MovieChat Forums > Joker (2019) Discussion > But how much sympathy can we have for Jo...

But how much sympathy can we have for Joker types?

posted 4 years ago by jy55 (12)
81 replies | jump to latest

Well, I understand many get a bad hand in life - but - do these people have a right to exact revenge - at the level of the Joker (school shooters, the like etc..)?

I mean, aren't these people somewhat responsible for simply giving in to inappropriate behavior? Well, for instance, white supremacists may have had a bad lot in life - leading them into what they are - but does that excuse it? Does the fact incels can't get sex - excuse shootings from them?

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12280) 4 years ago

It's natural to feel sympathy for someone when you find out the sad [sometimes horrifying] past that they endured and caused them to turn into monsters. However, sympathy doesn't excuse the bad choices they made. Nobody forced them to go apeshit and kill innocent people. Nobody forced them to pick up a gun and and start shooting. That was their own choice, and they had the freedom to do it or not do it. It's just sad they thought giving into their desires would make things better, or give them justice, because it only made things worse.

[–] Saenzwa9 (437) 4 years ago

They were forced to pick up a gun and start shooting if they had horrible lives full of torment. By the time murder enters the equation they have already completely lost their minds. Whoever goes out on a murderous killing spree is an absolute batshit crazy, blood drunk, lunatic. Nobody just snaps for no reason though. However one indivdual may snap and commit mass murder, but another person who has suffered just as greatly may not. It really depends on the mind. It's hard for me to have sympathy for these types when people end up dead as a result. I do understand the reasons behind it though. If they just went out and decided to dish out simple assbeatings to some terrible people who really deserve it, then I am much sympathetic, however commiting murder crosses the line

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12280) 4 years ago

That's not being forced. That's called taking revenge and having nothing left to lose.

It turns out that Batman villains are a popular area of study for psychologists and psychiatrists when they want to do a study for fun. It turns out that most of the Batman's foes, including the Joker, are not psychopaths at all. They are sociopaths. The trouble is, you have comic book writers that don't know jack shit about psychology and just throw around words, making their characters look intelligent when studying these monsters. There is a huge difference between a sociopath and a psychopath.

A Sociopath (like the Joker and many other Batman villains), is perfectly in control of their actions and choices, and knows what they're doing is going to hurt other people. The thing is, they don't care. In fact, it's normal for sociopaths to have their own twisted set of morals, and believe that they are doing the "right thing" by their standards, not what the rest of society thinks.

A psychopath is someone who is not in control of their actions. These are usually people who cannot make conscious decisions over what they do or who they do it to. Quite often they have to be put away because they are not only a danger to society, but a danger to themselves. It's not unusual in mental hospitals (particularly the ones for the criminally insane) to see such people needing to be restrained or drugged to prevent hurting anyone.

The trouble is, ignorant writers for comic books, novels, tv shows, and movies, often can't tell the difference and use the two terms above interchangeably.

[–] LockardTheGOAT (342) 4 years ago

I have a lot of sympathy for them considering I'm turning into one of them. It's the sad truth of this cruel, unfair existence we live

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

"Well, I understand many get a bad hand in life - but - do these people have a right to exact revenge - at the level of the Joker (school shooters, the like etc..)?"

The short answer is no, but it's a monster that society needs to take responsibility for.

The vast majority of people require another person to have a certain amount of apparent reproductive fitness in order to respect them. This can take many forms but you know a lack of it when you encounter it. In the case of Joker here, it's a constellation of cognitive shortcomings that make him defenseless and ineffectual.

He quite objectively did not choose these bad cards, and he spends his life having everyone aggressively shit on him for it. Adding insult to injury, and without ever hurting anyone, men like him are branded by society at large as dangerous pieces of shit ("incels," etc.).

It is a mistake to conflate them with (criminally violent)white supremacists and criminals in general. Criminals, truly abusive people, generally are psychopaths who hurt people as a means to an end, or just because they like it. They are the ones responsible for the vast majority of abuse in the world and instead of being branded as dangerous pieces of shit, they are respected and celebrated. Look at almost any popular hip-hop "artist."

Because while they are immoral, they also display reproductive fitness. They are evil, but not defenseless. I contend that this is a serious collective moral error.

There is currently a societal addiction to heaping emotional abuse on defenseless and disadvantaged men, and it's not because they are bad people. It's because they are defenseless and no one appreciates that particular hell besides people who have gone through it. Fine, it's fun to fuck with the unfortunate, but don't be surprised when a few of them snap.

"the child unloved by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth." - African proverb

[–] dmac8 (5050) 4 years ago

Your observation and analysis is fine -- but it's not a defense for "a right to exact revenge - at the level of the Joker (school shooters, the like etc..)?" -unless you're redefining what "a right" is.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Well I think a "right" is something you are legally entitled to do, right? So no, I don't think anyone should have the "right" to shoot up a school out of unresolved psychological trauma; that's ludicrous. But see, you can't legislate away the fact that everyone has a breaking point.

