No, not really. It was just a passive aggressive way to call him obtuse.
Arrow- Detective Lance vs Oliver Queen/Green Arrow
- Thread starter Othello
- Start date
No, not really. It was just a passive aggressive way to call him obtuse.
Still nope. The distinction stands. It was in relation to his answer, not him. So please lay off throwing around assumptions of passive aggressive actions. And even if it was interpreted in such a way, I have made the intention of that question clear, twice.
Pretending not to understand in order to switch to another, more congenial, easier to defend topic, is passive aggressive. These things are very hard to judge on a bbs, absent personal interaction, however.
One topic that was evaded was the question of whether the supposed moral redemption arc posited exists in anything show on screen, even as hints? Or whether the show intends for us to accept Ollie Queen's crimes as justified? Everything I've seen indicates, particularly the behavior of other characters toward each other, very strongly that we are intended to accept the justifications offered.
For example, any guards killed in the raid on Adam Hunt's offices are deemed worthy of death for resisting Hoodie's onslaught. It's seems probable (if you can use any standards about a show with such disdain for reality,) that some could just have been Diggles with the wrong bosses.
Certainly the show holds steadfastly to the great conservative moral principle that some people are worth more than others. I believe that the victims will invariably be held to be guilty, and worthy of death, on Hoodie's say so. On the other hand, they endlessly harp on Oliver's supposed guilt (Hoodie has none!
) in merely inviting a girl on a cruise. The differences are that the Lances are for whatever reason deemed real people, and that the real offense is sexual: Cheating on his girl friend.
I find it very hard to take this kind of thinking as a genuine attempt to write moral redemption. I don't think it's an issue at all. I think we are supposed to enjoy the killing of the untermenschen and assuage our consciences with Hoodie's emotional suffering over it.
A deathbed repentance is better than no repentance at all. Oliver could redeem Robert by publicizing his confession. There is no true need for any of these shenangans other than the fun (such as it is) of them.
The bottom line is not the legal definition of insanity
One topic that was evaded was the question of whether the supposed moral redemption arc posited exists in anything show on screen, even as hints? Or whether the show intends for us to accept Ollie Queen's crimes as justified? Everything I've seen indicates, particularly the behavior of other characters toward each other, very strongly that we are intended to accept the justifications offered.
For example, any guards killed in the raid on Adam Hunt's offices are deemed worthy of death for resisting Hoodie's onslaught. It's seems probable (if you can use any standards about a show with such disdain for reality,) that some could just have been Diggles with the wrong bosses.
Certainly the show holds steadfastly to the great conservative moral principle that some people are worth more than others. I believe that the victims will invariably be held to be guilty, and worthy of death, on Hoodie's say so. On the other hand, they endlessly harp on Oliver's supposed guilt (Hoodie has none!
) in merely inviting a girl on a cruise. The differences are that the Lances are for whatever reason deemed real people, and that the real offense is sexual: Cheating on his girl friend. I find it very hard to take this kind of thinking as a genuine attempt to write moral redemption. I don't think it's an issue at all. I think we are supposed to enjoy the killing of the untermenschen and assuage our consciences with Hoodie's emotional suffering over it.
A deathbed repentance is better than no repentance at all. Oliver could redeem Robert by publicizing his confession. There is no true need for any of these shenangans other than the fun (such as it is) of them.
The bottom line is not the legal definition of insanity
Mister Fandango
Fleet Captain
So stopping from committing crimes and/or punishing them for their past crimes isn't fighting crime? You certainly have a strange belief system.
And you're clearly not paying attention to the show. Just off the top of my head, he's saved Dinah and Dig, plus all the people indirectly rescued from the current and future dealings of these crime bosses.
Punisher kills. Tons of superheroes have killed. The Punisher, Deadpool, Thor, Wolverine, Cyclops (after being ordered to by Wolverine no less), Spider-Man, The Flash, Batman, and hell even Superman himself (General Zod, Quek-Ul, and Faora; those were flat-out executions). Hell, even the comic book version of the Green Arrow himself has killed people.
A typical superhero in the darker/grittier side of the spectrum? Yes. It sure does sound like one.
