ITS HJS BIRTHDAY EVERYONE
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year

Andulka
★
One Nice Bug Per Day

Origami Around

bliss lane
Not today Justin

izzy's playlists!

PR's Tumblrdome
No title available
No title available
Doug Jones
Sweet Seals For You, Always
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
Xuebing Du

No title available
todays bird
Game of Thrones Daily
𓃗

roma★
seen from United States
seen from Mexico

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from United Arab Emirates
seen from United States
seen from Mexico

seen from Malaysia

seen from Bosnia & Herzegovina
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
@dwelling-the-deep-blue
ITS HJS BIRTHDAY EVERYONE
"Batman shouldn't be forced to kill the Joker at the detriment of his morals and mental health" AND "Bruce himself set up Jason's expectation that parents will take bloody vengeance for the sake of their children's lives" are statements that tell you Bruce is in a hell of his own making.
Jason does in fact have the right to ask. Bruce gave it to him implicitely. Because Bruce a) positioned himself as Jason's father, b) blamed Jason for Garzonas' father trying to get revenge on Batman and Robin and dying for it, c) argued that it was the natural actions of a father to try and avenge his kid.
Either Bruce IS Jason's father, and he failed to live up to the standard he set, or he isn't, and he sold a lie to an orphan to put him in the line of fire to deal with the loneliness of his eldest leaving the nest.
Jason, when coming back to life, seeing the Joker alive, must have felt incredibly betrayed and foolish. "I thought I'd be the last person you'd ever let him hurt."
Jason's ultimatum in Under the Red Hood is asking Batman to put his money where his mouth is.
Was it the natural thing for Garzonas senior to set-up an ambush to gun down Batman and Robin because fathers should avenge their sons?
Was it really Jason's fault back then that three men died in a failed scheme? When Batman toppled the pile of cars on top of Garzonas senior, when he tricked the subordinates into shooting each other, can we still blame Robin for not seeing this coming when he 'maybe' pushed Garzonas off the balcony?
If it is so inevitable that more deaths would follow a son's murder, why is the Joker still alive?
And if it wasn't, if fathers don't normally take bloody vengeance, then perhaps the three men that died should be blamed on the man that 'pushed' them?
Maybe Batman already had blood on his hands.
Maybe the Red Hood has a right to ask why he's so comfortable with that.
Lighting doesn’t have to be so complicated. If you memorize basic lighting, you can use that as a starting point for a bunch of different styles! Join the lazy club and use shortcuts like I do 😌 I have a video that explains everything ~ watch it here!
great job everyone lets hit the showers
Not again
gentle reminder that you can’t get this kind of nonsense from any other site
This thread is almost eight years old and it has damn well earned its place among the Tumblr pantheon as a Heritage Post™️
Periodic reminder that you are not immune to reactionary radicalization through fandom.
We all know the “jokes” about how old bronies either came out as queer or became fascists - except they’re not really jokes, and a lot of the queer ones admit to having been in the pipeline before they came out (some in a way that implies they never totally got out of said pipeline and don’t understand the gravity of it),
GamerGate was an entire right-wing reactionary movement that was - and this is not hyperbole - partially responsible for turning fascism into a “legitimate” position by the American Overton window, composed entirely of people who feared losing their fan spaces,
We’ve had terfs right here on tumblr dot com BRAGGING about how useful fandom is as a recruiting space,
TJLC was a big pipeline for acephobia on this hellsite in particular, when people argued that headcanoning Sherlock as ace was inherently homophobic because it was denying a TOTALLY GONNA BE CANON (while the creators were promising that it wasn’t going to be canon) gay pairing, and puritanical, and just HAVING that headcanon was saying that people COULDN’T ship Johnlock, all in the interest of a “fake” sexuality and “pretending to be oppressed” and oh whoops there you went,