I'm just saying that we all know exactly the kind of dysfunctional person the OP is talking about (Adam Lanza, Elliot Rodger), and what they did was terrible, but they were not natural-born sociopaths and their acts REALLY didn't happen in a vacuum. They are a direct result of the societal forces of our time that generally marginalize guys who are fucked anyways, and these very rare massacres are like slave uprisings in the American antebellum South.

No one wants to look at it this way because it's social suicide to admit that many of modern culture's sacred cows are to blame, like dysfunctional single parenting and feminism. I don't wanna go further down that road cos I don't want a flame war.

I just find it cowardly and immature that people refuse to recognize that guys like this "Joker" don't deserve to be abused for their shortcomings, I mean it's like insulting a guy in a wheelchair for not running in marathons.

[–] dmac8 (5050) 4 years ago

With your edit, that's fine. I would not have responded if you answered "no" at first. But at the same time, I can't pretend that there's no choice involved. There are far many more people who suffer under the same circumstances yet don't lash out in that way. I understand the theme of the film rests completely on the idea of determinism -- but I don't think it's accurate to conclude that the ultimate action is completely beyond the control of the actor. Pointing that out does not diminish the idea that those people have been treated horribly by other people.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

interesting. I think the difference in how we see this is only a very subtle one.

there is choice involved in the end, on the part of the perp, yes. It is also true that most people who suffer that kind of abuse do not go on to become mass shooters. just like the majority of, say, business school graduates do not go on to become millionaires.

What I'm pointing out is the pattern of where these types of massacres come from, what circumstances these perps typically come from. Not all abused and socially disenfranchised people become mass shooters, but it appears to me that almost all mass shooters were abused and socially disenfranchised.

So if this "Joker" is a fair representation of the conditions that make it *far more likely* that someone will lash out, then the best answer is to not create those conditions in the first place. To not treat the vulnerable and the unfortunate like shit. Like if you don't want cancer, you shouldn't smoke.

It's a vast and nuanced world, so of course some people like the Joker are going to fall through the cracks. His actions were morally wrong, but it poses the bigger question of who sticks up for people like these? Who hears their cries of agony, and cares? Who regards them as anything but an amusing and inconsequential buffoon?

I think our difference is that on some level, while I do believe that he had a choice, I can't completely condemn him for what he did. He was pushed to a place where he was fucked in the head more than most people can imagine and when you push people, sometimes they push back. And he got to that place in large part because the people around him needed to wake up to that fact.

[–] dmac8 (5050) 4 years ago

I can completely condemn him for taking that route.

And I can do so for the very reason you state in the prior paragraph.

"His actions were morally wrong."

Why it happens does not change that simple fact. The circumstances, no matter how unfortunate, do not obliterate that fact. You can't do that. That's why I feel the short answer is always an easy "No" to the OP's question. An understanding of the why isn't always grounds for a pardon. I can see it and yet still see that it's clearly wrong and worthy of condemnation.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Okay. I disagree. I don't think he should be pardoned or not held accountable, I just empathize with his decision. It was a misguided attempt to thrive by a broken person who felt the world was his mortal enemy, it WAS his mortal enemy. It was also a world that refused to take any accountability at all in its role in making him what he was.

I believe in absolute morality but this situation goes beyond right and wrong, you've got to understand that you can't go around abusing people and not expect some kind of blowback. The individuals didn't deserve Joker's wrath, but society did.

[–] davodikum (5970) 4 years ago

Thats the point of a movie like this where the bag guy is the protagonist, to find away to make the veiwer empathize.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

they succeeded. :)

[–] dmac8 (5050) 4 years ago

"The individuals didn't deserve Joker's wrath"

Is why it deserves complete condemnation. Everyone has context. And Joker didn't care about that. Passing along the pain you endured from "society", to the next person you feel wronged by, crosses the line. Should we delve into the past of his co-worker clown and apply the same kind of determinism to his actions? How high is he on the food chain? What of his background? How bout his mother? Why didn't he empathize with her as a fellow victim of society? He blamed her. He blamed Murray. Murray didn't get what he deserved b/c he didn't deserve that. If you adopt this idea of determinism for every person, the same rationale you're creating for Joker can apply to those who wronged him. Using your logic, Gary would be in a position to kill Arthur if Arthur had once dared to laugh at a short joke directed towards him. Arthur's context wouldn't matter if Gary had reached his breaking point at that moment after a lifetime of abuse, right? Arthur would suddenly become part of "society". Everyone has context. Many have been shit on, many are broken -- but not everyone caves in to the worst impulse. Using "society" as a cover to lash out doesn't follow. It seems a convenient way to ignore any given individual's context while using your own as justification.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I don't think you get what I'm saying. He shouldn't be pardoned or just let off the hook or whatever, I just said I EMPATHIZE with him. You don't. Whatever.

