#anti the punisher

[wanderingmind867]

I always put Jason Todd high on my tier list because I feel like he was dealt injustice upon injustice by his writers. Well, that and he seems really relatable. Likes reading, anger issues, maybe (if i start projecting more of my personal issues) lonely? There's stuff to relate to in there. And that stuff makes me feel really inclined to put him in my S tier or my A tier. But i'm starting to wonder...what really separates him from the punisher? The punisher is another violent vigilante who kills, and I despise him. So what? Is my anger at the comic writers of the past obscuring a hatred for the character of the present? Possibly. Honestly, this is almost definitely true.

Because I hate characters who kill and then try to take a high ground. If you're fighting crime with guns, you're not fighting crime. You are the crime. You're the encouragement for militia mobs and politically motivated shooters. It reeks of american culture, this pervasive idea that guns solve everything. Everyone wants to be some sort of cowboy or lawman, bringing people to justice. But there's no such thing as justice when you decide to pump people full of lead. America is a country with a unique history of gun worship and gun violence. Characters like the punisher, red hood, all these other line wolf violent vigilantes...they definitely don't make things better.

War begets more war, always. You have to start with peace, and let war serve only as your last resort. Don't take it off the table, but don't jump to it. America doesn't seem to understand that. If they did, people wouldn't idolize the violent anti heroes (I'm not talking Hulk or Morbius here, by the way). Anti heroes (like deadpool, the punisher, red hood, etc) are possibly worse than heroes or villains. Because they're like evil cloaked in good. They can hide their bad tendencies with good intentions and silly words. They're worse than anything else.

So what I really want is Jason Todd as Robin back. I want that pre-crisis kid who never hurt a fly. I don't really want the red hood, who serves as an embodiment of a lot of bad things. I still really like Jason Todd (and he's still probably gonna stay high on my tierlists), but at least i've not acknowledged the inherent hypocrisy of liking him but hating the punisher.

[autistichalsin]

Some of you are literally watching the right wing continuously try to expand the definition of "pedophilia" to include "existing around a child while queer," and then agreeing with them when they say pedophiles deserve to be summarily executed.

Not only does this place innocent people in danger of political executions, it also puts children in danger, as most children who are sexually abused have this done by someone close to them, and feelings that they would be responsible for the death of their abuser if they reported leads to lower rates of reporting. It also leads to higher rates of abusers murdering their victims when they're found out because the punishment will be the same anyway.

Part of being on the left is realizing that it's better to let 100 guilty men go free than to wrongly convict one. Another part of being on the left is realizing that one's life is never something others have the right to take away- even the most evil people alive. Yes, that includes mass murderers and rapists and pedophiles. Once you make one group acceptable to kill, you give others a vested interest in defining groups they have prejudice against into that group.

You have to start dealing with the fact that no crime makes one's life forfeit. Not even the worst most depraved and sadistic acts. The worst people alive have rights, and if you can't accept that they deserve them, at least try to accept that it is to your benefit that they retain rights no matter what they're accused of. And if you can't do even that, well... you just might be the kind of person who would cut off your nose to spite your face.

If you want to protect victims, if you want to protect minority groups, you have to realize that sex crimes, or any crimes at all, do not deserve the death penalty. Period.

[hyperlexichypatia]

I'm not, generally speaking, a fan of punishment as a solution to social problems. Punishment is often overly harsh, ineffective as a deterrent, and doesn't solve the actual problem. The punitive mentality is more focused on making sure the "bad guys" "don't get away with it" than on actually solving the problem.

But I get a lot more worried when people talk about "alternatives to punishment", or when they support their proposed solutions because "it's not punishment."

Because what that means, in practice, is "I'm conceptualizing this form of coercive control as 'not punishment,' and therefore not subjecting it to the rigor, due process, or evidentiary standards of punishment."

The U.S. loves punishment. It's one of our favorite national pastimes. But we do have, both legally and culturally, some limitations on punishment, at least in theory. Punishment isn't supposed to be "cruel and unusual." It's not supposed to be inflicted without "due process of law." You're supposed to be convicted by a jury of your peers.