We see people who all but center their fandom activity and identities around figuring out which people in predominantly queer fandom spaces are SECRETLY PEDOPHILES AND GROOMERS, acting consciously or otherwise under the assumption that predominantly queer fandom spaces are just massively infested with them in a way that other spaces are not for SOME reason, who twist the definition of “pedophilia” in these spaces until it covers shipping a 17-year old fictional character with an 18-year old fictional character, or a 30-year old with a 45-year old, or including an autistic character in a ship, and drawing two 17-year old characters kissing constitutes “child porn”, and who unironically say we should bring back the Hays Code and Censorship Is Good Actually And Our Problem Is We Don’t Do It Enough and this often becomes a pipeline to “sex ed is child abuse; people shouldn’t even know what sex is until they turn 18; you need my consent to wear certain outfits in public if I see them as sexually charged, and Pride SHOULD be an assimilationist sideshow for our corporate overlords family-friendly party with no sadness or anger or ESPECIALLY acknowledgement of sex allowed”,
We’ve seen otherwise progressive people defend literal hate symbols in fanart when pushback against the above brand of reactionaries gets corrupted into zero-nuance “it’s us vs. them so anything they don’t like is Good”,
Even outside of those examples some of the most vicious, unapologetic, blatant queerphobic abuse I’ve seen in recent years hasn’t come from right-wingers but from LGBT+ people, dressing their deep, violent, seething hatred for queer people who aren’t exactly like them in a thin veneer of progressive language, who have become so convinced that they’re the main character of the fucking universe that they think writing or enjoying a queer story that doesn’t resonate with them is more queerphobic than sending a queer person who writes or enjoys such a story countless rape and death threats and denying their identity,
We’ve seen these examples again and again and again, and we keep seeing it again and again and again, so I am once again on my knees BEGGING people to recognize that this is not Something That Happens To Other, BAD People, or Something That Happens To People In BAD Fandoms, or Something That Happens To People On The OTHER Side Of Perennial Drama; this is something that CAN happen to you.
These things are the result of the fact that fandom is, by nature, a place of heightened emotion and if you don’t know what to look out for that is very exploitable; you need to know the methods people use to do this, simply Being In The Right Fandoms or Liking The Right Ships is not enough.
So, if you see someone trying to convince you that you have the ONLY valid approach to any specific character, or ship, or show, or whatever, that your ship is activism and your fanfics are praxis, and liking something else or liking the same thing differently is Only For Bad People, that is the single biggest red flag that YOU NEED TO RUN, THEY’RE TRYING TO SELL YOU SOMETHING THAT YOU DO NOT WANT
Seeing people reblog this with mile-long DNI pages that talk about about “irredeemable media” and “you’re a pedophile if you like XYZ mainstream piece of media and I hate you” and “if you like these things that are bad irl happening in fiction in any context that’s apologism for them in reality and you should be ashamed” and “if you’re okay with consenting adults having weird sex and talking about weird sex with other consenting adults and putting weird sex in appropriately tagged fanfics that means you support rape and pedophilia and bestiality and incest and you’re evil” and “terfs and exclusionists and gatekeepers gtfo BUT combination labels aren’t valid and trans men aren’t really oppressed beyond collateral damage and fuck off if you think they are lol” and doing the biggest facepalm of my life like
👏 THIS 👏 IS 👏 ABOUT 👏 YOU 👏
👏 THIS 👏 IS 👏 ABOUT 👏 YOU 👏
👏 THIS 👏 IS 👏 ABOUT 👏 YOU 👏
👏 THIS 👏 IS 👏 ABOUT 👏 YOU 👏
👏 THIS 👏 IS 👏 ABOUT 👏 YOU 👏
👏 THIS 👏 IS 👏 ABOUT 👏 YOU 👏
👏 THIS 👏 IS 👏 ABOUT 👏 YOU 👏
So I sincerely hope, if you’re one of those people reblogging this, you’re taking it as a call to seriously reflect on those beliefs and how you came to hold them, and not just sitting there smugly thinking that when I said “YOU are not immune to this” I meant “YOUR FOLLOWERS may not be immune to this, but YOU are, oh great and glorious Knower of Pure from Irredeemable, holder of the True Correct Media Opinions”
Let’s simplify it a bit: No one is immune to doing evil, period. Always reflect on what you are doing and saying and why. Becoming complacent, thinking that you’re a “good person” and thus can only do “good things” is the fast-lane to the worst kind of evil: that which tries to justify itself as good.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, indeed.
If the creator or something explicitly states they don’t want two characters shipped will you respect it?