There are innocent people who for whatever reason get pushed into places in society where everyone treats them like shit, and no one sticks up for them. I don't think you understand what that's like, dude. It's a calamitous injustice, and a massacre or two is the most natural thing in the world to happen. I consider it the hand of God himself bitch-slapping the assholes who prey on the weak. If you or anyone doesn't like it, then they can stop treating pariahs like dogshit.

What else are pariahs like Joker gonna do? Live out a life of having their soul raped over and over again by the sub-humans around him? After enough damage, you really can and do get to a place where there are no other options except suicide. Not everyone has the inner faculties to just nut up and change their circumstances for the better.

This is in a whole different league of despair than whatever anyone around him, or really most people, ever have to deal with. Am I comparing people's pain? Yes. Because again, look at the pattern of who is mostly doing these massacres: people who have been humiliated and disenfranchised beyond what most people can imagine. You don't buy yourself a one-way-ticket to death or prison over your stupid mommy issues or how your girlfriend broke up with you, you do it because of a life-long sense of incredible humiliation and powerlessness.

You seem to be subtly dodging how blame really DOES lie squarely on the people around him ("society") who, deliberately or not, abused him until he abandoned his humanity. It's like no one wants to wake up to this. Well fine, I guess people like mass shootings.

People won't stop treating pariahs like dogshit because it's fun and helps your social status and you'll probably get away with it. It's unfortunately the natural order of things. But so is how every once in a while, a Woobie turns into a Joker. I dunno, deal with it.

[–] dmac8 (5050) 4 years ago

Actually, you don't understand what I'm saying, but that's fine. And you didn't really answer the context questions, as though no one else is determined but Joker. Many who mistreat have been mistreated themselves. That's why it never ends. That's why the hope lies with those who choose not to pay the horror forward. They stick to that "absolute morality" that you strangely see a reason to abandon when it's needed most.

But yet you also made weird assumptions about my context as well. I guess I must be one of them, "society" or something, because I disagree? That means I don't understand pain? As if you know. As if so much of society isn't just a bunch of individuals with their own stories that might elicit sympathy and/or empathy as well. There's pain all over.

So, yeah, whatever. You gave yourself away with your first, unedited response. You go, Joker. After all, they had it coming.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

"Actually, you don't understand what I'm saying, but that's fine. And you didn't really answer the context questions, as though no one else is determined but Joker. Many who mistreat have been mistreated themselves. That's why it never ends. That's why the hope lies with those who choose not to pay the horror forward. They stick to that "absolute morality" that you strangely see a reason to abandon when it's needed most. "

I can appreciate that morality goes out the window when you've been pushed to the breaking point. I'm happy for you that you've never been forced to understand that... feel free to disabuse me of that delusion, maybe I'll learn something.

"But yet you also made weird assumptions about my context as well. I guess I must be one of them, "society" or something, because I disagree? That means I don't understand pain? As if you know. As if so much of society isn't just a bunch of individuals with their own stories that might elicit sympathy and/or empathy as well. There's pain all over."

Wait, huh? You're only "one of them" if you're an abusive turd, I thought I made that clear. But I don't think you understand the pain of a pariah like this Joker, no, I don't. Otherwise you would understand how psychological damage can pervert your faculties so much that life is not worth living any more. everyone has pain, but there's also degrees of pain, as well as the capacity to deal with it.

So appreciate that when you have overwhelming pain that exceeds the capacity to deal with it, then you get explosive results. This goes beyond morality and is more like a chemical reaction. Excuse my horrible comparison, but it's just like if someone slaughtered your loved ones while laughing in front of you. You would probably "choose" to eviscerate the attackers with a pitchfork, by any means possible.

"So, yeah, whatever. You gave yourself away with your first, unedited response. You go, Joker. After all, they had it coming."

Well I edit it to make it more accurate to what I think. People snap when you push them. What's so hard about that?

[–] dmac8 (5050) 4 years ago

"I'm happy for you that you've never been forced to understand that."

Again with a baseless assumption? As if no one in this world of pain faces that yet doesn't go where Joker goes? Those reactions are from a small minority. Most face those things every day without reacting that way. They understand all too well -- but they choose a different course. As you described earlier, they're "broken", they already had their breaking point but it passed without lashing out.

And I won't go into all my specifics, but there are some aspects to Arthur that I'd trade for in a heartbeat. I'll take his pain if he takes mine. And as I've said over and over, there's plenty of heartache out there.

And I don't think your comparison is apt. A talk show centered around jokes, that pokes fun at you, isn't worthy of bullet to the head as a reaction. Or a co-worker who got you fired isn't worthy of a knife to the throat as a reaction. You're bringing up an eye for an eye when there's nothing like that in this movie. You might mount a heat-of-the-moment defense for first subway shots but not the others.

