Youtube comments of (@TheVileEye).
-
6700
-
6100
-
5100
-
4800
-
4000
-
3200
-
3000
-
2500
-
2100
-
1300
-
1100
-
1100
-
1000
-
1000
-
For the last fifteen years, I was under the impression that Coraline was a Tim Burton movie (I even thought that it was my favorite Tim Burton movie!) and so I didn't even bother to check whether or not it was because, well, why would I if I was sure that was the director? However, I have now learned that is definitely not the case. In fact, Tim Burton had absolutely nothing to do with the making of the film.
Thankfully, it would it seem I'm not alone in having thought this, but I do apologize to you, and Henry Selick, the real director, for the error, and it was a bit too late/cumbersome for me to re-shoot this, so here we are. At least now I can say that Coraline and James and the Giant Peach, another of my favorites, are my favorite Henry Selick films! Thank you Elijah Kai for pointing this out to me. I hope you enjoy the video everyone!
948
-
933
-
850
-
838
-
830
-
814
-
EDITED ON 5/24/2023 Note: I don't like to erase my mistakes, I prefer to learn from them, so where the original comment I made begins will be marked below.
Hey all,
Been awhile since I've come back to this video, and I haven't checked in on this comment. Looks like the overwhelming opinion regarding what I said here was that I was wrong, and I'd like to acknowledge that I indeed was! I initially made the statement that Vincent could have handled the muggers differently based on his expertise. I assumed that a man with a skill set like Vincent's is more than capable of incapacitating these men without killing them, but he chose to kill them because that's part of his villainous nature, and I used that notion to bolster my findings regarding his morality.
However, as many of you have pointed out, no matter a person's skill set in such a scenario, the proper thing to do when someone is threatening your life is to eliminate that threat by any means necessary. For a man like Vincent, that could be shooting them in the legs or the shoulder, but even for a man like him, a death blow is much more appropriate in this scenario given the the threat. Also, I would like to emphasize again that I made this claim based on his SKILL SET. Anyone who is far less skilled than he, (which is the majority of us) should ALWAYS take the course of action that will save your life or the lives of those being threatened that you're trying to protect, and again, even if you are skilled like Vincent, you should do the same. Self defense is self defense, and you defend yourself as best you can when the time comes, and in this type of situation incapacitation is unreliable, unsafe, and bound to get you killed. Do what you have to do to survive by any means necessary when your life is threatened.
I'm not perfect nor am I all knowing or versed in every subject and I get things wrong, so I appreciate it when you all point things out to me so I can learn from my mistakes. Sorry for the initial erroneous judgement I made and I apologize for the discord it may have caused.
ORIGINAL COMMENT BEGINS HERE:
“The muggers deserved what they got!”
I’m pinning this comment in anticipation of more comments like this. This may be a matter of opinion, and perhaps I didn’t explain myself as well as I should have, but the reason I said they didn’t deserve it because he already had the one who was pointing a gun at him incapacitated, and the other was struggling to get his gun out of his pants when the other was dazed. A man with Vincent’s skills could have easily incapacitated both without killing them. (He could have even shot them in the legs or something to that effect) but he chose to kill them instead. That’s why I said that.
Both are still idiots, and deserved to be punished and dealt with for sure, and if that scene had played out differently, I would agree with you. However it played out how it did, and in my opinion, they still didn’t deserve to die given that he didn’t have to kill them to incapacitate them.
763
-
726
-
So there's a few comments I've seen regarding my judgement on the morality of these characters that I'd like to touch on here rather than replying to them all individually. I may have made a mistake when I said that these characters aren't evil, and I apologize if you think so, but then again maybe I didn't. When I made this claim, I was doing so for two reasons.
The first, is that a requirement to label someone as evil in my book is for them to harbor malicious intent, and while these characters do have malicious intent, it's incidental. This is why I made the cracking an egg analogy (Also, give me a break here. Maybe it's common knowledge but I wasn't aware that an egg isn't considered an unborn chicken. Regardless, I'm sure you get what I was going for.) When they steal, are they stealing to cause someone misery, or are they doing so because they're greedy? Are they killing because it brings them joy? Or is it part of their job description? It's definitely greed, and it's also part of their horrid job, and to harbor such greed and to make the decision to enter into such a profession does require malicious intent to a certain degree, but on the scale of evil it's far lower than say, a megalomaniac who orders his armies to conquer countries so he might gain more power. As I pointed out in the video, greed is still evil, and it obviously causes a lot of harm to a lot of people. So based on their greed and their actions, you can label these people as being evil, and you'd be in the right for doing so.