If the creator or something explicitly states they don’t want two characters shipped will you respect it?
Yes
No
dude??? you're supposed to respect that cuz that can make people extremely uncomfortable. if they say not to ship characters, you don't fucking ship them, you find a different ship. idgaf how good you think the ship is, if the creator doesn't want it shipped, respect that and MOVE THE FUCK ON. why is this even a debate and why do so many people think it's ok to disrespect people and their creations????
I’m gonna be honest here, I’m sort of confused. (not with you person I’m RBing from but the overall stance here) i’ve seen so many people saying it was okay and I was like… “I must be in the wrong here? the majority is probably right and I just don’t get it?” and sort of just rolled with what everyone else was saying. (which I now realize is like top ten don’t do’s of being online is to just go with what everyone else is saying-) but idk seeing like 1,000 reblogs saying the exact opposite of what you’re thinking will do that.
I just- where’s the line drawn, is my question? Like when does something (like a ship) step into the territory of genuinely not being okay. is there a line.
and maybe this is a sign that I shouldn’t ever publish my work but as an aroace person my characters are all deep extensions of myself and I’d be WILDLY uncomfortable if people shipped them. to the point that I probably shouldn’t put my work out there if this is the majority sentiment.
like I’m in fandoms where the creators have said “hey don’t ship these characters” “don’t do this please” and people have been okay with it so I’m confused to where this is coming from.
anyways sorry im just trying not to walk out into the world with a wildly incorrect stance.
I just- confused is currently the only word available to me. someone explain this please.
i do wanna mention, yeah, there's always gonna be people who just don't respect it and will ship characters even tho the creator says not to, but in no way is that a good thing to do. If there's no explicit statement, then go right ahead and ship characters to your hearts extent, but if they creator literally says not to do that, surely it's common sense at that point to respect their boundaries.
im incredibly surprised and honestly disappointed that Tumblr of all places is where a majority of people are saying that they just don't respect creators asking for their boundaries to be met.
also i wanna just remind you that conforming to large groups doesn't always mean that they're correct! if you know of somethings accuracy and majority of people are wrong, you don't change your stance just to fit in even tho it's wrong and you know it's wrong. (I feel like this can relate to a SHIT TON of things in the world but I feel like it's a good thing to mention here)
i do appreciate you trying to understand better tho, I am seeing this from the other people's pov too cuz obviously it's a good thing to hear all viewpoints, and that's honestly how I further know that they're just wrong about it. and what sucks even more is that they don't think they're wrong at all and won't even bother to try to think of it another way
That’s not how boundaries work, and is in fact an abusive use of the concept of boundaries. It boils down to: the only person you can ethically and morally control is yourself. Therefore an actual boundary is something like: “I will not look at the fandom or fanworks of the ship that I don’t like. I will publish my explanation of the artistic reasons why I don’t like the ship. I will publicly state that I will block anyone who puts it in front of me.”
Literally anything beyond that is attempting to control the thoughts and actions of people who are not yourself, which is both futile and immoral. Which is why so many people are having strong ‘no’ reactions to the poll question.
To reiterate: your control of a person’s thoughts and behaviors begins and ends with yourself. You cannot ethically enforce a “boundary” aimed at modifying anyone else’s thoughts or behaviors, and to try to do that puts you in the ethical wrong. If you cannot make your peace with that, then you should not make your art public.
This is a really good explanation!
Fandom isn't for creators. IP holders aren't the Supreme Authority for fandom.
Fandom wouldn't be fandom if fans stuck only to what creators dictated. Non-canon ships wouldn't be a thing if we all restricted ourselves to that.
And I can remember a time when canon queer characters were an extreme rarity.
Think of fan fiction as being in a conversation with canon. In a conversation, you don't get to control what both parties say, just what you say.
I mean, I will respect it in the sense that I won't argue with the creator about it, or shove my shipping fanworks in their face, or decide to write a shipping fic that I would not otherwise have written, just to be all "you aren't the boss of me!"
But if you mean will I obey it, then no, not necessarily. I will listen to their reasoning and go along with it if I find it compelling, but being the author of the book/director of the show/actor of the character/whoever does not confer automatic veto power over fandom.