"People snap when you push them." Yeah, nothing is hard about that since it's a gross oversimplification. People may snap or not. And if they do, it might manifest as something other than killing people.

And despite the movie's theme clearly and heavy-handedly coming down on your side the fence, there's also a narcissism displayed here. He's not simply some guy who'd be content if he weren't treated poorly. He wants to be somebody. There are delusions of grandeur in his profile. Part of his anger is retribution but the other part is a tantrum against the reality that he isn't what he'd like to be. Should we empathize with someone who lashes out b/c he isn't what he imagines? If Gary is mad at the world b/c he can't be in the NBA no matter how much he wants it, then reaches his "breaking point" and snaps, should we empathize when he goes into an arena with a gun?

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

You don't empathize with his decision to lash out. That's the base for my assumption, which I think is accurate.

Repeating that everyone has pain is to miss the point. Repeating that only a few choose to lash out is to miss the point. Tornadoes only form in supercell thunderstorms, and a Joker only forms when someone is abused beyond their capacity to deal with it.

To even focus on personal choice is to miss the point. From a purely statistical perspective, bad things WILL happen under certain conditions, regardless of any moral convictions anyone has.

A Joker is one of those bad things that inevitably eventually happens in a large enough number of thunderstorm instances of abuse, neglect, rejection, and humiliation. Society needs to bear some responsibility for this instead of heaping even more venom on the poor bastards.

You don't seem to understand that I'm not comparing this to, like, someone miffed because Safeway doesn't carry his favorite ice cream. These thunderstorms are rare, and form only when someone's spirit has been trampled on their whole lives. That is an EXCEPTIONAL level of psychic pain. If you understand that, then you should understand how that can warp your humanity and make you do fucked-up things that you wouldn't do otherwise.

[–] dmac8 (5050) 4 years ago

You don't really answer, do you?

Avoiding the idea of context and lumping anyone in Joker's path as "society" which somehow strips them of said context is to miss the point. What is "society"? It's individuals with context that Joker couldn't care less about. He LET himself go. He went with it without care for right and wrong. He embraced it as a power trip to be that somebody that his narcissism craved. Murray and Randall didn't do anything worthy of that even though they're both part of "society". Just like I wouldn't empathize with Gary coming into work and shooting them all for what he's undoubtedly absorbed over a lifetime. I guess you would b/c suddenly Arthur would be part of "society" as well? Someone had to pay eventually -- except that only happens with those who decide to take that route.

And more weird comparisons to tornadoes doesn't clear things up. It's a decision. He's conscious. A tornado isn't. You went from acknowledging the actor's role to full-blown, chemical reaction, weather event, determinism rather than someone deciding to lean into their worst. A tornado doesn't say I'm gonna make these houses pay this time. The idea that you'd conflate that a human being making a decision is bizarre.

You should just stick with your original "Yes" to the OP's question b/c the deeper we go the closer you go to "he couldn't help it" -- which obliterates the last remnant of responsibility you initially acknowledged. After you're done empathizing with him, be sure to do the same with his mother since she was a victim of society as well. Oh wait. You can't. She's dead now. He killed her b/c she suddenly became part of society rather than a victim of it. I mean how could he know? Except that he read her file. Oops. Oh well. It was inevitable. She had to go. Just like rain. Those angry raindrops take out their frustration on everyone's heads every so often.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Arthur had it far worse than anyone else. That's why he snapped and they didn't. That's why Adam Lanza snapped and Jeremy Meeks didn't. That's why I'd have less empathy for Jennifer Lopez going on a shooting spree, because she hasn't been shit on like someone like Arthur. Yeah he let himself go. I'm just saying that knowing a little about the sting of his particular position, I don't want him not held accountable. I just empathize with it. Arthur had a supercell thunderstorm, Gary had some dark stratus clouds.

Tornadoes and chemical reactions are a valid comparison to social phenomena in the sense that people tend to make certain choices under certain conditions. The abused tend to become abusers, lesbian couples are most likely to have domestic violence problems, and youth in certain poor areas tend to gang activity.

Arthur's decision wasn't black and white. I can believe he should be legally held accountable while at the same time empathizing that his environment forced on him conditions that made him far more likely to decide to lash out. If you can agree that racism and poverty is partly to blame for some minorities (for example) turning to crime, then you can concede that being treated like shit is partly to blame for Arthur flipping his lid. I, for one, only have venom for the people who pushed him there.

Would these mass shooters have lashed out if their fathers were supportive? If their mothers weren't whores who rejected them since before birth? If other kids didn't react to their awkward attempts to fit in by kicking their asses, physically and emotionally? If everyone around them, when they reached out for help, didn't cruelly reject them and shower them with contempt? No one wants to touch those questions with a ten foot pole because it forces them to realize that they suffered worse than they ever did, and that they might be somewhat responsible.

