• Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.caEnglish
    30·
    21 hours ago

    The Punisher is supposed to represent the absolute failure of the system.

    Cops and military are supposed to be the system.

    When they wear The Punisher’s colours, they are literally admitting that they are starting from a failure state.

    Which I find ridiculous.

  • redsand@infosec.pub
    8·
    18 hours ago

    Much like V, Punisher has a goal he intends to die achieving. Kill the murders responsible for their torment. None of these panzies are willing to die or understand the skull is an admission, Frank does not belong in the world he wants to create.

  • LordCrom@lemmy.world
    12·
    21 hours ago

    People fail to realize the punisher is a bad guy who kills based on his judgement and completely outside the law. When i see cops sport the skull, it just kills me.

    • femtek@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      30·
      1 day ago

      Eh, if the punisher was real I think he would be killing the same people that wear his symbol and that would be beneficial.

          • Sarah Valentine (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            8·
            23 hours ago

            Sure, it’s all well and good when the vigilante kills someone you want dead. But we’re not talking about whether any particular act of vigilantism is of benefit to society, we’re talking about the kind of society you’d wind up with if such vigilantism were considered okay. Because a whole lot more people would be dying, and not all of them would be the people you want dead.

            • CentipedeFarrier@piefed.socialEnglish
              5·
              19 hours ago

              Most of them probably wouldn’t be because the people willing to employ such measures -typically- aren’t the sort of people decent people would agree with on most matters of who deserves what.

            • twopi@lemmy.caEnglish
              1·
              18 hours ago

              I 100% agree with your first sentence. That is exactly the reason why I gave the answer of Luigi Mangioni.

              Sure, it’s all well and good when the vigilante kills someone you want dead.

              That’s what I want though. I would rather those who hold a monopoly of violence to go after people I want to be gone after. However, those who hold the monopoly of violence go after people they deem appropriate. If those who hold the monopoly of violence go after people I want I am against vigilantism but if they don’t I will support any act of vigilantism that goes after people I want but not acts of vigilantism that don’t.

              Luigi Mangioni showed me an instance where I supported the ends (retribution against health insurance CEOs) over means (proper monopoly of violence). If you only follow means rather than ends exclusive than those who control the means and choose which means you follow will choose the ends you will arrive at. Why would I give away the ends prematurely and have someone else define it, probably for their own benefit?

                • twopi@lemmy.caEnglish
                  3·
                  13 hours ago

                  What you wrote is not new.

                  It was written and critiqued for a long time both in Western and Eastern philosophies of statecraft.

                  See Thomas Hobbes’ Laviethan and the Chinese mandate of heaven:

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(Hobbes_book)

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven

                  Vigilantism encompases all non state violence, both organised and anarchy. It includes (un)organised political terrorism (Luigi Mangione) and personal vendettas. You make no distinction between the two in your response.

                  This is why I agree with the first sentence. To say that all vigilante violence leads to poorer conditions for the poor is wrong. People can agree with a subset of non-state violence and disagree with another subset.