But if you call it "not punishment," none of that matters!

You can force people to register under a law that didn't exist when they committed their crimes, because it's "administrative," not punitive.

You can subject disabled people to shocks similar to a cattle prod -- which would surely be cruel and unusual punishment -- but it's okay, because it's not "punishment," it's a "treatment" called an "aversive" (that's therapist for "punishment").

You can have people locked up and forcibly drugged solely because they can't afford housing, but it's okay, because it's "help," not "punishment."

Police can kill people in cold blood -- judge, jury, and executioner -- and it's fine, because it's "self-defense," not "punishment," even if they argue after the fact that the victim "deserved it."

It's also a matter of cultural attitudes. If you said "The punishment for trespassing should be life in prison," or "The punishment for loitering should be permanent loss of the right to control one's body, money, or living space," or "The punishment for turnstile-jumping should be lifelong forced ingestion of drugs that numb basic cognitive functions," most people would think this was horrific, much too harsh a punishment for a relatively minor crime.

But if you change it to "Instead of jailing and punishing unhoused people with mental health issues, we should respond to their minor crimes by Getting Them Help, like institutionalization, conservatorship, or outpatient commitment," people now think this is completely reasonable.

Even being the victim of a crime can get someone not-punished far more severely than the perpetrators are "punished." People might serve jail time for financial fraud, but not usually a life sentence. Being the victim of financial fraud, however, can lead to a life sentence of institutionalization -- which fraud investigators have cited as a barrier to getting victims to report fraud. I personally know of multiple disabled young adults who were afraid to report being the victim of sexual assault or other kinds of assault because they knew that if they reported it, the perpetrator might or might not face some kind of punishment, but they would definitely face some type of "not-punishment" coercive control, like forced therapy, forced drugging, supervision, or having to leave school.

You want a society with less punishment? Me too. But only if you acknowledge that "punishment" includes all forms of coercive control. If you do something to someone against their will, if you restrict someone from their right to live as they choose, that's a punishment, regardless of whether you call it that.

[thetimelordbatgirl]

JK Rowling last year: "I'll happily go to jail for my transphobia!"

Imane and France now to her:

[the-daily-dreamer]

So a lot of people have talked about the weird sexual punishment and embarrassment utilized against team green and I wanted to weigh in because I think it’s the perfect example of the hypocrisy of this show’s messaging.

Because on the surface, HOTD takes a very sex positive stance. They champion Rhaenyra for being very open with her sexuality and for being sexually liberated in a very conservative society. They act as if she is an impressive beacon of feminism for this. And that would be great…if it weren’t for the fact that this sex positive outlook lives and dies with Rhaenyra’s and team black’s sexual experiences only.

Outside of Rhaenyra’s perspective, sex scenes are often degrading, predatory, abusive, and meant to embarrass the character to others in universe and/or the audience.

Criston is seen saying no and trying to leave when being coerced into sex with Rhaenyra which she promptly ignores by kissing him and blocking the door. Then that sex he consistently has with Rhaenyra is used as a joke for how pathetic he is for not accepting her offer to be nothing more than a personal “whore”. And his consensual sex with Alicent is seen as hypocrisy but also interrupted by Helaena after blood and cheese so that he can be blamed for this atrocity because of his “immorality”.

Aemond is seen cuddling in the lap like a young child of the woman who raped him when he was young, then being served milk, and then walking out of the brothel naked. With the whole scene being painted uncomfortable and rather degenerate.

Aegon has a scene of him being a rapist to ensure he is known as a bad and evil man. And then he has a scene where he explicitly states how his genitalia have been damaged. As if his disability from his attack is embarrassing and disgusting.

Larys one of the few disabled characters in the show, has a fetish that surrounds his disability that he uses to degrade Alicent. Thereby making him seem disgusting and pathetic.