[–] dmac8 (5050) 4 years ago

I'll make it simple.

We both think he should be held accountable.

The difference between you and me is the idea of choice and my focus on the victim as well as the context of any individual that comprises society vs your focus on the perp and his context.

The perp made a decision to lash out. That lashing out involves taking all that happened to him and focusing the retribution on a few parties who somehow become the representative to take the brunt of what "society" theoretically deserves. I can't empathize with that thought process. Murray didn't do all those things to him. Neither did Randall. They aren't responsible for all that -- but yet they pay the ultimate price. Joker takes it out on them. That you think the deterministic forces pushed him to and fro to that outcome leaves out the conscious choice he made to take that action. He's not a feather in the wind that somehow lands with a squeezed trigger. He's a willful participant. He shuts off his mind to the illogic of his choice and goes with the rage of emotion and desire to be someone instead. I can't understand and share the feeling of taking it all out on a few in that way. I'd have to consider their individual contexts and their actual role in all that has happened to me -- rather than tuning out to those things b/c I have a rabid desire to act out NOW. Murray didn't create Joker. He isn't a proxy for "society" just b/c he's there in front of him. He just made fun of Arthur's bad stand-up routine. A bullet to the head is hardly just deserts. You immediately going broad to what responsibility "society" bears isn't grounds for empathy for the specific action against that victim. It simply doesn't follow. "I'm angry", I get that. I can empathize. "I've had a shitty life", I get that, I can empathize. "So I'm gonna take it all out on him in the worst way b/c he happened to be the latest one who did whatever thing - big or small -- to me". no, I don't get that. I cannot empathize.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Look, you really don't get it. You think you have this morally enlightened position because Arthur "MADE A DECISION," so he's beyond empathy, case closed.

See that point of view is idiotic. No his victims didn't deserve to die, but THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU FUCK WITH PEOPLE THEIR WHOLE LIVES. They very often GO POSTAL. Sorry but if you've ever had any serious adversity in your life, then you would understand that.

[–] dmac8 (5050) 4 years ago

You just keep making the same error.

Again, you jump to "YOU FUCK WITH PEOPLE THEIR WHOLE LIVES" while ignoring his victims are not those people, and may have their own contexts that he and you obviously don't care about. What if he killed the mother on the bus? You can empathize with that, right? No difference as long as he happened to reach his "breaking point" then instead of later, right? That's what you get b/c of what all those others did before that moment. Absurd.

You think you're sensitive b/c you share the same view -- which is why your initial reaction was to immediately disagree with the OP and claim he did indeed have the right. First reactions are very telling. You go, Joker! Right? But you blame society for HIS body count. So much for sensitivity to the victims and the fallout for their friends and families.

And it seems that you don't read either b/c I've already shared that I do have what anyone would call more than serious adversity.

And my view isn't any more "morally enlightened" than all those other people who share in serious adversity but don't act out b/c they know it's wrong. No, they don't "very often GO POSTAL." The handful that does is rightly condemned. And that handful rarely has the background that Arthur does. They're just mad they don't have the position in life that they want, and then they tantrum with lethal violence. They "go postal" not b/c they were beaten and chained to a radiator nor suffered their whole lives -- but b/c some mock them at work/school or the girl didn't like them back. Their pain isn't an understandable reason to create more and worse for others.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

His victims not deserving death is irrelevant. I already said they didn't deserve death. The abuse in Arthur's life led him down a murderous road. I don't understand what's so hard about this.

I don't think I'm sensitive, I'm just right. I truly changed my first post to more accurately reflect my thinking, not to get one over on anyone. And yes, we can and should blame society for producing men like Arthur through abuse. Why do you think there's been more mass shootings in the last thirty years? Because people treat Arthur like shit. Fuck people who treat Arthur like shit.

If you've had "more than serious adversity," then you should understand and appreciate how it can corrupt your humanity.

Now you're trying to invalidate the experience of people who have suffered more than you have by characterizing their struggles as petty. You don't know what you're talking about. I don't want to out myself as a mass shooting nerd but a cursory glance at any of their histories shows a life of general neglect, rejection, and abuse beyond what you are willing to acknowledge. That's quite offensive, actually.

[–] dmac8 (5050) 4 years ago

You changed your first post b/c I called you out. It would still be there otherwise. Who do you think you're fooling? You already outed yourself long ago.

I understand adversity but I understand choice as well. You don't. To you, that's a pesky detail to be glossed over before you jump right back to society as the real culprit. What do I expect? I don't expect murder from anyone who has lived a hard life. Pretending that mass shootings are committed by persons at the same level of background that reminds one of Arthur's first years is ridiculous. You started out at the proper extreme but now you've pulled all from a range into a single lump, all in desperation to make a point while avoiding the real one.

And your claim that I'm invalidating their experience is a strawman. I can acknowledge their experience while not empathizing with the route they took. He wasn't "led down a murderous road". He decided to take the murder exit off the road he was on, and he ignored the obvious and clear problem with dropping context and exploding all of his pain on the next person who did anything wrong. He did worse than cave in. He embraced it and enjoyed the perverse stature it gave him.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

No, I changed my first post before I had ever seen your reply because I felt it more accurately reflected what I believe. And if I hadn't, then I'd admit I was wrong and adjust my beliefs.

Your second paragraph is an opaque word salad that is hard to understand.

I understand adversity but I understand choice as well. You don't.

I'm sorry you are incapable or unwilling to understand that under certain conditions like prolonged abuse, people lash out violently. I can only conclude that this is because you've never been abused. I'm happy for you.

To you, that's a pesky detail to be glossed over before you jump right back to society as the real culprit.

Because in this case, society is the real culprit for allowing that kind of abuse to go unpunished. He "chose," yeah, but you probably would, too.

What do I expect? I don't expect murder from anyone who has lived a hard life.

Arthur didn't just have a "hard life," he was treated like dirt and humiliated since childhood, and tragically lacked the faculties to defend himself or rise above his circumstances. If you had any idea what that's like, you'd empathize with him.

Pretending that mass shootings are committed by persons at the same level of background that reminds one of Arthur's first years is ridiculous.

They don't need to be a carbon copy, there just generally needs to be a lifelong sense of humiliation and powerlessness. Adam Lanza, Elliott Rodger, and George Sodini all generally lacked the faculties to socially thrive, and were abused by both their families and their peers instead of receiving the support they needed. If you knew what that was like, you'd empathize.

continued...

[–] dmac8 (5050) 4 years ago

Yeah, sure. Such perfect timing. I reply to it. It's still there. You reply acting as if you agreed with me as though you never answered "yes' at all. It's gone. Why wouldn't you immediately make reference to your edit yourself? I had to point it out in the reply after that. You said nothing about changing it. And tell me what line of logic could ever make you type yes for a second? You make it sound like a slight modification for accuracy when in actuality you flip-flopped.

As I said, you're not fooling anyone. You paid slight lip service but continue to talk like someone who'd answer yes -- b/c that is your answer. "Society" had it coming, right? You're so transparent.

And you can continue with your illogical strawman arguments while avoiding my questions all you want. But don't think I haven't noticed. You can't stand that someone might suffer yet not reach the conclusion that you feel must be reached under those conditions. You've rigged the game. Disagree with you? Then they must not have suffered enough. You're sooo sensitive. That's why you think using the word "retarded" is just fine. But don't worry. We'll just blame "society" for your insensitivity. More on that later.

"Because in this case, society is the real culprit for allowing that kind of abuse to go unpunished. He "chose," yeah, but you probably would, too."

Oh? Interesting. No more lumping them all together? And now we have "probably would". "Probably" as in I may NOT as well? As if I may make a DIFFERENT choice despite the same conditions? You mean we have VOLITION? You just spelled out the leak in your argument

Now let's take a look at the other leak that you kept avoiding when I asked specific questions regarding it over and over, where honest answers would've ended this debate long ago -- which is why you didn't answer -- b/c it all falls apart if you do.

continued

[–] dmac8 (5050) 4 years ago

You've clearly cast your lot with the doctrine of determinism and context as applied to Joker. But you strangely don't for all the others. You can't do that. If we're all just part of a weather system -- or feathers in the wind -- or involuntary chemical reactions -- then all those who did anything bad to Arthur can use the same argument as a valid reason to empathize with them as well. Using your own logic, they can't be completely condemned, yet you do just that b/c they're "society" -- as if society is not comprised of individuals with context and their own stories. You say Joker's evolution didn't happen in a vacuum. Whose does???

You say Arthur was "led down murder road". Like dominoes falling towards that horrid result.

Well, why can't everyone say that and point to others as the "real culprits"? If that's how things work, why not empathize with anyone who does anything wrong?

His mother had it hard. She was led down "abuse Arthur road". Joker didn't have empathy for her. You?

Randall hasn't had it easy. He had to protect his own job. His entire life and all that happened to him led him down "cost Arthur his job road'. Empathy?

The subway jerks were picked on when they were kids or had a tyrannical father who also had a tyrannical father. All this led them down "pick on Arthur road". Empathy for them?

Murray came from nothing and clawed his way onto tv -- so he'll do anything for laughs and ratings -- so he was led down "make fun of Arthur road". Empathy?

But you didn't answer when I brought up context for them. Joker don't care about that. Neither do you. Due to his own narcissism, only his context counts. He doesn't want to know your story. Why stop and think when you can lean into your worst impulse and explode with no questions asked, right?