However, the second reason I refrained from defining these people as being evil is because of who they are, and their potential for redemption. Rather than being monstrous villains, they're gangsters. Criminals who are more than capable of turning their lives around and abandoning their evil ways, just as Jules is attempting to do in the film. There are plenty of examples of this in the real world, examples of people who entered a life of crime due to their environment, influences, upbringing, etc. who didn't necessarily want to be the criminals that they are, and though there are many people who return to a life of crime after they've made the decision to better themselves, there are more still who don't and make amends for their wrong doings. Part of the reason I feel so strongly about this is because I know people who have, and while I acknowledge that what they did was evil, they are far from being evil themselves, even if they might have been at the time. Selfish, greedy, and misguided, would be a better way to label them in my view, and that's the way that I believe we're intended to see these characters. Flawed individuals who we can all identify with on some level who make some really nasty choices, but who aren't beyond the point of no return.
So, with all this in mind, yes, in the moment, at the time these people were committing evil acts, they were evil, and depending on your own views they might still be regardless of whether or not they choose to abandon the life they live, and I should have mentioned these things in the video. But in my eye, the insight we're given into their personalities and motivations sets them apart from other evil doers, and this affords us the opportunity to label them as people who commit evil acts, but are saved from being labelled as evil due to who they are, how they came to be who they are, why they do what they do, and their potential for good. As always, I appreciate the discourse, as I'm not perfect, and I love learning other view points and I appreciate when you point out anything I might have missed or gotten wrong, so please feel free to continue expanding upon anything I've said in this comment or in this video!
688
-
686
-
664
-
645
-
643
-
617
-
594
-
591
-
581
-
559
-
559
-
504
-
492
-
485
-
483
-
469
-
463
-
445
-
445
-
445
-
424
-
422
-
417
-
400
-
394
-
380
-
373
-
322
-
313
-
297
-
294
-
288
-
278
-
278
-
271
-
270
-
270
-
268
-
255
-
247
-
I replied to this comment already and apparently it didn't go through, so here goes a second try. So the reason I chose to leave out the bit about Jason being a deadite is because it seems like it's really only Adam Marcus who wants this to be the case. Most people either don't agree with or don't particularly like this idea, and the story about him surviving the drowning seems to be the preferred origin story for Jason, though it is technically canon.
Rural was the wrong word to use here, I should have just stuck with small town. Regardless, it's implied that Pamela kept Jason as hidden from the rest of the town as best she could, which included homeschooling him. So whether or not he had much exposure to other people doesn't matter all too much, as that exposure was quite minimal, and Jason didn't have much of a chance at properly integrating into society or develop any sort of concrete moral compass because of this.
Not sure why I forgot to include the bit about him not killing kids, so thank you for that. However I never said he killed randomly (and I didn't mean to imply that he did, if it came off that way I apologize). He does target counselors and the people who hurt hm and his mother, but he also kills anyone who gets in his way when it comes to killing those counselors. Police officers, grave keepers entire hospitals, a space crew, etc. will die if they get in his way. Similarly, it's implied that he'll kill pretty much anyone who sets foot on Camp Crystal Lake property. So no, he doesn't kill randomly, but anyone who crosses his path more often than not lose their lives. Thanks for adding somethings I left out and giving me the opportunity to clarify some things!
241
-
236
-
231
-
226
-
218
-
209
-
205
-
204
-
204
-
201
-
199
-
197
-
189
-
188
-
182
-
179
-
178
-
172
-
171
-
170
-
167
-
163
-
149
-
144
-
142
-
134
-
129
-
128
-
126
-
120
-
118
-
117
-
114
-
113
-
112
-
107
-
107
-
104
-
103
-
102
-
98
-
96
-
93
-
90
-
89
-
88
-
86
-
84
-
83
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
75
-
75
-
71
-
69
-
67
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
Oh yeah I forgot about Maegor! I could be wrong, but wasn't his cruelty more so derived from his attempts to gain/hold on the crown? Ramsay had a bit of that motivation as well, but a lot of the horrid things he did were purely for the sake of sadistic pleasure with no real goal in mind, which I think would give him the edge as far as sadism is concerned.
