Read on Twitter
Much tea has been spilled about how Batman is awful because he could do much more good by spending his money on social programs. This is an entirely valid reading of the character, particularly given the way he is often written.
Here is a short thread about why I disagree.
Here is a short thread about why I disagree.
In essence, my frustration is that the same could be said about any superhero. Nearly all their powers could be put to better use than violence. Imagine the Flash building homes, green lantern mining distant asteroids. SMBC nailed Superman on this: https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2305
I would actually like it a lot if we saw super heroes doing more real good in their worlds. These are adventure stories though, and at some point the adventure has to kick in. Suspending our disbelief about a better use for the hero's time is part of the buy in.
Tangentially, a better criticism might be that violent super heroes should not be framed as capital-G Good Guys. IMHO the best adventure fiction always has total bastards for protagonists, like Cugel, Fafhrd & Grey Mouser, Conan, The Brothers Grossbart, etc.
The critical flaw in my argument is that Batman's "super power" exists in our real world. We're all suffering under the rule of real-life Batmen, like that weenie who cosplays as the founder of Tesla.
The issue has been exacerbated by nerds who think "more realistic" is synonymous with "better." Even worse, these are the same oversized infants for whom Objectivism wasn't a temporary phase. They actually think it describes the world accurately, which is icky as hell.
All of which is to say that if someone can't stomach Batman, I 100% get where they're coming from. But there are less " " g r i t t y " " versions of the character (Tim Burton's, or Bruce Timm's) which are far enough removed from being a libertarian fantasy that I can love them.