And of course. Alicent. Her first sexual encounter we see her have is her looking dead inside while being raped by her pedophilic husband, a scene that seems to have the connotation of deserved assault because “she asked for this” by “seducing” Viserys. She is fetishized for information and thus makes her seem degraded and gross. Her sex with Criston is interrupted by Helaena after blood and cheese so that she, too, is blamed for the atrocity of the murder of her grandchild because she was “immoral” for…having consensual sex with someone after her rapist husband finally dies.

Every scene that any team green character experiences is painted in a way that portrays them as disgusting, perverted, and immoral; or is painted in a way that is meant to humiliate these characters to others in and out of universe.

How is this sexually positive? How is this an appropriate way to portray your “villains”, by painting them negatively and embarrassing them through their sexual encounters?

-

The worst part is that they’ve used these sexually degrading scenes specifically to “humble” a rape victim and child bride. Humbling her because they believe that she is power hungry and desperate for the throne and so she uses and betrays Viserys and Rhaenyra. And aside from that being a major mischaracterization (Alicent didn’t want the throne as a teenage girl forced to marry the king, and she doesn’t betray Viserys and Rhaenyra out of personal ambition but protection for her family), you know who that description fits? DAEMON TARGARYEN.

Daemon wanted the throne more than anything. Groomed his teenage niece to have a chance to marry her to get closer to the title of king. Betrayed, humiliated, and hurt his brother and niece wife to make himself a better candidate as heir. Choked his niece wife when she didn’t listen to him. And consistently asserted himself as king, a position to be viewed as higher than his wife the queen.

And similar to Alicent, he was “humbled” this season. But how was he humbled? By having private visions that are unknown to (almost) everyone. And these visions are mostly just him being shown the people he hurt in the process of seeking his power. Except for the one with his mother, which is sexually inclined, but not presented in the same depraved and humiliating way that the scenes with Alicent or any of team green are.

-

This whole show just has such a gross way of depicting the people they see as villains. And it shows how hypocritical their messaging is. HOTD is not a feminist, sex positive show. It’s far too obsessed with sexual violence and humiliation against people they dislike to be one. This show believes that sexual positivity and liberty is good. But only for those who deserve it. That it’s not a right but rather a privilege. And anyone they deem as immoral, evil, bad, or “unfeminist” doesn’t deserve it. They deserve to be ridiculed, humiliated, and humbled by their failures as people. And I can’t stand it.

This show isn’t sex positive and feminist. It’s Rhaenyra positive. That’s it.

[darcyofmine]

I’m with you on this one. I always thought his portrayal had more nuance on Daredevil than on his own show. I feel like the way they portrayed him on his show is close to that of a hero who does bad things rather than someone truly in the grey area. And in my opinion… a dark grey at that.

I understand his motivations but realistically speaking ? If someone out there was killing anyone he deemed worthy ? I’d be very worried. Because who’s to say this man has any sort of authority on who is "evil" or not? What about people who did bad things in the past and want to change/repent? Who’s to say if they are not sincerely willing to be better ??

I share Matt’s opinion that nobody can act as judge jury and executioner but I also don’t necessarily believe that some acts aren’t deserving of a "harsher" punishment. How that is implemented is another conversation…. But I don’t deny that every single human being is deserving of a fair trial. And his whole mission goes against that.

I think Frank is a man who is haunted by regrets. Regrets of not doing enough for his family and one who was "too late" to do anything. I think going after criminals who hurt others gives him a sort of "purpose" that brings him some sort of sanity. But I do not think he is completely sane either. (Especially after his appearance in Daredevil Born Again).

He is a very tragic character and his show’s job is to make us sympathetic towards him. Which I think they do brilliantly. But I also think it was a missed opportunity to truly dive into his psychology instead of simply going the « he’s a good man inside and he just doesn’t like injustice » route.

Watching The Punisher because I heard it was good and need to fill the time before the next Daredevil episode... I don't know what I was expecting but I was a little taken aback that they made a pro-gun control senator look like a bumbling idiot.