Regardless, I imagine it's a contest between Ramsay, Maegor, and book Euron (which I hinted at in the beginning, and as @thisisboxingproductions6894 pointed out) for most sadistic character in the ASOIAF universe. Joffrey might have been in the running if he had lived longer, and it could be argued that The Mad King and Aegon the Unworthy should be considered as well. However Aerys was quite obviously sick, and Aegon was more so a hedonist than anything. Thanks for pointing out Maegor though, I appreciate the reminder!
62
-
61
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
I disagree! While it might seem like something that you can be born with, I still believe that a person is more so born with the traits that could lead them to becoming a sociopath when exposed to certain things as I said in the video. I'd argue that in cases where it seems like a someone with ASPD didn't experience any trauma, you'd find that they did, but it wasn't as obvious as it is for others going through the same thing, and when that happens, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that neglect is the source of that persons trauma.
As we saw in Pearl, neglect isn't relegated to it's most severe forms, like not providing adequate housing or food from a child, but a lack of attention as well. The biggest contributing factor to a person developing ASPD could be as simple as having parents who worked long hours and paid little attention to their child due to their workload. While the majority of children aren't going to be affected by this so severely that they develop such a disorder, some do because they were born with traits that caused them to react severely to that type of treatment, not because they were born with ASPD.
Pearl is an excellent example of this. She had a a beautiful home to live in, plenty of food to eat, and a seemingly stable family life outside of her father's paralysis. The only thing she didn't have was the attention she needed from her parents, and little human interaction outside of what little she received from them. Had Pearl received more attention and care from her parents, or had more human interaction, I don't believe she would have turned out the way that she did.
With that in mind, Pearl's experience with neglect wasn't exactly severe, but it was greater than many people experience. That being said, it is possible that a child was loved, cared for, and lavished with a lot of attention, but because they didn't receive it at certain crucial points in their development, that led them to internalizing feelings of neglect, and slowly forming a personality disorder as a result over time. There are honestly thousands of scenarios that you could conjure up ranging from the inoffensive to the severe, but the main point I'm trying to make is that no matter how big or small someone's experiences with neglect, abuse, or trauma are, depending on who you are, any amount of these things can have a severe effect on your development and cause you to develop a personality disorder. Some people might have watched a person murdered right in front of their eyes when they were younger and come out the other side with a light case of PTSD. Another might have heard "Sorry honey, Dad's too busy to play right now" one too many times and developed ASPD.
I'd like to add that while I disagree with you, as I stated in the video, this a question that has yet to receive a concrete answer. No one truly knows whether or not your born with these disorders, or if they're developed. But from what I've seen, I would argue that they are developed, but they're developed due to certain traits that you are born with that cause you to react to certain stimuli differently than others, and therefore I do not agree with the assessment that a person can be outright born with such a disorder. Who knows though, we have a long way to go when it comes to biological and mental health research, so perhaps one day my own views will prove to be false. Regardless, I do like it when I'm given an opportunity to explain myself further when necessary, so thanks for the comment, and I hope you're well!
58
-
56
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
51
-
50
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
46
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
41
-
40
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
36
-
35
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
27
-
Well, this is why I mention that the older brother could have been the one to have the job. While it’s true that normally you couldn’t expect someone like Leather Face to hold down a job, I think it’s actually reasonable that he worked there a short amount of time precisely because this isn’t your average scenario. Since his grandfather, and perhaps father, worked at the slaughterhouse, I imagine them taking Leather Face to their former workplace and vouching for him. “He’s a bit slow, but he’s a good boy and he’ll work hard for you.” If not the grandfather or his father, it could have even been the older brother who took him there to vouch for him on his family’s behalf. We know for certain that at least one of the brothers worked at the slaughterhouse, and it’s not Nubbins. So that leaves two. But the elder, he states towards the end of the first film that he “just can’t take no pleasure in killing.” Now, people often do a job even though they detest it out of necessity, but I think with all of these variables it’s likely the case that leather face obtained a job there that way. I imagine he wouldn’t have held it for long though. This is of course all theory and you could be correct that he couldn’t hold down a job, but I cannot discount the possibility of him working there at some point.
As far as his skill in butchering, sure there isn’t much screen time watching him prepare meat. But he is at least knowledgeable in the craft, putting Pam on a meat hook and preparing Kirks body for cooking. At the very least I’m sure his brother requires different cuts of meat for the dishes he prepares. So I assume he should be at least decent at butchery.
