ChocoboMogALT posted...
In most interpretations of Batman he's a straight hero. Has a no-kill policy, strong heroic morals, not afraid of challenging other superheroes when they break said morals. There's no anti about him, he's a hero who wears black.
He's a vigilante who breaks the laws to do what he does. He's rude and often likes to work alone over cooperating with others. His modus operandi is striking fear into others. The whole point of the no-kill policy is that he'd be crossing a line into irredeemable because of the lines he already crosses. These aren't
ideal
heroic traits. Meta Knight is basically a much straighter hero than him and Meta Knight is considered an anti-hero.
ChocoboMogALT posted...
In no way is Meursault heroic. If you think Holden Caulfield is heroic you might need to see a therapist. Clint Eastwood in the Dollars trilogy is ethically closer to Walter White than Batman. Hell, Rorschach is Batman if Batman was actually an antihero.
That's literally the point. TC was actively calling Walt heroic in that thread. If you think calling Holden Caulfield heroic means someone needs to see a therapist then you're proving my point. He didn't have the literary definition in mind at all in the beginning until he could conveniently use the wikipedia entry to validate himself.
Limelol posted...
I'm not seeing how thinking WW is an anti-hero, or even hero, means that someone is a Nazi sympathizer, transphobe, and sexist, or even a bigot in general. At worst, he's simply wrong.
Whatever went down in that other thread must've been huge to spark such a, seemingly, obsessed and weird derailment like this.
Yeah you should read that thread (unfortunately site seems down right now so you have to wait a bit). He was way worse in it and doubling down on awful takes.