Like I know the MCU has a contract with the US Military to loan out equipment for their franchises in exchange for a favorable portrayal.

I also know that it would make much more sense for citizens to have guns in the Marvel universe where there are like 10+ super powered individuals operating out of NYC at any given time and yet somehow there is more (violent) crime there on a daily basis in NYC than there has ever been IRL, almost as if they by their very nature invite opposition to challenge them (as it was argued in Civil War) and/or they inspire copycats.

Karen Page, of all people, deserves to have a gun because of all of the targets she has placed on her own back either because she's sticking her nose where it doesn't belong (affectionate) or because of the company she keeps (close friendships with BOTH Matt and Frank). If you want to piss off half the vigilantes in Manhattan, she's the one to aim for. So like, in this fictional scenario, she is well within her right to carry a handgun.

Having said all that, all of the language surrounding guns and glorifying the military makes it very easy for me to understand why conservatives have co-opted the Punisher's symbol. He takes pride in having been a Marine despite having committed war crimes during classified missions. He views himself as an executioner and feels like bombs are cowardly because they hurt innocent people and don't require the same willpower to shoot someone dead on. Not to mention how he's the perfect traditional "family man" and makes a point to protect women and children.

Needless to say this is all very idealistic and as Matt argues he has no right to determine who deserves to die based on his own subjective and often hypocritical terms. His argument is that he only kills bad people and even if every person he targets truly is as evil as he believes, only in a superhero world would he somehow never kill or hurt anyone innocent in the crossfire.

I'm having a hard time finding the words to distinguish his justice from that of corrupt cops or other "bad guys with guns" other than the fact that he is not state sanctioned and miraculously never targets anyone who "doesn't deserve it". I think season 2 of Daredevil did a MUCH better job of portraying the grey morality of his actions and painting him as an anti-hero with severe mental health struggles.

Maybe it's because he's the protagonist in his own show, but there's much less of a seed of doubt as to whether he's in the right. I am only 9.5 out of 13 episodes into season 1 so this may change, but the second they introduced the gun control senator I'm consuming the show a little more critically.

If anyone has finished the series or especially if you'd read the comics, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

[nando161mando]

[katy-89]

Thank you Twitter katara fans for existing

[wanderingmind867]

Batman's villians are better than him. And I think that either says something about batman, or it says something about my personal taste. You know what, it probably says something about both. I hate dark, edgy characters. So naturally the violent but dark and boring types like batman don't appeal to me while the more fun and entertaining villains like Joker or Riddler or Two-Face do have an appeal. But also, Batman just isn't as good from an objective standpoint.

Batman sometimes kills just as many as his enemies, but we give him the pass because he's the good guy. And i think that says something about our society. That we can forgive violent people like batman or the punisher because "they're heroes" while condemning people like The Hulk and Two-Face because they're "monsters, villains, etc". And sure, maybe I'm accidentally reading too much into this. But i think I have a valid point here. To forgive some people for violence but then condemn others in the same breath shows the hypocrisy of us all.

[simplegenius042]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Safe Place 🏳‍🌈🏳‍🌈🏳‍🌈 (@fuck_homophobia__)

[greatbananaboat]

so infuriating to me the way ambessa, jinx, viktor, and jayce COMBINED have less anti posts than caitlyn fucking kiramman. they have less than HALF of caitlyn's anti posts! i was curious so i looked up the tags, and here's what i found

anti ambessa medarda: one post

anti jayce talis: one post

anti viktor: six relevant posts (the others are about different characters named viktor)

anti jinx: three relevant posts (the others are about different characters named jinx)

anti caitlyn kiramman:

i'm not wasting my time counting that shit. but clearly and obviously it's more than 11 posts. oh and it's not including posts from the many antis i have blocked.

i'm tired of caitlyn antis. if y'all are shitting on her and not showing that same fucking energy for characters like ambessa, jinx, viktor, and jayce? you can kindly fuck right off. now excuse me while i individually block every one of these people.

