Tag: i

theroguefeminist:

mellenabrave:

harlequinhatter:

weare-monk:

aspiringwarriorlibrarian:

lesbwian:

Superheroes that are like “if we kill them we’re just as bad as they are uwu” ? Micro dick energy

The only exception is Aang, whose whole “I’m not gonna kill him if i can find another way” thing is less false moral equivalency and more “I’m twelve and I have been through way too much bullshit this year to add ‘commit my first murder’ to the list.”

I do respect superheroes who don’t kill, and I really think “we’re as bad as they are if we do it” is a terrible oversimplification of why someone would come to that moral conclusion.

Three reasons why a hero might not kill:

1. They are not granted by their society a “licence to kill.” Many (not all) people accept that a soldier or a judge might need to kill a wrongdoer in the course of their duties. Those people (should) act under strict rules and processes to determine when a death is just. A society, to be peaceful, usually functions under a guarantee that people won’t on their own judgement decide to off people. Vigilantes don’t usually have state-sanctioned authority, but they do rely on public goodwill to be counted as heroes and not menaces or even villains. A hero, especially an independent, self-proclaimed one, may lack the authority or judgement to serve as executioner. Most just societies require a trial before delivering a sentence.

2. They don’t need to. Paradoxically, or maybe not so much so, the stronger a hero is, the less they need to kill. One of the most common defenses for a murder is “self defense,” the idea that the person making the plea was in so much danger from the deceased that killing them was justifiable. But once you’re a swordsman swift enough to cut bullets or a muscleman strong enough to lift trucks, who’s that big a threat? As your control over your power and your ability to master an opponent both increase (and barring completely wild or uncontrolled abilities, these two are very linked) the easier it becomes to hold back, to subdue with the minimal amount of damage and to render even the worst villains neutralized without going nuclear.

3. The power to kill is bad for their mental health. Not everyone can perform even a “just” killing with a clean conscience. A hero might fear the trauma of killing, and seek to avoid the damage. Or a hero might introspect, and realize that, should they kill today, tomorrow the choice will be easier. Killing an opponent, rather than subduing them, is often the easy way out, and a hero who comes to rely on that solution might find themselves killing more and more, Even if killing isn’t addictive, a hero might still fear that mindset.

Now, a common version of this problem is Batman, who wouldn’t kill the Joker even if the Joker is at maximum edge, dealing out huge terrorist acts and body counts. The best reason for Batman not to kill him isn’t “I am as bad as the Joker if I kill,” but more, “I am a man who uses superheroism as a trauma coping mechanism, and if I start committing extrajudicial killings my mental state and my loose alliance with the police will both deteriorate.” 

THANK. YOU.

The thing is, the “no killing” rule often gets basterized by writers who don’t understand it. That’s especially prelivant with Batman and his extended family.

Batman’s refusal to kill the Joker after Jason’s death for exampel was originally due to the fact that Bruce was extremly unstable and would have completly snapped. Yet people seem under the impression that this meant Batman had some kind of delusional attachment to the Joker and that’s why he kept him alive.

So now Batman’s refusal to kill people is spawned from some false sense of justice more often then not rather then him being literally traumatized by the idea of losing controll over himself.

Damian is a similar case where his “no killing” rule is part of his unlearning process and to prevent his ptsd from being triggered. He keeps this rule not because of some sort of idealism but because it is a necessary boundary to both keep the trust of his support system and to keep his own mental health in check. However a lot of writers seem to not understand that either and believe that Damian would activly kill if given the choice to do so.

So rather then characters who refuse to kill being the issue, it’s writers who misunderstand the reason behind them not killing and push harmful, victim blaiming agendas with it.

I feel like sometimes people on Tumblr overlook the importance of personal philosophies and codes of ethics for individuals, with this belief that everyone must conform to some radical leftist ethos or something. The person talking about Aang is really oversimplifying his motives. Aang is a Buddhist and it’s a huge aspect of his character. An important aspect of Buddhism is never killing others, which even includes vegetarianism. All life is precious. Part of Aang’s whole philosophy and outlook on life is nonviolence.

And consider Kenshin from Rurouni Kenshin and Vash from Trigun. Both live in extremely violent societies: Kenshin is a former samurai who used to kill with impunity and Vash lives in a sci-fi version of the Wild West. By rejecting killing outright, these characters have a particular approach to promoting peace in their respective settings. Their histories of killing others also tie into it, but they also are up against enemies who place very little value in human life. The point isn’t so much “killing makes me as bad as you” but rather “unlike you, I value human life, and killing is against my code of ethics.”

Consider the rejection of the death penalty as another example. A horrible person may deserve to be punished and may have taken many innocent lives, but some would argue that killing is in and of itself wrong regardless.

Just because a character values human life and morally opposes killing doesn’t mean they think their enemies are redeemable or that killing their enemy is an act of the same “badness” as their enemies’ actions. There are many valid reasons people choose not to kill or harm others. Striving for peace and nonviolence in no way makes you weak or “problematic.”