I didn’t say you believed you were the only thing holding Gotham together. I said you act like you’re the difference between collapse and stability.
Saying you “interrupt bad nights” instead of saving the city is just the same wrong assumption wrapped in soft phrasing and faux humbleness.
It assumes the interruption is the thing that stopped the night from getting worse.
And no matter the word choice it’s still the same idea: you step in, you change the outcome, and you hope the new version is better than the one that was already happening.
Maybe you stop something terrible. Maybe you change the shape of it. Maybe you escalate something that would’ve burned out on its own. Once you step in, the original outcome doesn’t exist anymore. All that’s left is the version with you in it.
From where I’m standing, the main problem is that no one gets to check the math afterward.
That either way, you walk away scot-free. We often call police corrupt because they step in, make things worse, then get away without punishment. But isn't that exactly what you're doing? Just in a different outfit.
My problem with judgement calls isn't exactly the idea of them. Sometimes you don't have time to consult a committee.
My problem is that you make them as if you have a right to decide what happens. Your examples of civilians and police making judgement calls have nothing to do with what we're talking about.
Civilians are the ones in danger; they have the right to make choices regarding their own safety. Police officers (even if they are corrupt) have been given the right to make those calls by the law, they've been trained to make those calls.
Where do you fit into that little puzzle?
I don't think you quite understand what I'm saying here. You're saying that quiet outcomes mean people de-escalating, someone walking away. When I say silence doesn't mean something didn't happen, I mean that just because you "de-escalated" a situation doesn't mean no one got hurt, just because you don't hear the violence and the bruises, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I know I'm right about that. I've seen it happen. But you're losing the point, I'm not just talking about vague figures with good intentions hurting people, I'm talking about you. Your good intentions don't mean that you don't hurt others.
And once again, you bring up that you aren't treating me like a suspect. Every time I ask what would happen if I was a suspect, you tell me nothing different would happen, that you would hear me out, let me talk, not reach for violence first. So then why do you keep bringing it up as if it's a worse alternative? So, tell me, Batgirl, what would this conversation look like if I was a suspect.
You're observations about my choices are interesting, because it means you are observing and I'm not sure whether that says more about me or you. You're right in a way though; I do draw lines.
I’m not interested in becoming someone’s stepping stone.
But here’s where we still disagree.
You say you’re trying to keep me off the board.
From where I’m sitting, you’re still deciding the board exists, deciding who can be rearranged, deciding who might become a piece, and deciding who’s worth watching.
That’s still someone else trying to define the game around me.
You seem to feel free to tell me your observations about me, so do you want to hear something I've noticed about you?
You always seem to be deflecting. I say someone I know has a personal experience with your "methods". You say I'm only hearing it in pieces. I say walking away unclean is still walking away. You redirect the conversation to talk about how if you walked away people would get hurt.
You can't seem to find it in you to own up. To actually assuage my doubts. It seems the only defence you have is to turn me away from my initial question.