"Oh, you only murdered that innocent little girl once? Okay, you're off the hook!"
You may have also missed the part where he's done some investigating himself regarding the people on the list. He doesn't just pick a name at random then hunts then down and executes them like you so desperately wish he was in order to justify whatever point you're trying to make.
The criminal side of things, sure. But that's the whole point of what he's doing. These are organized crime figureheads. Not upstanding government officials.
The point you're painfully missing is that your interpretation isn't the correct one.
I don't recall any instances of Spider-Man intentionally killing anyone. On the contrary, he's one of the superheroes most fundamentally defined by his reverence for life. He's driven to do what he does because he failed to prevent Uncle Ben's death when he had the power to do so, and therefore he refuses to sit by and let anyone else die, regardless of who they are. There have certainly been cases where he's failed to save someone -- in fact, that happens pretty often for him -- but intentionally killing just isn't something he does, or would ever want to do, except in a really bad storyline where he's being written out of character like in Back in Black.
Batman and Superman are also characters who are almost always defined by a clear and explicit refusal to kill; instances where they have killed have been lapses in characterization that have generally been ignored by subsequent writers. It's hard to find any long-running comics character who hasn't been written inconsistently, so it's important to distinguish between something that's a standard part of their characterization and something that was a mere aberration and an exception to the rule. In Green Arrow's case, his deadlier tactics were a consistent part of his characterization throughout the years that Mike Grell wrote the character, in what's considered as probably the most definitive work ever written about Green Arrow (which is why it's the primary inspiration for the show). So it's fair to say it's an accepted part of his character. But for Superman and Batman, those uses of lethal force were rare anomalies that cannot be said to represent their standard characterizations.
Batman and Superman are also characters who are almost always defined by a clear and explicit refusal to kill; instances where they have killed have been lapses in characterization that have generally been ignored by subsequent writers. It's hard to find any long-running comics character who hasn't been written inconsistently, so it's important to distinguish between something that's a standard part of their characterization and something that was a mere aberration and an exception to the rule. In Green Arrow's case, his deadlier tactics were a consistent part of his characterization throughout the years that Mike Grell wrote the character, in what's considered as probably the most definitive work ever written about Green Arrow (which is why it's the primary inspiration for the show). So it's fair to say it's an accepted part of his character. But for Superman and Batman, those uses of lethal force were rare anomalies that cannot be said to represent their standard characterizations.
I actually don't want to get into the middle of this because I don't have the time or the stones to debate the way you two are doing (quite well and quite interesting...)
but, there is a big difference morally and psychologically between a soldier who is working as an extension of society/government with training, discipline, and a line of command, and a lone individual who is giving themselves the designation of judge, jury, and executioner. A really big difference. A vigilante is not a soldier, no matter how some writers try to romanticise it. Operating outside the validation of society is huge, and it is a clear identifiable trait of sociopaths.
We are pack animals through evolution. It is hard wired. A "John Rambo" operating entirely solo is cool to watch, but it is also pathological. I found the first Rambo to be, if not deep, at least multilayered in it's examination of a completely isolated individual who was so conditioned to operate in a command structure he was lost when it was gone. Once his commander stepped back into his viewpoint he had a focus again. Likewise the first Rocky, I have some admiration for Stallone for what he achieved there. But certainly, these characters were hardly well adjusted.
Oh, I don't disagree with that at all. I'm not saying I approve of his actions. I'm just saying he employs those tactics in his fight against corruption because they're the only methods he knows, the methods he apparently mastered during his five years on Lian Yu Island. They're not the actions of a madman, they're the actions of a warrior and survivor who sees his battle as still ongoing.
It takes more than one trait to diagnose psychopathy (again, the term "sociopath" is no longer in formal medical usage). And the context must be considered. He's not just any random guy acting "outside the validation of society." He's a man who was stranded on his own in hellish conditions for five years -- clearly not as alone as he led people to believe, but evidently battling hostile forces who controlled the island. Under such circumstances, acting autonomously and defying the will and restrictions of the people around him was actually a healthy and adaptive response. He's still acting that way because it's not easy to unlearn such an ingrained survival habit -- and because he's still in a place besieged by hostile forces and knows he can't let his guard down.
