He doesn't even need to do it personally since no one can question his ability to pardon whoever does it. So he could order it or just ask "Won't someone rid me of these troublesome justices?"
I may have an explanation for you.
There are two state parks near me that require people to park next to each other. You can actually get towed for parking off on your own. They say they're trying to get as many cars in the parking lot as possible.
Maybe that person is used to these sorts of rules.
The joker isn't the disease in Gotham, he's the symptom. In a world where the effort of an individual results in proportional gains, where people have a home, family, and attachments to their community, there is no joker. The populace is innoculated against his desire to tear it all down, because they have a stake in "it all". The few that are vulnerable to his views, are getting the support and care they need from trained staff, and the people around them are keeping the joker away. Batman isn't in Gotham because of the Joker; the Joker can exist in Gotham because of Batman, a billionaire who spent his efforts and resource on violence, instead of outreach.
Plus, giving OSHA some teeth, and forcing corporations to compensate fairly for workplace accidents, and regulations requiring the inspection and certification of toxic chemical plants would have stopped the joker, and countless other tragedies, at a fraction of the cost.
At first I thought you were insinuating this post was corpo propaganda, but then it clicked that you were talking about Batman himself lol. I'd like to say that many if not most versions of batman is more gentle and forgiving than the police, his goals are simply to take an impossible problem to fix and reduce harm from it as much as possible, without all the sophistry of purely hypothetical philanthropy and political reform.
Not really meaning for this to sound as arrogant as it's going to, but... Lemmy is almost entirely populated by nerds so far.
Nerds tend to be open to tech, maybe a little smarter overall. You know? You can tell by the grammar, the spelling. It's a different group here.
Reality is left leaning, and the stupider someone is, in general, the more likely they are to lean right politically. The rest of the right are the really rich, who tend to be up the psychological spectrum toward sociopathic, so of course they would have no time for caring for others' needs.
I know this was a joke Colbert made, but the truth is the reverse: the left is reality-leaning. It's truly terrifying to see how divorced from reality the right-wing is, and how gleefully they just keep storming in that direction.
That's not true. Groups of people can work towards specific goals in a constrained framework and still work creatively within that. Take movies and TV, animation, architecture, music etc. All of these may have hundreds or thousands of people working together and individually behind the scenes. Would you say that therefore they're not creative or relied on creativity to work?
I know people say that limits kill creativity but I'd say in many cases its the opposite. Limits cause people to think creatively to build something interesting within those bounds.
Not to say thats the rule. Sure, hive mentality and groupthink can kill creativity but its not the case for everything, far from it.
Having too many cultures that have not established a "market share" in politics makes the, people who run a country, job harder as it has to contend with dealing with the potential of new cultures forming and the inevitable culture clashes that follow as differing values and ideals will demand different things.
It fractures and dilutes points of control which encourages politics to try ensure loyalty though aligning itself with views of the majority.
End tldr
Unironically, Stellaris is probably a decent example of the thought experiment played out. Unless a species is built with ideals of the intergration and/or has its proper foundation set then it can quickly spiral out of hand as you have to deal with " a hunded voices asking for one thing".
It is far easier to control and secure a foundational majority based off of one species as it can be more easily guided towards an established outcome.
Adding too many "outsiders" has the potential to cause an imbalance and a shift in thinking which then requires a new paradigm to "herd the sheep" as it were, while still trying to maintain a standard that the base species has become accustomed to.
If it not carefully controlled, it can potentially lead to a fracturing of opinion and thoughts which is a lot harder to manage and "guide" as one runs the risk of isolating one group and in doing so opening up the potential cascade of problems if the ignored minorities builds up steam which then forces leaders to contend with trying to figure out a way to maintain control over the many species bases while still doing it in a way that causes the least amount of disruption to their control.
I don't think brains get more complex because of additional information.
Also, what I'm not sure you mean with having "enough capacity to reflect ourselves by processing everything"? Do you mean analyzing another brain or analyzing your own brain? Do you mean processing every time a neuron fires, and which neurons get what kind of stimulus from it? Or do you mean looking at all molecules/atoms/fundamental particles and considering their state and following reaction?
I think we should be capable of understanding the concepts that make our brains work eventually. But I don't think we have the capacity to monitor everything another brain is doing and understand/interpret it in real time, let alone our own brain. A computer might be able to at some point, when we understand more about neurology.
There will always be exhibitionists and people who just like to fuck, but sex work is, by definition, transactional. You're not going to see a society with free communal whores who aren't being compensated in any way.
Huh, maybe. Although my point was more batman is part of that class (albeit begrudgingly) so expecting batman in a position of great power and influence to actively take that from other people is just very hypocritical. Not that he shouldn't (or someone shouldn't). Just a very weird position.
He's still Batman. He does detective stuff, doesn't have superpowers, Gotham is appropriately grimdark, etc. Terry doesn't have to learn that with great power comes great responsibility like Peter does. The only similarity is that he's a working class wisecracking teenager with a somewhat agility based fighting style. Peter Parker was never a burly hoodlum before he got his powers, and he doesn't see being a superhero as a way to make up for mistakes he made as a normal. He also didn't steal his powers. Terry is a much more mature and slightly darker character than Peter at the start of his journey. He's not an academically minded geek, he's someone who's experienced the real world and understands it. He's got street smarts, he can fight, and he can lie.
Showerthoughts
Active
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago).