You can acknowledge that Jason has done fucked up things without this being a condemnation of his entire philosophy btw. You can acknowledge both the harm he's caused and the intentions behind his actions as two different things. You can acknowledge the flaws in his writing wrt psychophobia and mental illness and how much of a disservice they are to his character and you can acknowledge how his mental illness muddies the waters in terms of ethical responsibility and you can express your frustration with fandom exaggerating Jason's misdeeds while ignoring how the other characters harm him without it meaning that you're making him a martyr and disregarding his every flaw.
Most importantly, you can believe that murder is sometimes an acceptable solution and still be an intelligent person. You can believe that Jason is right about the Joker without that meaning that you are dumb or haven't read his comics. I know many people who have philosophical stances I disagree with while deeply respecting their knowledge and intelligence. And I find the tendency of the people on this website to discredit jason fans who agree or partially agree with his stance on killing as ignorant, dumb, fake fans is deeply insulting and displays a concerning lack of open-mindedness. Questions of conflict between deontology and consequentialist philosophies date back thousands of years and have been the subject of intense debates between very smart people for a long, long time. Assuming that because someone is on the opposite side of you in a conflict, then they must be simply be stupid/uninformed is a deeply arrogant and ignorant take. I find that people have a tendency to water down discourse about Jason specifically into this idea that if they word their position simply enough (with ideas like "i don't know how to explain to you that murder is bad") then people will immediately realize that they've been looking at it wrong- as though we've all merely forgotten that murder isn't okay. Because any sort of opposing idea- like for example the belief that murder can sometimes be okay- is so inconceivable to them that they simply assume we must be too dumb and are falling into empathy bias and are simply forgetting that golden rule. Because it doesn't occur to them that their golden rules might not be universal.
Shutting oneself out of that perspective taking and stroking one's own ego with the assumption that anybody who disagrees is idiotic and ignorant is an incredibly narrow-minded position to assume, and expressing that sentiment out loud is deeply insulting. You can argue that my moral positions, which you disagree with, are a moral failure on my part; this is part of the point of ethics as a philosophy. But don't bring my knowledge and intelligence into it, those have nothing to do with my ethics. You still owe the people you disagree with respect.