But the circumstances are different now, and he just hasn't yet learned to adjust his methods, to see the side of the equation that he's missing. That's where Dig comes in as his conscience and his anchor, and where Laurel and his family come in as he rediscovers his compassion.
Pretending not to understand in order to switch to another, more congenial, easier to defend topic, is passive aggressive. These things are very hard to judge on a bbs, absent personal interaction, however.
One topic that was evaded was the question of whether the supposed moral redemption arc posited exists in anything show on screen, even as hints? Or whether the show intends for us to accept Ollie Queen's crimes as justified? Everything I've seen indicates, particularly the behavior of other characters toward each other, very strongly that we are intended to accept the justifications offered.
For example, any guards killed in the raid on Adam Hunt's offices are deemed worthy of death for resisting Hoodie's onslaught. It's seems probable (if you can use any standards about a show with such disdain for reality,) that some could just have been Diggles with the wrong bosses.
Certainly the show holds steadfastly to the great conservative moral principle that some people are worth more than others. I believe that the victims will invariably be held to be guilty, and worthy of death, on Hoodie's say so. On the other hand, they endlessly harp on Oliver's supposed guilt (Hoodie has none!
I find it very hard to take this kind of thinking as a genuine attempt to write moral redemption. I don't think it's an issue at all. I think we are supposed to enjoy the killing of the untermenschen and assuage our consciences with Hoodie's emotional suffering over it.
A deathbed repentance is better than no repentance at all. Oliver could redeem Robert by publicizing his confession. There is no true need for any of these shenangans other than the fun (such as it is) of them.
The bottom line is not the legal definition of insanity
Very well put forward. Thanks for the your insight.
What justifies this insistence that Hoodie is going to repair his conscience and revive his compassion? The show doesn't support this as the supposed moral growth arc. Hoodie's conscience is in fine fettle, he constantly beats his breast over cheating on Maggie Gyllenhaal. His compassion is also hot to trot, right to the rescue of the nearest falsely convicted felon. Hoodie has already killed people but Dig is most definitely not going to repair his conscience to feel half as guilty over that as he does about cheating and lying to his family. Dig is not there to genuinely change Hoodie, he's there to validate Hoodie as a good person underneath it all.
All the chatter about comics and superhero tropes is irrelevant. You can place this show on a continuum but it merely begs the question: Is this kind of vicarious joy in vigilantism entertaining? Or degrading? But, maybe the relevance of the superhero jargon is that asks the question, are superheroes fundamentally adolescent? In the perjorative sense of the word, of course.
All the chatter about comics and superhero tropes is irrelevant. You can place this show on a continuum but it merely begs the question: Is this kind of vicarious joy in vigilantism entertaining? Or degrading? But, maybe the relevance of the superhero jargon is that asks the question, are superheroes fundamentally adolescent? In the perjorative sense of the word, of course.
Seriously, if you could just tone down the veiled insults a bit I would be happy to go one on one with you. But in truth, I can truly understand where Christopher is coming from. It seems no matter how I present my views and counter yours you just want to shoot mine down by saying it is over my head or that my interpretations are flat out wrong. Not much fun in that.
It comes down to this: You think Ollie is a hero. I do not. You think I am wrong because clearly Ollie is a hero and your points make it clear even as my counter points are somehow backfiring on me and Ollie is still coming out a hero--just a darker one. In your view I can't understand what I am seeing (painfully in some cases), and a lot of things go over my head. Got it.
Christopher, would you take me back please! Things were so much more fun with you!
Just to note: while sociopath is no longer used, a person with all the traits generally described with such a mental condition is now legally termed with Antisocial Personality Disorder.
Mister Fandango
Fleet Captain
It really isn't fun when the other person is making stuff up to try and rationalize his predetermined views. If you're not going to discuss the same thing everyone else is discussing, or at least pay attention to the show you're discussing, why even bother talking about it at all?
First, it's superhero. Not hero. Get that right at least. And no, they are not the same things.