As for your second point, yes he could be all of those things and still have murderous rage. Is not an angry man chasing a woman with a chainsaw intent on killing her Indicative of murderous rage? If you don’t see anger in him, that’s fine. In my view he is definitely defending his home, and the way he acts in regards to the door/the chase after Sally are indicators of blind murderous rage in my eyes. You do make good points though, and I should have touched on them in the video. He is certainly frightened and overreacting. I just happen to think he’s doing so with a murderous rage at points.
I agree, there is no hard indication that he’s ever killed before, but the fact that the elder brother yells at nubbins for going to the graveyard again could indicate that they don’t get all their meat from graves. I’m sure they like fresh meat, and many a hitchhiker could have disappeared in that area. Like you said though, for all we know they could be just robbing graves. But for all we know leather face could also be killing people as well.
Always good when someone starts a discussion or brings up something I’ve missed, thanks for the comment!
25
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
21
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
I’m hoping that my reply to this comment will satisfy anyone else making a similar comment. Yes, the actual governmental ideology of Hitler has many left wing elements, but the reason he’s idolized by right wing extremists is not for how he ordered his economic policies, but for his cultural values. A traditional, pure, white, aryan society that demonized and exterminated anyone who wasn’t a part of his chosen people. Hitler was not necessarily a right wing extremist, but right wing extremists idolize him for racial and cultural reasons. That’s why extreme right wing parties all across the world invoke his name, and why he’s become associated with their movements.
You will often find the white supremacist of today who expresses their admiration for Hitler aligning themselves with right wing organizations not left, and that’s why they’re so often portrayed that way in media. And that’s what I was referring to, Jaryd Mencken the right wing extremist invoking the name of Adolf Hitler for his societal/cultural values, not because he was necessarily a right wing extremist himself.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
@oxtheunlikelycontemplator2682 Technically you're right about Emil but he gave him the nod so I gave it to Tony as well. I probably could have omitted that one. When you're guilty, you feel bad for what you've done. Remorse is a step further: feeling bad for what you've done and taking the steps to correct your behavior and right the wrongs you've committed. Tony rarely does so. In fact, I believe the only time we see him expressing half hearted remorse is when he hands Paulie money for Georgie's treatment, but even then I doubt he would have corrected his behavior afterward. As far as his mother goes, he does grab that pillow which indicates he was certainly going to try. And yes, informants certainly do bring ramifications to the ones they inform on and are given protection in return, which isn't right. I believe informants still deserve to do time (like Pussy, who was going to have to do time regardless of what he gave the government). The fact that these peoples families suffer as a result of them getting informed on is true, but the only reason they suffer is because their lives are tied to someone who's provided for them via a life of crime, and had these people not been informed on and merely caught the same thing would have happened regardless. Informed or not, it just goes to show how living a life of crime can lead to the suffering of your family and your friends, and like I said in the video, informing isn't exactly a bad thing when it comes to getting criminals off the street, though as I mentioned I do believe informants still deserve to be punished and not let off scott free. Thanks for your comments though, I appreciate it!
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
That’s a good point! I hadn’t considered the possibility of abuse from the father. I agree with you for the most part. My knowledge in this area is rather lacking, but I do think that it’s still possible that she may have suffered some sort of neurological abnormality whether from incest or not. The only information I have to go off of here is the way her grandmother was described, and in the same vein as the recessive gene of telekinesis being passed down, there’s the scenario that previous members of her family could have also suffered from a condition and passed it to her as well.
Perhaps I should have worded this better in the video, but It’s my view that it might be possible that the damaging effects of incest could have potentially caused her to develop a mental abnormality, but it’s much more likely that she could have inherited it much like she inherited the recessive telekinetic gene. Compounded with abuse and her upbringing, these could definitely be the driving forces behind the eventual collapse of her psyche.