So I voted no, because I'm pretty sure "respect" in this poll means "obey" but I made this post because this is a rhetorical trick to watch out for. The immediate slide from respect to obedience allows the general concept of respect to be weaponized.
Agreeing that you respect the views of others or that respecting others is a good thing is not a Fae contract that requires you to comply with anyone who invokes the magic words "I feel disrespected."
I have been disrespecting the wishes of IP creators for over 20 years, I am not going to start respecting them now.
Love the "respect does not equal obedience" explanation here. Yeah I'll respect that the author doesn't like the ship. No I will not stop shipping it if I personally like it.
Some creators don't want X and Y characters shipped because they hate queer people and queer relationships. (This is painfully common.)
Some people don't want X and Y characters shipped because it's an interracial relationship and they're a racist fuck.
Some people just don't want X and Y characters shipped because they think they have an innate right to control how other people (including people who literally paid to engage with the media they intentionally made public in order to make money) get to interact with the media they indulge in, and the fandom around said media. Which, frankly, no, no one has that right. As people expressed eloquently upthread, you do not get to dictate other people's completely harmless actions.
All of these reasons are complete bullshit. Hell, the idea that what not-for-profit fiction you can write in your spare time should EVER be subject to the explicit or tacit permission of someone else is bullshit. It's fiction. It literally does not and should not matter to anyone what you're writing, certainly not to the point where anyone should be trying to control it!
Wild to me that we live in a world where there are people who will genuinely defend the right of AI programs to steal people's work in order to generate profit for the companies that make them, while they will SIMULTANEOUSLY argue that a random person doesn't have the right to draw casual fanart of two characters together because it makes the creator uncomfy. When did we develop this idea that it is the responsibility of random strangers who have never spoken to you or formed any kind of agreement with you that they need to maintain your mental health by only engaging in activities you approve of in their free time? When did we as a society become so utterly incapable of managing our OWN mental health by taking the steps we need to protect ourselves from things that might harm or upset us, and instead decided to foist that emotional labor onto the shoulders of everyone around us instead?
And honestly, trusting your mental and emotional well-being to the charity and consideration of others is just...a terrible idea. You can make all the impassioned pleas and impotent demands you want, but you cannot force people to cater to what's best for you if they don't want to. (And, let's be real, a lot of the pleas and demands y'all make are really unreasonable anyway, and do not deserve to be honored because they are in and of themselves denying OTHER PEOPLE agency or the right to have their own personal boundaries. Just because some requests for consideration can be valid does not mean all requests are.)
You need to be able to protect your own well-being regardless of whether or not people are willing to work with you to protect your peace because, yeah, sometimes you will be in situations where no one else can and/or WILL work with you, and if you can't look out for yourself in those situations then you're going to end up in an awful place. Relying on others completely to manage your emotional and mental health via THEIR actions - which you cannot fully control - makes you way too easy to hurt or take advantage of. And frankly, it's a level of responsibility over you that very few people in your life (and certainly zero people who should be trusted with it) will ever ask for, or want.
If you create a piece of media and you don't ever want people to misinterpret it, to re-imagine it, to go outside the boundaries of what you personally envisioned for that piece of media and the characters within...then that piece of media needs to stay within your head. When you invite people to engage with a piece of media you made, you cannot control what they get out of it or what they do with it, and frankly, most creators have no desire to try. How people engage with your work can be (and often is) one of the most fascinating things for a creator to witness, and I genuinely pity the creators too fragile to cope with people going outside the narrowly defined limits they try to set on their works.
Real talk: if you can't handle your work or your characters being subjected to any treatment outside of the range of what you personally consider acceptable...then frankly, I'm sorry, but that is genuinely a personal problem you have with an excessive need for control that makes you incompatible with the whole concept of sharing your creations with others. (It's probably also unhealthy in general for the relationships in your life; trying to exert excessive control on other people is not a good or pleasant personality trait. Not trying to armchair diagnose anyone here, but if you're trying to control fandom over fiction, it's not hard to imagine you might be a control freak in other things too.) Sharing anything means you forfeit a level of control over it to those you're sharing with. And if you can't handle sharing your things, okay, that's fine - you don't have to. No one is making you share your creations with the world. But if you want to share your things with the world, for profit or any other reason, and then share them, then you have chosen to make a trade-off. You have CHOSEN to relinquish absolute control in favor of having an audience. Again, you still retain the basic rights to your work, but you don't have - and NEVER had - the ability to dictate to people what they do for casual fun in their own time just because they now have a Barbie that looks exactly like yours. You put the Barbie on the shelf for them to buy. You don't get to tell them how to play with it.
Being the creator of a piece of media, no matter how popular it might be, does not mean you are infallible or incapable of being unreasonable, and these kinds of demands ARE completely unreasonable and deserve to be ignored. You are the one who needs to manage your expectations of other people, your emotional responses to fandom, and your controlling tendencies/lack of understanding of boundaries.
If you as a person in fandom think these kinds of demands, this kind of control, is normal, then you have been submerged in some very controlling, fucked-up mindsets for a very long time, to the point where you perceive some person you have no obligations to demanding the right to exert control over your harmless recreational activities as healthy and normal. (Likewise if you see YOURSELF as wanting/deserving to exert that level of control as a creator.) It's really not healthy or normal. Creativity is self-expression, and people trying to stifle that in ANY case except where real live people are being actively and inescapably harmed in the process (see: CSEM, revenge porn, adults exposing minors to sexual content, etc - aka, very very specific things that are usually already illegal) do not have your best interests at heart.
Creators who have tried to stifle fandom and fans actively in this way are universally loathed and mocked for the ridiculous overreach. (Looking at Anne Rice here.) This kind of behavior, and accepting this kind of behavior, demonstrates a complete failure to understand boundaries - what is healthy, what is unhealthy, and why something might be healthy or unhealthy. Boundaries are created to protect yourself, not to control other people. (A quick example for demonstrative purposes: a healthy boundary is "if you talk about X around me, I'm going to walk away", while an unhealthy boundary is "you're not allowed to talk about X".)
jaybin and discowing brotherisms are real to me argue with a wall
the signal catcher 📡
He’s still a cat.
tradition pt. 3
the final part, thank you for reading <3
tradition pt. 2
tradition pt. 1
sniff..
Ok, not that long ago I managed to get the TP of A Death In The Family, so I could read the full thing through.
And now I’m here to call bullshit on some things I couldn’t before.
First though, I wanted to note that I thought this book may make me more sympathetic to Bruce then I was before, but that is so far from the case it’s insane.
Anyway. Point of this post is something I’ve seen brought a few times as an argument defending Bruce when confronted with the fact he didn’t do anything permanent to stop the Joker after Jason died. It’s an argument I’ve really debated with anyone one way or the other before, because I hadn’t read DITF so I didn’t feel like I had enough context to make a judgement, basically.
Now, I’ve just finished reading and my god do I have some things to say.
The argument, is that Superman, Clark Kent, stopped Bruce from killing the Joker and that Jason should blame Clark from stopping Bruce from getting revenge.
Now that I’ve just read the pages in which this occurs, I call bullshit.
(All the Bruce glazers can never make me hate you Clark)
Ok, so to go into a bit more deeply:
Bruce is essentially planning a final showdown with the Joker, aware it will end in someone dead, most likely the Joker. He discusses the back and forth of how it’s a long overdue course of action and something he should’ve done a long time ago with himself. But he also argues with himself that the Joker is certifiably insane and cannot actually be held responsible for his actions in killing Jason Todd, which, the fact that Bruce can even debate that in the first place raises some flags.
Actually, overall something that really stopped me from sympathising with Bruce is that he never once exhibited any lost of control or hysteria in losing Jason. Bruce is able to be reasoned with, for the most. Even though he continues to state about killing the Joker, he never actually takes any action to kill him. The helicopter crashes, but Bruce is not the one to cause the crash. He ask Superman to check for the Joker’s body, but in the next panel accepts it and leaves.
But my thing is, I don’t understand how any of this can be construed as Clark stopping Bruce from getting revenge.
I suppose it could go back to when Clark first appears in the issue, but to me that still doesn’t make sense. Because Clark empathises with Bruce while explaining the Joker’s diplomatic immunity and how essentially, the Joker can’t be touched. Bruce’s refusal to let the world know of the second Robin’s death also contributes to this, because as far as everyone else is concerned, there’s not enough to prove he even killed Jason. Even if it could be proven, the Joker still has immunity as the Iranian Ambassador at this stage.
Bruce punches Clark once, during this interaction when Clark tells him he’ll be forced to stop him. Clark then asks if he feels better and Bruce shakes it off. The rest of the interaction is a conversation. Bruce isn’t arguing heatedly with Clark, and Clark is not advocating for the Joker. All Clark is doing is warning him that his actions, if he does attack the Joker could have lasting impact on international relations for the US. But Clark never physically restricts Bruce or restrains him, they have a conversation which ends with Clark essentially stating that he hopes Bruce makes the right choice. No where in there does Clark actually stop Bruce from taking revenge. If you expect me to believe that Bruce keeps Kryptonite on him as a back up and that he can beat Superman, than an amicable discussion with someone who is his best friend certainly isn’t stopping him.
Then, we get to the Joker attacking the UN with his laughing gas. Clark arrives and stops the gas from getting to anyone by breathing it in. He then proceeds to tell Bruce, and I quote-
“The Joker is all yours”
Clark didn’t stop shit.
If Bruce had genuinely and truly wanted the Joker dead he would be dead. He has several opportunities throughout the comic after Jason dies, that he does not take. He literally confronts the Joker in his hotel room, Clark nowhere to be seen, and just taunts him for a bit before leaving. He could’ve killed Joker before the UN meeting that morning. He could’ve insisted that Joker be found in the wreckage of the helicopter crash instead of putting up a token argument at Clark then just going home.
Nothing about Bruce’s actions in this comic show a hysterical parent seeking justice. Nothing about Clark’s actions in this comic actually do anything to inhibit Bruce from killing the Joker.
Bruce is who inhibits Bruce from killing the Joker. That’s how it’s always been and the fact that Bruce even recognises in this comic that the Joker does not deserve to live after all the people he’s killed, he still does nothing to actually, permanently stop him in any sort of capacity.
So stop smearing my man Clark’s name! He is not the bad guy here, he literally just had a single conversation with Bruce. He never even touched him. Lies and slander.
Anyway I have many more thoughts than just this about a death in the family and I will certainly be most more of these thoughts here, but I think I’m going to leave this one here for now. I had just assumed from the arguments I’d seen that Clark had put up some big physical fight against Bruce and physically restrained him from killing the Joker when in reality it really amounted to-
“Hey, no, don’t do that. Please?”
Free my man Clark from these lies and slander, I am sorry I fell for the propaganda my good man.
Happy Superman and Supergirl Day weekend everyone!!!
Something I think is missed too is when comes to the discussion about Jason wanting the Joker dead, and the reasons why he wants the Joker dead.
It is canon that Jason was essentially erased. For identity reasons Bruce changed him out of his Robin uniformed and cleared up the crime scene. The Joker can never be prosecuted through the courts for the death of Jason Todd because as far as the world knows, he had nothing to do with it.
The other big thing is that his tenure as Robin is essentially erased as well. As far as the world is concerned, Robin went from Dick to Tim, there was no one in the middle. There was no second Robin. Everything good Jason did in the suit is attributed to Tim or Dick. The Teen Titan’s he was meant to join at 16 went to Tim, the recognition went to Tim.
Jason Todd becomes a foot note. A cautionary tale to the few that remember he existed. He is their doomed from the beginning story. That’s all he is. He isn’t remembered. Not as Jason Todd anyway, and in the few ways his tenure as Robin is remembered, they aren’t about him.
Nothing about Jason’s memory is about him.
Jason is angry at inaction. He is angry not that the world didn’t stop because he died, but because everyone acts as though he was never there before. He was buried in a public cemetery next to the woman that got him killed, while Bruce had his stuff packed away and photos hidden. The only thing in the manor that memorialises him is that stupid case, and that’s not even for him. It’s a manifestation of Bruce and Alfred’s guilt.
Jason didn’t expect them to fall apart because of his death, he never wanted that. He wanted to be remembered. He wanted to matter and everything that Bruce and Alfred did after Jason died was the opposite.
There was four people at his funeral. Bruce, Alfred, the funeral director and commissioner Gordon. Four people.
What about Eddie Bloomberg? What about Rena? What about Dick Grayson, his brother, who Bruce never called and never tried to even contact? What about Danny Chase, who he was friends with during his brief run on the titans? What about Jericho, who he was also shown as friendly with? What about any of the adult heroes who had known Jason?
Jason’s anger has never been solely because the Joker is alive. It’s because he died, knowing he was going to die and with the belief that it might serve in causing things to change for the better. But it hasn’t. It didn’t change anything. His death became a footnote in the story of Batman, a little line here and there and nothing more.
When Jason comes back to life the Joker is walking in and out of Arkham like it’s his holiday home. He quite literally still mostly has free run and the cycle of bullshit from before just keeps continuing. People keep dying. He wanted change, and that isn’t wrong.
I’m not endorsing the way he went about everything, but I think it’s pretty fucking understandable why he did. Bruce never offered another solution beyond letting the Joker walk in and out of Arkham’s revolving door as he pleases. Bruce didn’t upgrade Arkham’s security, he didn’t get him into a higher level prison, he didn’t use the phantom zone which he could’ve just asked Clark about. There is no reason that Bruce couldn’t have come up with another way to have Joker secured that wouldn’t have ended with Joker dead.
But he doesn’t give Jason any other viable option. Going back to Arkham doesn’t solve anything and Jason knows that. Jason sees Joker dying as the only viable solution to keeping victims safe. To keeping himself safe.
He wanted Bruce to allow him to kill the Joker. Bruce didn’t have to be the one to pull the trigger, Jason would’ve. What he wanted was for Bruce to prove what he’d said all that time ago, to prove that for once Jason could matter more than the mission.
(He never had. Not when he was Robin. Not when it was Gloria Stanson. Not when Bruce thought he was suicidal and he’d run away and Alfred’s freaking out Bruce still went after the Joker. He still chose the mission. He did it with Dick, he did it with Jason, he did it with Tim and he’s even now doing it with Damian. It’s a cycle, one not specific to Jason at all)
(I know Joker had a nuclear weapon, but Nruce was already talking to the Justice League about the Joker. The JL were helping and there is no reason he couldn’t have asked one of them to locate Jason, or asked that they takeover and handle Joker while he tracks down Jason. Because he never went to Lebanon to find Jason, he went to find Joker and happened to run into Jason while there. He even tells Jason this to his face)
Bruce had, not long before Jason died, talked to him about Felipe and Jose Garzonas. I’m pretty sure anyone who’s looked into Jason as a character knows about The Diplomat’s Son. It’s extremely relevant to DITF and what leads to Jason leaving the manor. In it, after Felipe falls to his death (it’s left ambiguous but I subscribe most to the idea that while Jason didn’t push him, he didn’t try to save him either, but that’s a matter of personal opinion) Jose goes mad with grief. He is hysterical (not whatever Bruce was in DITF) and goes after Batman and Robin to avenge his son’s death.
Jose Garzonas proceeds to die because Bruce knocks a stack of cars onto him, that Bruce then proceeds to turn around and blame entirely on Jason. But I think what matters most here for Jason’s future actions, is what Bruce proceeds to say before the comic ends.
Bruce says that Jose Garzonas actions in trying to kill them to avenge his son are only what could be expected of a father losing his son. That any parent who lost a kid would want revenge on the reason that child was gone. I don’t have the direct quote but that’s essentially the gist of it. Bruce set the expectation for a parent avenging their child, he tells Jason that’s what he should expect.
Except, Bruce didn’t do that.
(Yes I hear your arguments about Clark stopping him and I raise you my recent post about Clark’s involvement in DITF)
I just, there’s so much nuance to Jason beyond just wanting the Joker dead. It’s not just about that, it never has been.
The reading comprehension and overall common sense on this website is piss poor.
how dare you say we piss on the poor
I passed a flower shop next to a tattoo shop and at first I laughed because I thought it was ironic and then i freaked because IMAGINE YOUR OTP IN A FLORIST/TATTOO ARTIST AU
OMG I COULD TOTALLY IMAGINE THEM LIKE THAT IT WOULD BE SO PERFECT