In fiction, villainous vigilantes are usually separated from the heroic counterparts by their willingness to kill the villains they fight against.
Typically there's a good argument to the vigilantes who simply off their rogue's galleries rather than entrusting them to a justice system that is so corrupt or incompetent that they let the bad guys out by the next issue/episode (it could also be that the villains they face are the type that their justice system isn't fit to deal with).
The audience usually sympathizes with such vigilante villains, as they are initially presented as being far more effective at cutting down on villainy than the heroes who restrain themselves, this is unavoidable as it would be beyond deniability that they would be more effective at solving the problems the heroes continually fail to manage.
Typically the vigilantes are then shown to get more and more extreme until they start harming innocents in their myopic crusades. Or they shift their attentions to changing the system itself which they see as being at the root of the problems creating the criminals they fight, using the same kind of force against society itself in the hopes of becoming the cure rather than just the treatment. Or they simply begin to apply the same treatment that they give to evildoers to those who try to stop them from their vigilantism. Or they do something else which causes the audience to shift to rooting against these extremists.
Eventually they end up joining the ranks of the villains fought against by the heroes, typically by then the extremist is primarily obsessed with taking down the hero and the entire system they protect rather than wasting their time with the other villains (of course they will still go after them, but they are no longer the main focus).
Perhaps they turn into tempters who try to convert the hero into seeing that while their methods and goals are brutal, they are the only means and ends which can actually make a long term difference. Perhaps they make the accusation that the hero is the one who is being unnecessarily cruel or harmful, as their means may seem gentler in the short term, but in the long term they are more cruel, as the extremist wants to bring the problems to a definite end, while the hero just prolongs the suffering of everybody by refusing to do what needs to be done, all because the hero is addicted to their lifestyle of continually fighting their forever war against the evils they could easily vanquish.
I knew Harris County would be on there. Motherfuckers die in Texas every day. The numbers don't add up to Chicago so it's less national news. But niggers be wildin' out there.
Around 2010 I was driving south on 75 through Houston and some niggers were mad at some other niggers who cut them off and sure enough windows went down on the first car and they started shooting. This was late afternoon, not late or dark. They missed damn near everything and the other car speed off but to your point I’m glad I’m not on that area anymore.
In college I lived in a place rented from a private landlord in Central-ish Houston. A big house that was probably grand in the distant past but was in disrepair by the time I was renting it. Anyways, my point is that the cops never came to this Historically Black Neighborhood unless they were called (and nobody called the cops). Which for a party house in a big city is kind of a big deal because you can't party like that in apartments or around more wealthy people.
One day, some people came and take out "our" backyard fence. Turns out it was on the parcel next door, and they're building a Wendy's (weird neighborhood layout) so "fuck you." The landlord didn't give a fuck about that, or about anything else so we ended up having open kegger/field parties that would spill off the property. There was no one nearby at night to care.
But yeah even then we were heavily armed. While I never saw much of the neighbors, we did get uh "passers by" from beggars to vandals to comically-bad conmen. At least one person refused to leave the door until it was made clear there were several men who were going to move him if he didn't move himself.
One particular night, I was walking to the corner store to buy some cigarettes, and I come upon a bloody lady holding a knife. Who was running from somebody I think. I took her to the gas station, and gave her a jacket, and waited for the cops to come pick her up. But I was like standing 15 ft away because I had no idea how this lady intended to use that knife.
If you start narrowing it down and narrowing it down, you'll end up with populations that are mostly criminal.
Black males between 18 and 22 that are NEET who live in Central Whatever.
So along what axis you divide things is a choice of what point you are trying to make. If your point is that men are more violent than women, you divide it by sex. If your point is that niggers do all the crime, you divide it by race. If you start to get more specific it starts to make less sense as an argument. Though your statements will be quite correct and striking.