After that, please try to explain why you repeatedly use superheroes such as the Punisher (or any of the other myriad superheroes who have knowingly and purposely killed others; and yes Spider-Man is one such villain -- look up his final battle with the Finisher) in the same virtual breath that you claim this version of the Green Arrow isn't. (Also, Prometheus says hi. You may want to look him up before you continue, too.) I'd really like to see you backpeddle that one.
If you don't like "veiled insults," maybe you should stop using them in more than a few of your posts yourself. Or are you just being obtuse?
You speak of my predetermined views (does that mean I came up with these views before the show even came on? Pretty cool on my part.) But you are just as much a wall as I am when it comes to our perception of the show and the characters. You think one thing. I think another. I am not saying yours is wrong. Hell, the very nature of the show points to him him being a hero. And I think he will be in time. Just not now, just not yet. But you repeatedly tell me I am wrong in a very base way. Why you feel the need to do this I don't know. Is upsetting you that I don't see things the way you do? Is it that somebody can be so dense and unyielding to not see the blatant truth, that you just need to degrade him at every turn? Last I check, the internet is not a dictatorship. People are not always going to see things your way. This is a basic life lesson a lot of people learn at a young age, and I feel very silly even saying it. But the way you are presenting yourself, I just think I should point that out. To cover myself, I do not mean this as a jab. I am just asking for some maturity on your part.
And what things exactly did I make up? That's a pretty bold thing to say. I am looking forward to your answer on this.
And in truth, I was answering the question you put forth while Christopher and I was doing our back and forth. This one:
Let's try this another way: Name one superhero who's not a nutjob to one degree or another. Just the act of putting on tights and wearing your underwear on the outside in order to fight crime throws the vast majority of them into the whacko camp alone.
Assuming you can think of some, ask which one of those never lie or otherwise manipulate people in order to achieve their goals. Hell, it might be easier to start here.
The only one I can almost consider is Captain America. That's pretty much it.
So this thing became almost a side discussion while I was still doing a back and forth with Christopher, and then, later on and to a lesser degree Sojourner. Some people commented on the things we were saying, but you always chose to come back at me. And they spoke of other things while in truth you just spoke about this. You, yourself were not discussing what everybody else was discussing and I got dragged into this with you. I answered your question. You didn't care for my answer, and thus things has spiraled to this.
And I'll keep saying Hero if that is okay. When I think of Superheroes, I think of characters like Spider-Man and Superman. Characters like Batman and Green Arrow are highly trained, just as firefighters and swat and SEALS. While they sometime deal with fantastic elements they are more grounded than say (again) Superman and Spider-Man.
And I used examples like the Punisher who I do not see a hero in any sense of the term, to try to answer your question (which was loaded from the start; you can't give a black and white answer to it, not the way you worded it). I think of the Punisher simply as a vigilante. And I feel Ollie is in the same league as him. While other heroes and super heroes have killed, it was usually for some plot driven story or circumstance. It is not their standard MO, while with Punisher and at times Ollie it is (Prometheus says Hi right back at ya). I tried to make this clear many times when I spoke of degrees. So sorry. No back peddling needed.
As for the "veiled insults" I am to have put out in a couple of my posts, I really don't think I did. And clearly nothing to match the level that you have presented to me. I guess with your ironic witticism of throwing the word obtuse back at me, that you are using that as an example and a justification. But the thing with that is, and I made it clear, even with the conceit that it came out wrong, that was not my aim. I did not mean it as an insult. And I have made that clear more than once thanks to the back and fourth of my intent and how it came out with Sojourner. How you missed that, I can't say. Maybe you just wanted to sound clever, facts be damned.
On a side note, you list Ollie saving Diggle and Laurel as examples of him going out of his way to save lives. I think those are very poor examples as they only needed saving because of Ollie. Laurel, would have never been in that prison if Ollie didn't send her on that path to start with. Diggle would have never been shot if he didn't go after Ollie who ran off to confront Deadshot. He put a person he possibly respected, and a woman he has feelings for in line of danger with his actions--actions, I believe, that are linked to his Antisocial Personality Disorder I always claimed he had before the Insanity business started.
Similar threads
