absolve him of his place in this situation".

And maybe it's "what does accountability for your harmful actions looks like when your judgement was heavily impaired by mental illness, and what judgement can be placed upon you and who decides where people are placed on that continuum of responsibility and how do we acknowledge and go forward into repairing things when severe harm/abuse was done under impaired judgement and also how do you reconcile all of this with your sense of self, (especially in conditions like bpd/cptsd and especially did where the sense of self is already so altered/complicated) with what your values are, what you want to be, what you are capable of doing and what you thought about yourself before the bad thing happened." I don't know any simple, correct, good answer, especially not a one size fits all. All I know is: the desire to be a good person, and be able to distinctively separate people between bad and good, is profoundly human and, at times when lines of responsibility get blurry, profoundly unhelpful. Most people who are going to hurt you aren't mentally ill. Most people who do terrible things aren't mentally ill, and sometimes people are mentally ill and hurt people and the two have nothing to do with eachother. But it is also a reality that sometimes judgement is impaired and behaviour is altered due to mental illness, and then you need to figure out where to go from there. Acknowledging this while also fighting stigmatisation is a complicated business. It's messy. Mental illness often is. I'm weary of any rethoric that pretends it's simple.