You don't see any of the mistreaters as products with context and a story.

No determinism applied to their actions.

They're just jerks with agency.

Joker has been determined by all these forces, but they haven't.

How convenient!

Everyone has forces acting upon them -- but everyone plays the most critical role in what happens or doesn't happen as a result. That's why choice is KEY rather than something to be glossed over in an eye blink. We're not tornadoes. We have volition. That's what stops the "inevitable" from being inevitable for that majority who choose not to cave in. For those few that do, it's still on them -- and they deserve complete condemnation in the same way you dish it out without a second thought to those who wronged him. Joker became an asshole like all the rest. Worse since he kills people. That's his choice. I have no empathy for that. You don't get a partial pass for choosing to become a worse version of what victimized you. Yet you can't bring yourself to completely condemn someone who chose to kill people that you admit didn't deserve it. Think about that.

The End.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

You've clearly cast your lot with the doctrine of determinism and context as applied to Joker. But you strangely don't for all the others.

Again, you don't get the point. Why don't you understand that the abused are statistically more likely to abuse people, and that Arthur was abused not only *more* than all the people around him, but BY the people around him; that gave him not the moral right, but the statistical likelihood that he would snap.

If we're all just part of a weather system -- or feathers in the wind -- or involuntary chemical reactions -- then all those who did anything bad to Arthur can use the same argument as a valid reason to empathize with them as well.

No you can't, because they didn't suffer as much as he did. They weren't humiliated as much as he was. "How do you know" would be retarded question; the movie builds a crystal-clear impression of all the characters appearing to enjoy their lives far more than Arthur ever does. If you can't see that, then I can't help you.

You fail to get the comparison I was making, explosive abnormal behavior is far more likely to happen when you have a level of psychic pain that far exceeds the capacity to deal with it. Arthur, and people like George Sodini, have that experience.

Using your own logic, they can't be completely condemned, yet you do just that b/c they're "society" -- as if society is not comprised of individuals with context and their own stories. You say Joker's evolution didn't happen in a vacuum. Whose does???

I don't understand how you formulated this question, or how you failed to understand that I would condemn their lashing out not for their being "society," but because their struggles don't deserve that much respect. That does not mean they don't have struggles or context, it means that they haven't been shit on by life so severely that I'd understand them going on a shooting spree...

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

His mother had it hard. She was led down "abuse Arthur road". Joker didn't have empathy for her. You?

She chose to bring him into the world, probably with some asshole she shouldn't have slept with. She abused and neglected him, and probably contributed to his feeble-mindedness by drinking while she was pregnant with him. She didn't deserve to die, but she had a large and conscious hand in creating the monster Arthur became.

Randall hasn't had it easy. He had to protect his own job. His entire life and all that happened to him led him down "cost Arthur his job road'. Empathy?

He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Didn't deserve to die.

The subway jerks were picked on when they were kids or had a tyrannical father who also had a tyrannical father. All this led them down "pick on Arthur road". Empathy for them?

No, fuck those guys, and fuck their trash family. Even if they come from a hellhole where you have to get addicted to hurting people just to survive, they are getting their basic power, respect, and probably sex needs met far more than Arthur is.

Also, and this is subtle, Arthur belongs to a higher stratum of society where one is generally not expected to suffer his level of misfortune. The quiet and constant abuse he suffers is the sum of myriad acts of unprovoked cruelty, apparently just because he is an easy target, and defenseless.

No one deserves abuse, just for being capable of being abused. But this is the message "society" tells him, and men like him, IRL. That if you can't defend yourself, then butter up or fuck off. Guess what -- after a while, they believe you. That Might Is Right, and therefore anyone you hurt had it coming...

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Murray came from nothing and clawed his way onto tv -- so he'll do anything for laughs and ratings -- so he was led down "make fun of Arthur road". Empathy?

Murray was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and fucked with the wrong guy. Didn't deserve to die. Was just part of the straw that broke the camel's back.

But you didn't answer when I brought up context for them. Joker don't care about that. Neither do you. Due to his own narcissism, only his context counts. He doesn't want to know your story. Why stop and think when you can lean into your worst impulse and explode with no questions asked, right?

You don't understand, this is bigger than Arthur or the personal tragedies of the people around him. This is about a society that thinks it's acceptable to heap abuse onto easy targets like Arthur just because it can. There comes a point when the amount of shit some people have to eat is just so fucking outrageous that they just decide enough is enough.

Unfortunately, it also drives them crazy, and they take out people who may not deserve it. Again, if you don't like it, don't fuck with people.

You don't see any of the mistreaters as products with context and a story.

No determinism applied to their actions.

They're just jerks with agency.

Joker has been determined by all these forces, but they haven't.

How convenient!

Yes I do, the forces fell much more brutally onto Joker. That's why he went criminally insane, and they didn't. I'm repeating myself...