[ + ] AntiPostmodernist
[ - ] AntiPostmodernist 0 points 2.2 yearsFeb 1, 2023 19:23:49 ago (+0/-0)
Typically there's a good argument to the vigilantes who simply off their rogue's galleries rather than entrusting them to a justice system that is so corrupt or incompetent that they let the bad guys out by the next issue/episode (it could also be that the villains they face are the type that their justice system isn't fit to deal with).
The audience usually sympathizes with such vigilante villains, as they are initially presented as being far more effective at cutting down on villainy than the heroes who restrain themselves, this is unavoidable as it would be beyond deniability that they would be more effective at solving the problems the heroes continually fail to manage.
Typically the vigilantes are then shown to get more and more extreme until they start harming innocents in their myopic crusades.
Or they shift their attentions to changing the system itself which they see as being at the root of the problems creating the criminals they fight, using the same kind of force against society itself in the hopes of becoming the cure rather than just the treatment.
Or they simply begin to apply the same treatment that they give to evildoers to those who try to stop them from their vigilantism.
Or they do something else which causes the audience to shift to rooting against these extremists.
Eventually they end up joining the ranks of the villains fought against by the heroes, typically by then the extremist is primarily obsessed with taking down the hero and the entire system they protect rather than wasting their time with the other villains (of course they will still go after them, but they are no longer the main focus).
Perhaps they turn into tempters who try to convert the hero into seeing that while their methods and goals are brutal, they are the only means and ends which can actually make a long term difference. Perhaps they make the accusation that the hero is the one who is being unnecessarily cruel or harmful, as their means may seem gentler in the short term, but in the long term they are more cruel, as the extremist wants to bring the problems to a definite end, while the hero just prolongs the suffering of everybody by refusing to do what needs to be done, all because the hero is addicted to their lifestyle of continually fighting their forever war against the evils they could easily vanquish.
[ + ] PeckerwoodPerry
[ - ] PeckerwoodPerry 5 points 2.3 yearsJan 17, 2023 22:33:45 ago (+5/-0)
[ + ] bonghits4jeebus
[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 1 point 2.3 yearsJan 18, 2023 04:15:54 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Mr_
[ - ] Mr_ 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 18, 2023 19:40:25 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] bonghits4jeebus
[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 18, 2023 19:54:08 ago (+0/-0)*
One day, some people came and take out "our" backyard fence. Turns out it was on the parcel next door, and they're building a Wendy's (weird neighborhood layout) so "fuck you." The landlord didn't give a fuck about that, or about anything else so we ended up having open kegger/field parties that would spill off the property. There was no one nearby at night to care.
But yeah even then we were heavily armed. While I never saw much of the neighbors, we did get uh "passers by" from beggars to vandals to comically-bad conmen. At least one person refused to leave the door until it was made clear there were several men who were going to move him if he didn't move himself.
One particular night, I was walking to the corner store to buy some cigarettes, and I come upon a bloody lady holding a knife. Who was running from somebody I think. I took her to the gas station, and gave her a jacket, and waited for the cops to come pick her up. But I was like standing 15 ft away because I had no idea how this lady intended to use that knife.
[ + ] BulletStopper
[ - ] BulletStopper 1 point 2.3 yearsJan 18, 2023 01:22:26 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Doglegwarrior
[ - ] Doglegwarrior 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 18, 2023 12:21:43 ago (+0/-0)
It's black and Mexican or Latin males between
12 and 25 that commit almost all those murders in that 1% area
[ + ] TheYiddler
[ - ] TheYiddler 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 18, 2023 17:39:40 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] bonghits4jeebus
[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 0 points 2.3 yearsJan 18, 2023 20:06:15 ago (+0/-0)
Black males between 18 and 22 that are NEET who live in Central Whatever.
So along what axis you divide things is a choice of what point you are trying to make. If your point is that men are more violent than women, you divide it by sex. If your point is that niggers do all the crime, you divide it by race. If you start to get more specific it starts to make less sense as an argument. Though your statements will be quite correct and striking.