[ SECRET POST #2689 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2689 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 026 secrets from Secret Submission Post #384.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: what "Just for evil" means.

[(Anonymous)]

Hahaha no not really, re: paragraph 5

The rest of your comment is good, but impractically theoretical. Being evil = hurting people, which pretty much short-circuits all justification and complexity because none of it really *matters* at all any more once you start hurting people.

Re: what "Just for evil" means.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

No idea if you're going to read this because I checked back so late, but respectfully, we disagree. Hurting people is not everyone's definition of evil. And technically, I'd assume yours has more to do with *which* people are being hurt, because most heroes enforce real-world sociocultural ideals with violence. It's "might makes right" hidden in a story dynamic where the good guy just happens to always be the strongest one in the end. And the hero is often saved by circumstance from actually having to kill the villain, because modern stories have a superstitious horror of killing.

"Once you start hurting people, nothing else matters" overlooks the fact that most villains have been subjected to violence. They don't bring force into the picture so much as return it with interest. You're focusing on what they do and ignoring what was done to them, with the arbitrary belief that they should have been paragons of non-violence that keep your sympathy and the so-called moral high ground. But a villain, pretty much by definition, is a furious nightmare of a survivor who isn't asking for anything. They're demanding it and forcing the issue. And frankly, they're portrayed through a privileged group's worst fears about survivors, so they are unreasonable, insane, pathologically furious, and no amount of power will ever make them feel safe or content. They cut a path of destruction that puts a stop to everyone else's ability to keep doing what normal people had been doing, before the villain came along. They are, to a greater or lesser extent, a caricature. They're blatantly, obviously wrong so that people can keep believing the way society does things is right. It's easier to pick up on this if you look at the heroes and villains of a different era, whose prejudices and morals don't align well with yours. But then as now, it's ingrained in our stories to make The Problem one angry, unstable person and The Solution getting rid of them. The hero does what the whole group wishes someone would do, because they don't have any particular interest in addressing the injustice that created the villain. That violence hurt a minority. The villain is turning the whole group's collective life upside down. "Important people are being inconvenienced by this, so how dare he?" is basically what this argument amounts to. A big part of why villains resonate for some people, even as they alienate many others, is because they're willing to go "excuse me, I am an important person."