I’d like to note as well that while you’re right that it’s unlikely that her fathers death alone caused her mental collapse, it’s still certainly possible. Everyone handles grief in their own way, and though it may be atypical for a persons mind to crumble at just the death of her father, nothing is typical about Margaret in the first place. Thank you for these insights, I appreciate the comment!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@kingMadnus True, but this situation is a bit different in my opinion. because of the nature of his imprisonment, and the way he behaves, we have no way of knowing whether or not this is a type of extreme consensual kink, which is rare, but still possible. Submissiveness like the type he displays here is pretty common in those types of relationships, so it's not necessarily a sign that he's held there against his will. Even being silent could be a part of it, which might be why he seems intellectually challenged as well @Michael O'Donnel. And again, the way he acts otherwise could indicate his involvement. However, like I said, it's just a possibility. Now I say this because that's how ambiguous it appears in the film, and it's my mistake that I didn't research it further but apparently Quentin Tarantino said this in an interview regarding the Gimp:
“It doesn’t quite play this way in the movie, but in my mind when I wrote it, the Gimp’s dead. Butch knocked him out and then when he passed out he hung himself. In terms of backstory, he was like a hitchhiker or somebody that they picked up seven years ago, and they trained him so he’s the perfect victim.”
So you're correct. However at face value I couldn't help but point out the possibilities surrounding his character due to the little information we're given in the film. Thanks for the discourse, I do get things wrong sometimes and I appreciate the correction!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Well of course, you could say any man made concept is subjective. Good, evil, law, order, etc. However this channel isn’t about exploring whether or not a character is evil, rather I’m attempting to explore further characters that are widely accepted to be evil by the general populace and the people who created these characters. Evil may be subjective, but I’m going off the agreed upon narrative of evil for these characters, and I’m not here to try and explain why they may or may not be evil depending on how you look at it. Though at times I do delve into why a character could be considered more tragic or misunderstood. There’s good in every evil character (well, most at least) and videos considering this and extrapolating on as you say, the moral subjectivity of evil in characters, would be interesting. But I’m afraid that’s not what I’ve set out to do, and if my content isn’t your cup of tea, I get it. Thanks for the comment though, I do appreciate the feedback.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This is a good point! The dark side is extremely hard to resist. There were points though, like we see in the comics when he saw a vision of what could be if he renounced the dark side after he created his first light saber as a Sith and he wavered for a moment. There's a few other instances I can't think of right now, but there are definitely moments where the light shone through and he could have ended what he was doing. It definitely wouldn't have been easy, but I think he could have.
My perspective on this particular thought is in line with yours, in that the dark side definitely was anchoring him to his darker thoughts and almost forcing him to take the path he took as Vader. However, I think it's more so his own pain and newfound hatred of nearly everything that's causing him to take the actions he takes. That's not an easy thing to overcome either, but I think he was certainly capable of turning the other cheek on his own, it would have just taken much more effort to do so on his part, hence why he needed Luke as a "crutch" to get him there. You equating his emotions to a constant high of pain, rage, and hatred is a good comparison. In a way, Vader is an addict, and like any addict he's certainly capable of having moments of clarity, a sort of "what have I been doing moment", it's just unlikely that this would actually occur.
So I agree! And disagree. I think I didn't properly explain myself at that particular point, and made it seem like it was something easy to do. But it definitely isn't, and though the possibility is still there I agree with you that it would have been hard for him to get through of his own accord. Thank you for the comment, and the praise! I appreciate it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Being placed in a negative environment, being neglected, and having different mental issues does not excuse evil that a person commits. Arthur’s justifications for the murders he commits boil down to either self defense, or the fact that he was essentially bullied by both Murray and Randall.
You could argue that killing the men on the subway in self defense is justifiable, but there are a multitude of ways he could have gone about that scenario without killing all three. Yes, assaulting someone like those men assaulted Arthur is terrible, but you have to ask yourself if that’s worthy of murder. The same goes for Randall and Murray. Shooting someone because they’re a jerk isn’t morally sound.
Arthur isn’t evil because of his environment, his neglect, and his mental health issues. Rather they were all catalysts that led him down a path of evil. There’s no abstract perception about him that makes him evil, it’s the clear actions that he chooses to take that make him evil. There are plenty of people who have similar situations to Arthur that definitely do not murder people, and in my eyes this is what makes him evil. The decisions he makes of his own free will, nurtured by circumstance, but still clear decisions he chooses to make. Thanks for the comment, I always enjoy hearing other people’s perspectives!
1
-
Any man made concept is going to be skewed in a certain direction depending on a persons point of view. Good and evil are such concepts.
Your example of Father from FMA is great, because yes depending on who’s point of view we’re considering, he is either one or the other. If we’re looking through say Pride or Father’s eyes, of course he isn’t evil. But if we’re looking
through the eyes of the average Amestrian citizen who’s being sacrificed in order to transform him into a god, he’s definitely evil.