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Everyone has forces acting upon them -- but everyone plays the most critical role in what happens or doesn't happen as a result. That's why choice is KEY rather than something to be glossed over in an eye blink. We're not tornadoes. We have volition. That's what stops the "inevitable" from being inevitable for that majority who choose not to cave in.

Dude, fuck you. Experiences have an effect on what we choose to do or not do. This story was about the inevitable massacre that happens when enough people in a society, for whatever reason, have to endure the same level of humiliation and powerlessness as Arthur.

No, most of them won't lash out, but some of them will choose to, INEVITABLY. And as long as this very real injustice is suffered to continue, then the massacres will INEVITABLY continue to happen every once in a while. As they have been for the last thirty years. Because they made a choice, yes, but they wouldn't have made that choice without the abuse in their environment.

Therefore the environment, society, whatever you want to call it, is partially to blame. It's certainly to blame for his suffering. If no one else is going to hold it accountable, then only the Jokers will. And they have a blurry aim.

For those few that do, it's still on them -- and they deserve complete condemnation

No they don't. Arthur absorbed unprovoked cruelty and rejection his whole life just because he was helpless. He suffered far more than anyone around him. I believe this shitty attitude that Might Is Right is systemic in our culture, which is why there have been so many mass shooters.

And there will continue to be until society stops being too pussy to look at how it's creating them. And it's not gun control, dumbasses.

I don't condemn his victims, I condemn the attitudes that created Arthur in the first place.

I have no empathy for that.

*shrugs* you're an idiot.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

You don't get a partial pass for choosing to become a worse version of what victimized you.

Well again, it's bigger than that. If society wants to make it socially acceptable to shit on the disadvantaged and the unfortunate, then every once in a while some of them are gonna go apeshit. That's a statistical fact and "choice" is an academic point that has nothing to do with anything.

I wouldn't begrudge anyone shooting them as they rampage through an elementary school, but I'd have to concede that society brings it upon itself. They didn't choose to be born that way into a society that thinks they are punching bags.

Yet you can't bring yourself to completely condemn someone who chose to kill people that you admit didn't deserve it. Think about that.

I think I have. And I've explained myself pretty well.

been real, brah! :D

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Oh my God let the edit thing go. I'm not lying, I originally put "yes," but then changed it because I felt the revision was more accurate. You can't say anyone has a legal "right" to fuckin shoot up kids.

You can't stand that someone might suffer yet not reach the conclusion that you feel must be reached under those conditions. You've rigged the game.

No, I think you can't stand that you don't know what you're talking about. These people have suffered more than you ever have, and that makes you feel insecure. You want to feel like you've faced the same demons as they have, and come out ahead. I don't think you have.

I think you're probably a relatively unremarkable person of mediocre experience and intelligence whose sense of identity is wrapped up in this story you tell yourself about how... woke you are, or something. Your refusing to look at the reasons why Arthur deserves empathy for his final act is part of that story.

Disagree with you? Then they must not have suffered enough.

You haven't given me a better explanation in like thirty paragraphs.

That's why you think using the word "retarded" is just fine.

"Retarded" to me means "appallingly stupid." It was an apt term to use at the time.

"Probably" as in I may NOT as well? As if I may make a DIFFERENT choice despite the same conditions?

Yes, I already explained you would most likely make a different choice, BUT it's statistically a hard fact that you would be MORE LIKELY to choose to lash out given those environmental stressors. There is no leak in my argument so far.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

You started out at the proper extreme but now you've pulled all from a range into a single lump, all in desperation to make a point while avoiding the real one.

What's the "real point?" That he had a choice? I'm sorry you are incapable or unwilling to understand that under certain conditions like prolonged abuse, people lash out violently. I can only conclude that this is because you've never been abused. I'm happy for you.

And your claim that I'm invalidating their experience is a strawman.

No it isn't, it's me pointing out the retarded strawman you made that mass shooters are just idiots who can't get laid or some dismissive bullshit. They are pariahs who are sick of being abused and disenfranchised.

I can acknowledge their experience while not empathizing with the route they took.

Right, I know, that's because you've never been pushed very far.

He wasn't "led down a murderous road".

Bullshit, a life of humiliation and learned powerlessness breeds dreams of being a monster. I'm getting tired of this.

He decided to take the murder exit off the road he was on, and he ignored the obvious and clear problem with dropping context and exploding all of his pain on the next person who did anything wrong.

When you're in that kind of pain, you don't give a shit. You just want to feel powerful before ending your life which is one long nightmare anyway. I don't know how you missed how the whole movie was about the kinds of experiences that can put you in that place, whether the final act is moral or not. I'm starting to think you have some kind of agenda or are really dense.

He did worse than cave in. He embraced it and enjoyed the perverse stature it gave him.

You probably would too.