[rolandtowen]

In 11 days, Texas is set to execute a man for a crime that never happened

This is Robert Roberson. He has been sitting on Texas' death row for over twenty years after being convicted of murdering his daughter.

The problem? The murder never happened.

Robert was convicted based on the discredited and outdated diagnosis of "shaken baby syndrome", which argued that babies could die from shaking that doesn't leave signs of physical trauma. Robert is also autistic, and his mannerisms lead hospital staff to suspect abuse. There is no evidence that Robert murdered his daughter, Nikki. Killing Robert is not justice.

Please click the link above to sign a petition asking Gov. Greg Abbott to halt Robert's execution. I will also link below to a news article with further information about the case.

[the-daily-dreamer]

LET ALICENT HIGHTOWER HATE HER NEGLECTFUL RAPIST HUSBAND

LET ALICENT HIGHTOWER HATE HER NEGLECTFUL RAPIST HUSBAND

LET ALICENT HIGHTOWER HATE HER NEGLECTFUL RAPIST HUSBAND

LET ALICENT HIGHTOWER HATE HER NEGLECTFUL RAPIST HUSBAND

LET ALICENT HIGHTOWER HATE HER NEGLECTFUL RAPIST HUSBAND

I cannot stand hearing her defend him and speak highly of him. She’s told Rhaenys how she loved him (he took her as an unwilling child bride). She’s told Rhaenyra how she was fond of him and him of her (he couldn’t remember her name and ignored her for years while she attended to his rotting corpse). She tells Aegon how she wants him to be more like his father (the man who she was ruling for and who ignored all their children). She should not be saying this AT ALL. LET ALONE AFTER HE HAS DIED AND SHE HAS DONE EVERYTHING FOR HER SON TO TAKE THE THRONE. LET HER HATE HIM. HE DID NOTHING TO HER BUT RUIN HER LIFE AND HURT HER. SHE DESERVES TO BE ANGRY AT HIM

[nando161mando]

Trickle-down economic theory

He says the more he eats the more crumbs we will get

https://t.me/crapitalism/253

[simplydnp]

totally normal about the 'wedding?' response continuing to evolve even though it's only been 5 shows. at this point i'm convinced the grand plan behind tit is to convince dan via exposure therapy that he's allowed to want to get married

[cheerfullycatholic]

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on the federal death penalty Jan. 20, among the first actions of his second term, directing the attorney general to “pursue the death penalty for all crimes of a severity demanding its use,” prompting statements of concern from Catholic opponents of the practice.

...

The death penalty order was among those Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and head of the U.S. Archdiocese for the Military Services, called “deeply troubling” in a Jan. 22 statement about Trump’s first batch of executive orders in his second term.

...

Krisanne Vaillancourt Murphy, executive director of Catholic Mobilizing Network, a group that advocates for the abolition of capital punishment in line with Catholic teaching, said in a statement Trump’s executive order on the death penalty “makes no sense." “What we know about the death penalty is that it does not deter crime or make communities safer,” Vaillancourt Murphy said. “It’s immoral, flawed and risky, arbitrary and unfair, cruel and dehumanizing. Both the state and federal death penalty systems are broken beyond repair, and emblematic of a throwaway culture.”

...

The Catholic Church’s official magisterium opposes the use of the death penalty as inconsistent with the inherent sanctity of human life, and advocates for the abolition of the practice worldwide. In his 2020 encyclical “Fratelli Tutti,” Pope Francis addressed the moral problem of capital punishment by citing St. John Paul II, writing that his predecessor “stated clearly and firmly that the death penalty is inadequate from a moral standpoint and no longer necessary from that of penal justice.”

“There can be no stepping back from this position,” Pope Francis wrote. Echoing the teaching he clarified in his 2018 revision of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the pontiff said, “Today we state clearly that ‘the death penalty is inadmissible’ and the church is firmly committed to calling for its abolition worldwide.”

Pope Francis on Jan. 9 in his annual audience for members of the diplomatic corps, also said the death penalty “finds no justification today among the instruments capable of restoring justice.”