Or even Voldemort, who has an avid following that considers him to be good, but what about the vast majority of “filthy blooded” witches and wizards he wishes to exterminate, and his hopes of dominating the world through magic? I think to the vast majority of people, his actions are definitely what you would call evil.
When I examine these characters, I don’t make it a point to debate the concepts of good and evil. I go with what the general consensus is of the character, and the intentions of the creators of said characters. You can argue that every villain ever portrayed in media is good if you consider X factor, and that’s true. But the general moral consensus about these characters are that they are in fact evil and I agree with this. I do make mention in my videos why certain characters may be considered tragic or misunderstood in some way, but their actions and motivations ultimately lead them to committing evil acts that the vast majority of people would consider to be evil. Myself included.
I can’t speak for that newborn article you site, but if your actions are not in line with what the vast majority of the human race has considered just or good, then it’s more likely than not that the person will be viewed as evil, generally speaking. If we’re going to make this consideration with real world examples (I know it’s cliche but it’s very appropriate) there are many people who don’t consider Adolf Hitler to be an evil man. But the rest of the world does, and rightly so. The same goes for any of these characters. I can see where you’re coming from, but I can’t justify the actions of characters who commit the terrible things they do, and I stand by the moniker of evil for characters such as Arthur.
I love discussions like these and I’m glad to have had the chance to see your point of view. I hope I’ve made a clear response to what you’ve intended to tell me and if not, please let me know!
1
-
Whereas we can draw clear connections to evil with these characters we’ve been discussing, the comparisons you have made aren’t something that can be viewed in such a black and white way. There are heroes in war, but why they are heroes is what causes us to label them as such. A man would be considered a hero if he shot down ten planes that were headed to bomb a city full of innocent civilians. Did he kill? Yes. But generally speaking the act of killing is only considered just when it’s either in self defense against someone who wishes to kill you, protecting the innocent from harm, or when used as a means to provide punishment to terrible crimes.
I understand what you’re trying to get at, not everything is always so black and white when it comes to morality. But in the case of these fictional characters that were designed to be evil and are shown doing evil acts, it’s much easier to label them in such a manner.
The biggest thing in my mind that most concretely makes these villains evil is a lack of remorse. Arthur Fleck, Father, Voldemort, they all show absolutely no remorse for the evil actions they take. There’s no justifiable reason for taking the actions they do. THEY have their reasons as to why they took these actions, and in every villains mind they’re the hero in their own story.
While the general consensus can be wrong or doesn’t take into account certain variables, in these instances and many more it’s hard to argue for a fictional character that was designed to be evil, and is shown committing evil without remorse. There are multiple factors that go into their reasonings behind their actions, and with characters like Arthur you can see how his actions were born out of personal tragedy. But killing a talk show host because he was mean to you, enjoying it, and showing no remorse for it, is evil, and makes him evil. Father sacrifices an entire city for his own personal gain, destroying countless lives in order to make himself a god, believing he’s done the right thing to his very end. Voldemort is essentially a racist who wishes to purge the world of “undesirables” to impose his own twisted world view on the populace at large, unrepentant to even his last moments of life.
So I get what you’re saying, I think. Contradictions exist in quite a number of different situations when it comes to morality. But when we’re given such clear indications that these characters are meant to be evil, it’s going against their very purpose and design by trying to justify that they aren’t.
I’m unsure how to respond to the comparisons you make about fear and love, anti social, and logic and void, because there isn’t evil to find in those situations unless applied to a given situation. Anti social behavior isn’t evil, but it can lead to evil, like say a school shooting. Or it couldn’t, and they could just be an introverted person. Fear and love? Unless you give me an example you cannot apply any branding to that. The order of logic and the chaos of the void? Also hard to quantify without an example. All of these comparisons you site on their own are without context, just that. Comparisons.
So to close here I’ll just sum up once again my view on this subject. In the world, morality isn’t always so black and white. But when a character is created with evil in mind, is shown to do evil, and has no remorse when doing so, I believe it’s a disservice to their intended purpose and the obvious terrible actions they take to label them anything else but evil. The general consensus on real world situations is not always correct and should be questioned, like when someone innocent has been hanged as you say. But we’re not dealing with the real world here, we’re dealing with fiction, and characters who have been created to act and be seen on a certain way. Therefore the general view of these characters is more often than not the intended and correct view. I hope I’ve been clear and understood what you were getting at with this response!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1